Posted by Larry Jordan on September 30, 2014, 4:25 am
The discussion below concerning replicated versus duplicated disks is unlikely to result in agreement amongst everyone. Few topics do.
Some people claim replicated disks last 100 years and duplicated disks do not. Call me in 100 years and let me know if that's true. OK?
It's been pointed out to me that the world's largest online retailer -- AMAZON -- has a division that sells music on demand, and they are using DUPLICATED disks (not replicated, which a tiny handful of fans insist are so superior),
Here is what Amazon says:
"CD-R Note: This product is manufactured on demand when ordered from Amazon.com"
"CD-Rs and DVD-Rs (the 'R' stands for 'recordable'' look like the discs you're used to AND OFFER THE SAME AUDIO AND IMAGE QUALITY. This recordable media is used to manufacture titles on demand, as fully authorized by the content provider.
"Through manufacturing on demand, CreateSpace, part of the Amazon.com group of companies, enables Amazon.com to offer music and video content that might not otherwise be available. Each disc comes fully packaged, with artwork, in a standard jewel case for audio and an Amaray case for video, although for reissued products the artwork may differ from the original.
"CreateSpace WORKS WITH MANY OF THE LEADING MUSIC LABELS, television networks, film studios, and other distributors to make these titles available to Amazon.com customers. All products are manufactured from original source materials (e.g., for audio products, uncompressed CD-quality audio).
"By eliminating inventory, waste, and inefficiencies in the distribution system, on-demand manufacturing provides the added benefit of helping preserve the environment.
"Amazon.com's standard return policy applies to these purchases."
I noticed that my most recent CD, "Jim Reeves Rare & Unreleased," (that contains 31 tracks and 21 NEW overdubs, including FIVE previously unreleased demos by Jim), currently ranks 21,200 in sales, which is great by Amazon standards considering the millions of CDs they sell.
By comparison, the CD set of Abbott retreads is ranked 181,878 despite the fact that 20 different vendors are selling it, meaning it has a much wider distribution network, whereas my CD only has ONE seller and yet is outperforming the other one by a country mile...
Click the link below to hear audio samples, which include current members of the Grand Ole Opry band backing Jim in some fresh new arrangements!
Howdy Larry, I personally don't see the duplicated cd-rs as being a bad thing. The difference is visually and sonically hard for me to tell. Pretty much impossible. Some folks prefer replicated, I have a few buyers who returned some of the BACM discs to me, which are duplicated and I lost money on those. I think it comes down to matter of preference, apples vs. oranges type of thing. Best, Lance
Howdy Larry, I think your Jim Reeves projects are selling because of the quality of content. I don't see the Abbott stuff being much in demand. I've dealt with the Bear Family reps here in Texas many times. They get good distribution, but some of their sets don't sell enough in a year for them to break even. Now the big names like Cash, Haggard and Connie Francis are the ones where they sell large quantities and that makes up for the titles that don't perform as well. Best, Lance
I have 20+ year old replicated cds which don't skip a beat, playing as perfectly as the day they rolled off the line. And, I have literally thrown out scads of cd-r coasters which experienced rot within 2 to 5 years. The nature of the materials accounts for the difference (live dye vs. thin plate of metal -- which they seem to roll thinner with every passing year). With the changes in technology, many of us tend to rip the data off a cd first thing for our portable devices anyway. For such purposes, a freshly burned cd-r works just as well as a cd.
You'll also see many MOD "manufactured-on-demand" DVD-R's now being sold by Warner Bros., Sony, etc. I forget which studio it was that said, "based on the proven success of CD-R's..." they were opening a line of "Archive" titles. I don't know what they meant by 'success,' but I'm under the impression that limited lifetime technologies are to their benefit, as it translates to repeat sales of the same movie in other formats. I'm confident that a disc can be manufactured to last 100 years, but like you say, who of us will last long enough to enjoy it? And how many want to hang onto their 8-tracks after they stop making 8-track players and better alternatives come along? Right now there are already much higher fidelity formats than what the redbook CD audio can deliver, such that even the cd-r versus cd discussions will soon be moot.
The two biggest drawbacks I see in the cd-r have nothing to do with either sound quality or longevity of the format: 1. More difficult to resale than a cd, and 2. Far easier to pirate, since one burned disc looks just like another burned disc. I have seen counterfeits sold on Amazon, and also through Walmart, that could not be distinguised from the real thing BY THE PRODUCER of the original. (Adding injury to insult, these were DVD-Rs which even to the trained eye appeared to be the same as the replicated DVD in all but a couple minor details.)Even crazier when there are knock-offs of items that supercede the quality of the product they're emulating, but I've heard it to have happened.
Nothing lasts forever, nor should it. However, Jim's music is so timeless a person can put it on, sit down to type, and write a monologue before realizing it is after 2 o'clock in the morning. Yes, I've got the 8 cd set ripped and cued on the computer, and if I wake up in time, Jim will still be coming out the speakers. Astoundingly good job Larry.