I'm quite confused by this statement; what is the theoretical difference? Because there are many listeners, including many on this forum, who would say that the hard drive copy can/will sound better than the CD, depending on playback hardware & software. More to the point, burning a CD from a hard drive WAV file and then ripping that CD will usually (again, depending a little on hardware & software) result in identical WAV files on the hard drive.
What You're Missing
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
I'm quite confused by this statement; what is the theoretical difference? Because there are many listeners, including many on this forum, who would say that the hard drive copy can/will sound better than the CD, depending on playback hardware & software. More to the point, burning a CD from a hard drive WAV file and then ripping that CD will usually (again, depending a little on hardware & software) result in identical WAV files on the hard drive.
---I think that some of you guys here are missing, on good things of life.
I don't know anyone who considers margarine and artificial sweeteners among the "good things of life"
"Natural" is always better.
Jack LaLanne put it best. "If man makes it, don't eat it!"
I will defer to Gary on this one. In my experience, ripping isn't that easy. I've heard bad rips and good rips. Unfortunately the bad rips are mine! The best rips that compete with a SOTA transport and sometimes better them I've only heard by a guy who used Gary's method. By the way, I was told AFTER I was bitching about how my file sounded like crap compared to his.
I am in fact hard put to come with any artificially modified food or food ingredient which is nutritionally worthwhile; anyone?
Are you saying that a bit-perfect, unfragmented rip sounds different than another bit-perfect unfragmented rip? We had a forum topic on that issue a few months ago; I thought the consensus was that wasn't possible.
nope, i went 'paleo' last year, i know it's trendy in some circles, but in combo with exercise, i lost over 55 lbs and feel much better, healthier, by avoiding processed food- I wasn't a fast food junkie before that, but getting off the bread, pasta, and dairy, and sticking with fresh fruit, veggies, fish and meat has made a world of difference.
Sorry for off-topic continuation. Happy to discuss in health and fitness thread.
That would make for an interesting and lively thread......see you there when you create it!
No whole grains? I would think they would also be important.
A new topic on this subject would be interesting
I was really just giving Greg the technical point. I'd be one of those who would absolutely swear that my hard drive copies can sound better than the cd, but it is another generation, so, technically, one step further removed from the original. What a lot of Audiophiles fail to understand that a digital "generation" and an analog generation are completely different things. Given good management of noise and jitter, you should be able to go many generations in digital and do it quite transparently; it is done all the time. And the data, of course, is verifiable. A copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a.....can be identical. With decent (free, even) error-correction software, there is no generational loss in digital. Zero. Zip. Nada. There is only the opportunity for the build-up of jitter and/or noise. Be smart. Pass on that opportunity.
Tim
Indeed calling on the experts here ... Have also cut very much on the grains .. Still eat some carbs in fruits but hardly any grain actually thinking about it have not taken any grain for a long while .. Not even oat ... Please! Someone open up a thread on this ..
I was really just giving Greg the technical point. I'd be one of those who would absolutely swear that my hard drive copies can sound better than the cd, but it is another generation, so, technically, one step further removed from the original. What a lot of Audiophiles fail to understand that a digital "generation" and an analog generation are completely different things. Given good management of noise and jitter, you should be able to go many generations in digital and do it quite transparently; it is done all the time. And the data, of course, is verifiable. A copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a.....can be identical. With decent (free, even) error-correction software, there is no generational loss in digital. Zero. Zip. Nada. There is only the opportunity for the build-up of jitter and/or noise. Be smart. Pass on that opportunity.
Tim
Tim,
The problem is when you mix "sonic transparency" and digital identical" in the same comment. They are completely different thinks, and although you can check for the second, the first one, as you have defined it, is implementation dependent - you will never be able to prove it!
Said in another way - the software that compares the files knows that they are bit for bit equal, but your ears can not be used to prove it!
Greg, the problem described in what you quoted above has nothing to do with the abilty to make a perfect copy (or not). The harshness of early cds, made from masters equalized for vinyl, is the result of a poor source. Whether or not the copy was perfect, good or awful is almost irrelevant. To make it sound right on CD, it needed not to be a copy at all. It needed to be manipulated. It needed to be remastered for a medium, cd, that didn't suffer the high frequency loss that had been compensated for on the masters being used.
I don't understand, in this context what your remark "So much for perfect copies," can mean. Clarify?
And FWIW, I don't think it was the result of engineers whose ears were shot. I think it was a lack of engineers, a lack of re-mastering for the new medium. I think the labels just did a bunch of straight transfers to rush a bunch of product to the market. No mastering engineer worth his salary would have put out some of that stuff. Not then. Now? That's a very different and very sad story.
Tim
I probably could have made your response for you.
In any event the digital copy was flawed. I am happy for that concesssion. To my ears the CD produced a sound heretofore unheard by me and others. The only new variable was the the ADA conversion. When you introduce a new varialble and you get a different result , you cah realiably assume the new variable produced the new result. Pretty simple to me.
Whether someone could have (or should have) done something to alter the result is irrelevant. The fact that they had to proves the point.
In any event the digital copy was flawed. I am happy for that concesssion. To my ears the CD produced a sound heretofore unheard by me and others. The only new variable was the the ADA conversion. When you introduce a new varialble and you get a different result , you cah realiably assume the new variable produced the new result. Pretty simple to me.
Whether someone could have (or should have) done something to alter the result is irrelevant. The fact that they had to proves the point.
This thread has done more wandering than an Alzheimer’s patient that escaped from a nursing home. Margarine, sugar, no grains, non-perfect CD copies, none of that has anything to do with the OT. If Loydd ever responded to my last question, I missed it.
Similar threads
