Duplication vs Replication

All about the tools and techniques involved in capturing sound, in the studio or on location.

Moderator: Moderators

Duplication vs Replication

Post by giddyap »

Newbie here. Sorry. Please point me to topic if already answered.
Its my understanding that replication's sole benefit was to make sure people can hear cd in car cd players.
Hasn't car audio technology caught up?
Do cars even have cd players anymore?
What do I risk by having cd's duplicated (cheaper, esp for short runs)???
giddyap
New here
Posts: 4 Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2022 2:33 am

Re: Duplication vs Replication

Post by Eddy Deegan »

I don't understand the question you're asking. Duplication and replication are the same thing, surely?

Is this a query about mastering such that it sounds good on a car stereo?
User avatar
Eddy Deegan
Moderator
Posts: 7795 Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:00 am Location: Brighton & Hove, UK
Some of my works | The SOS Forum Album projects
 

Re: Duplication vs Replication

Post by resistorman »

I believe the question is the difference between "burning" discs and stamping them. Sometimes car stereos had issues with the burned ones.

No, car stereos have not caught up, they don't even make them anymore. Those in existence are probably on their last legs. For what it's worth, I never had any problems with burned discs.

Since pro replication requires buying minimum 1000 units, I'd say it's not worth it, unless you live someplace where CDs are still bought.
User avatar
resistorman
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2128 Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 12:00 am Location: Asheville NC
"The Best" piece of gear is subjective.

Re: Duplication vs Replication

Post by giddyap »

Correct, and thanks!
There are many blogs and disc manufacturer's FAQ pages explaining the difference of process. I was quite unaware of it too for many years.
I play live, and I'll tour when my old house, wife, and 5-year-old allow, and merch is always good to have...just not 1000 of them!
CD Baby used to do "download cards" which I thought were great. Someone at a gig would gig you $12 for a download of your 12 songs. Easy enough.
Personally, although I listen digitally I also like a cd because I read lyrics and liner notes. But, I'm on a tangent now.
I am planning on a new record and I plan to make a small run of 300-500 and the cost of duplicating (burning) is much cheaper than have a glass master made and having them duplicated.
So far, from your response, Resistorman, I still plan on doing this.
Gracias.
Anyone else, please?
giddyap
New here
Posts: 4 Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2022 2:33 am

Re: Duplication vs Replication

Post by Mike Stranks »

When I was organising production of the sort of volumes you envisage, I used a well-regarded one-stop 'burning' house. They offered all the add-ons, such as on-body printing, production of liners etc. at fairly reasonable rates. I never had any issues.

Whether I'd still be considering issuing CDs these days is another matter - but, of course, that's up to you.

BTW, if copyright might be an issue, then PRS/MCPS do a special all-embracing licence for the sort of volumes you're considering.
Mike Stranks
Jedi Poster
Posts: 9752 Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 12:00 am

Re: Duplication vs Replication

Post by The Elf »

I've been aware of this 'duplication'/'replication' difference for a long time. We've even had fans specifically asking about this when buying CDs at gigs! Supposedly one can cause playback problems for some systems.

TBH I can't remember what the difference is now, but we always go the glass master (from DDP) route and no complaints since.
User avatar
The Elf
Jedi Poster
Posts: 18718 Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am Location: Sheffield, UK
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Re: Duplication vs Replication

Post by Aled Hughes »

Eddy Deegan wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 2:54 am I don't understand the question you're asking. Duplication and replication are the same thing, surely?

Replication is the 'proper' way of manufacturing commercial CDs. Duplication is essentially what we can do at home with a computer. Duplication is usually cheaper, and usually done in short runs. Replication is the most common way of doing runs of a 1000ish and above.
Aled Hughes
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1512 Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:00 am Location: Pwllheli, Cymru

Re: Duplication vs Replication

Post by MarkOne »

It's not just car stereos. We have a 'professional' Tascam CD player in our church FOH rack that pretty much always ignores burned CDs.

When I self released my debut album, I decided to go down the Replication route, which means I'm happy that the CD will play anywhere, but of course it also means I still have about 300 copies left in my storage unit! (Anyone want one? :bouncy: )
MarkOne
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2011 Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:00 am Location: Bristol, England, Earth, Perseus Gap, Milky Way
Debut Album 'Fantasy Bridge' available now!

Re: Duplication vs Replication

Post by Hugh Robjohns »

giddyap wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:11 am... merch is always good to have...just not 1000 of them!

I've not been involved in CD releases for a while now — all of my recent clients just want files! — but most disc manufacturers seem to duplicate (burn CDs) for less than 500, and replicate (press from a glass master) for more. Some seem to place the duplicate/replicate threshold at 300 and a few even lower.

In the UK replicated discs (with packaging/printing) cost roughly £1000 for 1000 discs, or around £1 each. At 500 replicated discs the price is over £800 as most of the costs are in the setup rather than the output unit, so not much of a saving in practice.

Anyway, if you stamp 1000 discs and sell them for £10 each from your merchandise table or mail order you only need to move a few more than 100 units to filly cover your entire manufacturing costs. Even if you sell at £5 each you still only need to flog 200 units to cover your costs. And if you sell the planned 500 at any price over £2 each you're into profit even if you junk the remainder. So the economics make sense to replicate if you can afford the upfront outlay.

I am planning on a new record and I plan to make a small run of 300-500 and the cost of duplicating (burning) is much cheaper than have a glass master made and having them duplicated.

Duplication is much more reliable than it once was, and modern disc players are a lot more sensitive so won't usually have problems playing them. However, older players tend to lose sensitivity and may well have difficulty... and there are an awful lot of older players about. Do you really want to have to deal with 'faulty returns' of duplicated discs that won't play?

Personally, if you're looking at a run making 500 discs anyway I'd go the glass master replication route, and since the difference in cost isn't that huge I'd seriously consider pressing 1000 discs to allow for generous give-aways to potential clients, radio stations etc without impacting stock for merch sales numbers.
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 35057 Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual... 

Re: Duplication vs Replication

Post by Aural Reject »

Pretty much what Hugh said.

The only other sometime advantage of duplication is turnaround time....it's usually in the order of a few days delivered (with a similar paper part and onbody spec) vs some weeks for replication (and that has got worse in the UK since Brexit....either longer deliver times or higher prices for UK factories).
User avatar
Aural Reject
Frequent Poster
Posts: 979 Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 12:00 am Location: Lancashire born, living in Yorkshire :s

Re: Duplication vs Replication

Post by James Perrett »

I'd suggest going down the replication route if you want to look professional. While you can get all kinds of fancy finishes on duplicated CD's - even imitation vinyl - there will always be players that won't work with them.

There is one place that will do replicated CD's in quantities of 100 upwards although one customer of mine had some issues with them and has gone back to his old source who (I think) have a minimum quantity of 300.
User avatar
James Perrett
Moderator
Posts: 12640 Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:00 am Location: The wilds of Hampshire
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration. JRP Music Facebook Page

Re: Duplication vs Replication

Post by Martin Walker »

I'm sure some companies nowadays will provide glass-master replicated CD in significantly smaller quantities, down to 100 in some cases. Like the others here I think it's worth paying a little extra to avoid any duplicated returns from customers with elderly CD players.

Whoops - replied before reading as far as James' most recent post :headbang:

The most recent CD I had replicated, we went with a company that offered down to 100 units. We decided to get 200 made, and didn't have any problems with them at all.
User avatar
Martin Walker
Moderator
Posts: 19661 Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:44 am Location: Cornwall, UK
Post Reply