So what’s wrong with a bloody DDP then??

[acorneau]

Originally Posted by blip01

Colors of Jazz
The Marvin Gaspard Trio


Yep. Love the Sadie5 checksum system too!

That was meant as a joke but it's awesome that you actually saw it. thumbsup

[nickmoon]

Just to chime in here real quick. I love the DDP file format and its ability to hold information and deliver it (check sum) with little to no issues for errors...

In the next week or so I will be launching "Tonic". The player works as a means for studios to send DDP's or encrypted versions (called Tonic files) to clients. The player can not only give detailed info on the project (CDtext, ISRC ect) but also allow the client to hear spacing/fades and make real time notes on the player which can be sent back to the studio. These notes can add a level of colaboration previously reserved for emails that leave you scratching your head! Tonic can even burn a CD for the "car reference". Typical studio logo and complete color customization is also a feature. As a mastering engineer and studio owner this project was a must and I hope you all get a chance to take it for a spin! Mac only support Windows on the way!
www.tonepropersoftware.com

Thanks!

[Stereophonic]

Originally Posted by blip01

Hmmm....sounds really odd to me considering that the Eclipse systems in our plant have ZERO issues with the DDP file sets we generate from our Sequoia 11 workstations, and we've probably sent 5-6K DDPs to our plant this year.

Maybe they had a bed experience with a couple of masters that they tracked back to Sequoia and decided to refuse them all.

As it turned out, the plant did not even download DDP image. It was their general response to all DDP requests. I was not in direct contact with the plant but am about to email and find out what's up.

[CDMaker]

As a duplication & replication service, in 22 years I can count on one hand the times a client has requested that we use a DDP master. Its no problem for us and I can definitely see that in large organizations there may be many CSRs that aren't aware of the options.

Each time we had a DDP physical master things went perfectly. It does cause more time in glass mastering but its not a problem.

Using a physical disc is "safer" than FTP-ing because the causation for errors will only be in the manufacturing (which is the plant's issue/responsibility) or in the creation of the DDP (studio's responsibility) - you leave out the possibility of transmission errors which would leave a client with both sides pointing fingers but no painless resolution for them.

We do ask that a client provide both - a physical DDP and a redbook audio and we go with the DDP first and unless there are problems then we go with the DDP first.

And of course, if its CD duplication - forget about the DDP - just hand over the redbook audio.

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by CDMaker

Using a physical disc is "safer" than FTP-ing because the causation for errors will only be in the manufacturing (which is the plant's issue/responsibility) or in the creation of the DDP (studio's responsibility) - you leave out the possibility of transmission errors which would leave a client with both sides pointing fingers but no painless resolution for them.

A checksum file (as most hosts generate and as most plants here require) solves this problem.


It's strange that US plants are taking so much longer to adjust their processes to accept DDP images. By now, all plants here in Europe accept them via electronic transfer, as do many (by now probably most) brokers. And the major labels ONLY take & deliver DDP images.

I recently had to get some masters to the US for manufacturing and the insistence on physical masters instead of a DDPi caused significant delay (US customs took their time). As the deadline got closer, I had to organise the safe option of a US mastering studio downloading and burning my DDP images to CDDA and have those shipped by snail mail, only to be ripped to image again. It just seems so very unnecessary...

[misjah]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

If you are talking about DUPLICATION (burning copies on blank CD-R's) and not REPLICATION (making a stamper from a glass master to press CD's) then DDP is in no way, shape or form an "industry standard."

In the vast majority of CD-R duplication a CD-R master is loaded into a CD-ROM drive in the burner array and the image data is either streamed to a cache prior to being sent simultaneously to all the burners in the tower or array - or preferably is streamed first to an intermediate hard drive so that copies can be made from a fixed image before being sent to the burners. In some (less common) systems alternatively wav files can be loaded directly into the hard drive and then chosen as tracks for the CD image.

Because of this if a duplicator receives a DDP image they actually must burn a CD-R master disc from it or extract wav files from it. And many duplicators do not actually have DDP capable software at all.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

good point!thumbsup

[spectacular g]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

The answer, when the most current standards for good replication procedures (adopted by nearly all reputable replicators for at least 5 years now) are used, is in fact a very surprising, and very firm "no"!

The reason is two fold:
1) any CD-R masters are tested to see if they have any uncorrectable errors (aka CU's, E32's) on them prior using them to make a glass master - and if there is even a single CU present the CD-R master will be rejected
2) the CD-R's data image is read into an intermediate storage space (either a RAM cache or hard drive) prior to being streamed to the LBR (laser beam recorder that selectively exposes the glass disc) using a "secure"
Digital Audio Extraction routine, which re-reads any sectors where an error flag is triggered, allowing all correctable errors to in fact be corrected for - meaning that the result is the exact same as if the error had never in fact occurred.

It's easy enough to test the above for yourself. Simply burn a CD-R master from a fixed image of audio files, and then using a software which allows for "secure" DAE such as Exact Audio Copy - Exact Audio Copy - (which should be noted is not necessarily as precise or as accurate as the Eclipse software used by replicators) extract the audio files from the burned CD-R - and then finally do a null test of these against the original audio files you burned the disc from. Guess what? You'll get a 100% null! - meaning the data retrieved is the exact same as the data burned to the disc.

So - the reasons to use DDP are for convenience - in that it is the one format that can reliably used to FTP a master to a plant. But all other things equal there will be no sonic difference from replicas made from a CD-R master or a DDP master.



Yes - these are the industry wide accepted definitions of the two words.
Although to be technically exact a nickel stamper is plated from the glass master, and it is the stamper that goes in the press which stamps the CD's.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Very nice post!!!

Thank you,
G

[Wayne]

Good evening.
I came to the forum and this thread looking for help better understanding master prep and answering a few questions regarding my work methods.
My long time low end work has included quite a few projects where the final was a CD-r submitted directly to the CD plant (all small run/productions here.
I've not felt anything missing in the song/audio/file prep tools working in Sonar, so as yet I've not invested in a dedicated master app. (I use blank end-of-track length for example to adjust track sequence timing.
One of my concerns regards unknown (to me) disk errors that might eventually cause a problem at duplication. I was wondering if (in the case of having to ship a cd-r anyway) if a USB thumb drive would be better in that it would avoid possible disk glitches? (It seems the post below may have answered that. I'm still trying to get my head around some of the ramifications in these areas though.)

Now having read about DDP I'm wondering if perhaps I should consider that mehod as well (It seems a completely logical method ..but some plants my baulk at this?)
Last a question regarding the DDP zip reduction problems- Why would you not simply submit uncompressed files?
Thank you very much ahead!

Originally Posted by Cellotron

The answer, when the most current standards for good replication procedures (adopted by nearly all reputable replicators for at least 5 years now) are used, is in fact a very surprising, and very firm "no"!
The reason is two fold:
1) any CD-R masters are tested to see if they have any uncorrectable errors (aka CU's, E32's) on them prior using them to make a glass master - and if there is even a single CU present the CD-R master will be rejected
2) the CD-R's data image is read into an intermediate storage space (either a RAM cache or hard drive) prior to being streamed to the LBR (laser beam recorder that selectively exposes the glass disc) using a "secure"
Digital Audio Extraction routine, which re-reads any sectors where an error flag is triggered, allowing all correctable errors to in fact be corrected for - meaning that the result is the exact same as if the error had never in fact occurred.

It's easy enough to test the above for yourself. Simply burn a CD-R master from a fixed image of audio files, and then using a software which allows for "secure" DAE such as Exact Audio Copy - Exact Audio Copy - (which should be noted is not necessarily as precise or as accurate as the Eclipse software used by replicators) extract the audio files from the burned CD-R - and then finally do a null test of these against the original audio files you burned the disc from. Guess what? You'll get a 100% null! - meaning the data retrieved is the exact same as the data burned to the disc.

So - the reasons to use DDP are for convenience - in that it is the one format that can reliably used to FTP a master to a plant. But all other things equal there will be no sonic difference from replicas made from a CD-R master or a DDP master.

Yes - these are the industry wide accepted definitions of the two words.
Although to be technically exact a nickel stamper is plated from the glass master, and it is the stamper that goes in the press which stamps the CD's.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[neilwilkes]

Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering

Strange. It has become the standard here; I'm sending out 90% DDP images at this point.

It's like the paperless office


PS: Sonoris DDP Player OEM has had a part in that development, bridging the gap between DDP and clients

I'm with you, Robin - 90% DDP images here too.
Both on CD & DVD, although one client still asks for (well, insists on really) DLT tape, which is getting brutally expensive these days. It's actually cheaper to put an image on a pocket HDD.....
(we always include either a DVD-R/DVD+R DL/CD-R with all DDP/DLT filesets as a playable reference disc anyway. I try not to think too often about how many of the masters are actually prepped off the playable reference copies, clearly marked "not for manufacture")

[mixerguy]

wow - yet another super cool thread about DDP here.

very informative.



so - things still the same - 9 months on?

[acorneau]

I just had an issue with a band's CD plant taking a DDP image...

Quick background on the project: double CD of a live recording, rush job (of course), client is from out of town so everything was done sending files over the web.

During the process I asked the client to make sure their CD plant can take a DDP image via upload. The client replies with this quote from the plant:

We accept DDP masters as physical masters all the time.
I know some plants accept them via FTP. We accept physical masters only at this time - red book audio or DDP.

After a few tweaks client approves the project, I make a set of DDP images (including Sadie's MD5 checksum), zip the folders and write each one to a CD-ROM which then get sent overnight via FedEx.

So last night at 8pm (almost a week after the discs were delivered to client) I get a call from the client saying the plant won't take the discs because they don't want to un-zip the folders. (Huh?!?)

After some discussion with the client I figure out that the CD plant isn't really a plant at all, just a broker. Since time is short, and it's definitely not the client's fault, I make a new set of CD-DA's (each PlexTools tested and auditioned, of course) and get them sent off overnight directly to the broker this morning.

I sure wish CD brokers would educate themselves about their own industry.

BLAH!

[Petrus]

Originally Posted by acorneau

After a few tweaks client approves the project, I make a set of DDP images (including Sadie's MD5 checksum), zip the folders and write each one to a CD-ROM which then get sent overnight via FedEx.

Why not copy them on a USB memory stick and send that?

[kosmokrator]

Originally Posted by mixerguy

wow - yet another super cool thread about DDP here.

very informative.



so - things still the same - 9 months on?

Practically >90% DDP delivery via file transfer/FTP here.

[Laarsø]

Originally Posted by Petrus

Why not copy them on a USB memory stick and send that?

Preis.

(0,7 GB CD-ROM disc is 0,20 USD. Thumb drive is 4,99 USD/Gbyte.)



I'd recommend not zippink if puttink on CD-ROM, fwiw. Still have check sum and robust EC on -ROM formats. One less can of worms.




Cheeersø,
Laarsø

[Petrus]

Originally Posted by Laarsø

Preis.

(0,7 GB CD-ROM disc is 0,20 USD. Thumb drive is 4,99 USD/Gbyte.)

I'd recommend not zippink if puttink on CD-ROM, fwiw. Still have check sum and robust EC on -ROM formats. One less can of worms.

Cheeersø,
Laarsø

Would have been cheaper to get it right the first time.

[acorneau]

Originally Posted by Petrus

Why not copy them on a USB memory stick and send that?

Would have been cheaper to get it right the first time.

Even if I had put them on a USB stick I still would have zipped the folders prior to copying them.

It's the broker's issue that they're afraid of a simple computer function (the unzipping process).

[Petrus]

Originally Posted by acorneau

Even if I had put them on a USB stick I still would have zipped the folders prior to copying them.

Why?

[mixerguy]

Originally Posted by Petrus

Why?

to help prevent file corruption.

seriously.

[24-96 Mastering]

Also, keeping the all DDP files packed in a .zip makes one neat container, which prevents accidental omission of parts of the file set when copied.

Plus it means that clients will see a familiar format (that they generally know how to copy/store/send/handle), instead of files with no extension.

[mmarra]

Originally Posted by acorneau

It's the broker's issue that they're afraid of a simple computer function (the unzipping process).

These brokers got to get with the times and learn how to use basic computer applications.

I also zip my DDPs and had not had an issue thus far.

[anrug]

Originally Posted by mmarra

These brokers got to get with the times and learn how to use basic computer applications.

I also zip my DDPs and had not had an issue thus far.

I would not recommend zipping DDPs just because you agree that it makes a "neat" container and feel more comfortable with one file than with a set of files.

With these things I'd never orientate at what you think a plant should learn or be able to handle but simply on what they explicitly state to be able to handle. So when they say they accept DDP masters on DVD-R then simply put the DDP onto the DVD and leave it at that. DDP masters are by definition (well specification that is) a "set of files", so put these files on the DVD, but stay away from zipping or parent folders. Some plants even require this. Checksums and Cue sheets in PDF or whatever can usually be put there as well, a DDP can happily live with other files in the same location, DDPs have a builtin "table of contents" and always know which file belongs to them. Checksum files are not part of a DDP, so it's totally up to you and your plant to agree on which format and algorithm to use here. Most DAW export functions simply imitate, what their competiters have done, or what Eclipse can handle. But I'd never rely on than working without the plant having made an exact statement about this. (But don't worry, for delivery on DVD-R the checksum is only a bonus, the disc itself has pelnty of error checking in place, and if there is a problem the disc as a whole will be rejected.)

My rule is: stick to the standards as much as you can and keep it simple.

Just my 2c.

Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering

Also, keeping the all DDP files packed in a .zip makes one neat container, which prevents accidental omission of parts of the file set when copied.

Plus it means that clients will see a familiar format (that they generally know how to copy/store/send/handle), instead of files with no extension.

I consider one of the greatest features of DDP that the client can not mess with it. The whole idea of DDP is from my perspective that I can make sure it makes it's way through from my (mastering ) studio to the glass master without the client (label or musician) or the plant messing with it. DVD-R is ideal for that in that it is a read-only media, and most of my clients have no means to even play or look at the DDP it (in one case I have written the software to do it anyway, but that's a special case), so they will usually not even open the DVD and scratch it by putting it into their computer. Exactly as it worked with the Exabyte tapes. Of course the plant can always mess with it, because they have the tools, but usually a DDP signals them I take responsibility to how the CD is laid out including all subcode information. (Note that with this argumentation DDP only makes sense, if you feel comfortable with this responsibility. If not, send an audio CD.)

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by anrug

My rule is: stick to the standards as much as you can and keep it simple.

AFAIK there is no standard spec for DDP delivery on DVD-R, and since (at least here in Europe) 99% of DDPs are transferred electronically (zipped, or stuffed (depending on label demand), with md5 checksum), this is what I'd look to. Maybe this is different in the US?

But honestly, I think this is really a non-issue. As long as data integrity is a given, whatever works.

And personally, I have never ever had a single problem with an actual plant in handling master files, only with intermediary brokers and the rules they *think* they must enforce. I'm sure we all have some stories to tell...

Checksum files are not part of a DDP, so it's totally up to you and your plant to agree on which format and algorithm to use here.

That's of course true, but I think md5 checksum has become the quasi standard and ime some plants require it and reject masters with other checksum formats.

Originally Posted by anrug

I consider one of the greatest features of DDP that the client can not mess with it. The whole idea of DDP is from my perspective that I can make sure it makes it's way through from my (mastering ) studio to the glass master without the client (label or musician) or the plant messing with it. DVD-R is ideal for that in that it is a read-only media, and most of my clients have no means to even play or look at the DDP it (in one case I have written the software to do it anyway, but that's a special case), so they will usually not even open the DVD and scratch it by putting it into their computer. Exactly as it worked with the Exabyte tapes. Of course the plant can always mess with it, because they have the tools, but usually a DDP signals them I take responsibility to how the CD is laid out including all subcode information. (Note that with this argumentation DDP only makes sense, if you feel comfortable with this responsibility. If not, send an audio CD.)

All that is true for online DDP delivery. The reason a zip makes sense there imo and ime is because it makes it harder for a broker or any other intermediary handler (such as client or label) to mess things up by losing files or by swapping (generically named) files along the way. And since brokers (at least here in Europe) often use FTP transfer to deliver masters to plants, the same reasoning makes sense for DDP on physical media imo.

But again, this should be a non-issue imo. Individual personal experiences will trump any theories thought up. Whatever works...

[anrug]

Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering

AFAIK there is no standard spec for DDP delivery on DVD-R,

The spec does say nothing about folder structure or file systems in general, that's right. It just states, that on random-access media (like hard disk, data DVD/CD, thumb drive etc.) the data will live in different files, which will be identified by their name.

and since (at least here in Europe) 99% of DDPs are transferred electronically (zipped, or stuffed (depending on label demand), with md5 checksum), this is what I'd look to. Maybe this is different in the US?

I don't know, I'm based in Germany, like you. But I have to admit, that I wasn't aware FTP delivery of DDP would be 99% already in Europe. I never had to do it yet, everyone has been happy with DVD-R in the last 8 years, and Exabyte before that. But I'm prepared that that may change, and totally fine with wrapping up my DDPs as requested by the plant. Only drawback for me: understanding what can go wrong with zip files is probably much more involving than understanding what can go wrong with DDP files, but that's probably just a wild guess by me, being quite familiar with the innards of the DDP format.

But honestly, I think this is really a non-issue. As long as data integrity is a given, whatever works.

I absolutely agree with that. - Actually that's a good summary of the whole topic.

And personally, I have never ever had a single problem with an actual plant in handling master files, only with intermediary brokers and the rules they *think* they must enforce. I'm sure we all have some stories to tell...

That's interesting to hear. I seem to have been lucky enough to not have been in contact with any of these "brokers" so far.

That's of course true, but I think md5 checksum has become the quasi standard and ime some plants require it and reject masters with other checksum formats.

I agree. Having an md5 never hurts.

All that is true for online DDP delivery. The reason a zip makes sense there imo and ime is because it makes it harder for a broker or any other intermediary handler (such as client or label) to mess things up by losing files or by swapping (generically named) files along the way.

Actually, I agree with that too. It's just I haven't have come in contact with these so called "brokers", and I think (hope!) all my clients send their stuff directly to the plant.

And since brokers (at least here in Europe) often use FTP transfer to deliver masters to plants, the same reasoning makes sense for DDP on physical media imo.

That's indeed an interesting point. I have never considered the possibility that my client could possibly do anything else than send my physical DVD-R to the plant. But then again, if I can't know their exact workflow, I can not adapt properly anyway.

But again, this should be a non-issue imo. Individual personal experiences will trump any theories thought up. Whatever works...

Yepp. Entirely agreed. -- I guess the trouble starts when I do not or can not what the client will do with my DDP master.

Yepp.

[kosmokrator]

Well, I'm in Germany too, and for the last two years delivered every master as zipped DDPi with MD5 (preferred) or CRC32 checksums via ftp.

No problems whatsoever.