Jump to content
IGNORED

Do Apple Lossless files really sound the same as AIFF?


Recommended Posts

Tell me, are you talking about disks or CDs? They are not the same you know.

 

You are in a state of confusion if you do not understand whether we are talking about CDs or HDs in a thread on lossless audio formats.

 

Or to write the sectors in such a way as to require the disk to work very hard indeed.

I did that a couple years ago, and yes, it can make an audible difference in the sound. Filled up many pages of my notebook with the odd results from that. It is, however easy to do. I suggest you try it for yourself and get the facts before going on about theory.

 

Do tell. Can you also hear the difference between audio files stored on unencrypted drives and drives with whole disk encryption? Care to recommend any encryption protocols with sound?

Link to comment
REGARDING SONY BLUSPEC CDs:

 

Superdad

I could provide a few tracks as .wav files, but not as AIFF. as I only use Windows. Converting those to another format may destroy much of the subtle differences.

BTW, the BluSpec version isn't just mastered using a Blue Laser, the polymer formulation of the disc itself is also different in order to further improve readability.

 

Regards

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

Superdad

Perhaps you could burn a few of the .wav files to a quality CD-R for direct playback through a decent system ?

That was the original intention with the 2 comparison CDs that I mentioned to you in the PM.(each of the 2 CDs had different musical content, with 2 different versions of each track, but still having identical checksums when ripped again. )

Regards

Alex

 

 

 

 

 

Signature

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD, you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist."-Cookie Marenco. cookiemarenco.com/

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
You are in a state of confusion if you do not understand whether we are talking about CDs or HDs in a thread on lossless audio formats.

 

 

 

Do tell. Can you also hear the difference between audio files stored on unencrypted drives and drives with whole disk encryption? Care to recommend any encryption protocols with sound?

 

With only 28 posts under your belt, you may not be fully aware, but this tends to be a friendly community, and we'd like to keep it that way for newbies as well as vets. Now I'm in charge of exactly nothing here, so all I can do is suggest: You'll make far more headway, enjoy yourself more, and possibly even get the chance to learn from people who are very knowledgeable (certainly not meaning myself here) just by being polite and friendly, and crediting others with having read many of the things you've written about here several times before. Uncalled-for putdowns will help you far less in what you're trying to get across than will sincere, respectful conversation and a willingness to sincerely consider what others say, or still better, new information to bring to the table.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Superdad

I could provide a few tracks as .wav files, but not as AIFF. as I only use Windows. Converting those to another format may destroy much of the subtle differences.

BTW, the BluSpec version isn't just mastered using a Blue Laser, the polymer formulation of the disc itself is also different in order to further improve readability.

 

WAV files are fine as iTunes/A+ is happy to play them with no conversion needed. Would prefer some acoustic jazz rather than the stuff on the Rock samplers, though Simon & Garfunkel's "Sounds of Silence" (the first track on Rock sampler volume 2) would be lovely.

 

Also, can you provide a link to anything official about BluSpec (or BluSpec2) discs being pressed using a different material? All the searching I just did states only that the glass masters are made using the blue-laser from the BluRay process--yielding more precise and defined short and long lands.

 

Thanks and regards,

ALEX

Link to comment
Superdad

Perhaps you could burn a few of the .wav files to a quality CD-R for direct playback through a decent system ?

That was the original intention with the 2 comparison CDs that I mentioned to you in the PM.(each of the 2 CDs had different musical content, with 2 different versions of each track, but still having identical checksums when ripped again. )

 

SandyK, you are loosing me here again.

Easier second item first: As I see it at Discogs.com, each sampler set is two CDs with the same set of tracks. One disc is BluSpec mastered version, the other is the same music on a conventional (red-laser burned glass master) CD. How could a comparison be done otherwise as you seem to suggest. I'm sure that is not what you meant--just a matter of the way I read you.

 

Second item: I thought that you have been clearly claiming that tracks ripped from each disc (red and blue lasered masters) sound different--to you and to some others. That is what I wish to experience for myself. It should not matter if you rip them at your place or I buy a set and rip them here.

But why are you now suggesting that I burn the files to a CD-R? What on earth would that accomplish? My room and system, including my computer and DAC are all HIGHLY resolving. And as I have been saying, the whole point of CA is to get away from the flawed CD playback process. I have said several times that I do not doubt or discourage new mattering/pressing processes; I just doubt that they benefit someone who uses decent DAE to rip to hard drives.

 

Lastly, if I was looking to audition the BluSpec process for its benefits to users of CD players, I certainly would not go about it by ripping and then reburning the files to another disc. I would have to play the actual BluSpec and conventional discs serially.

 

Thanks and regards,

ALEX

 

P.S. Rereading what I just wrote, I find the tone more challenging that is my style or intention. I know that most of us here are trying to move the discussion in a friendly manner. So please take my words at face value with no ill intention.

Link to comment
SandyK, you are loosing me here again.

Easier second item first: As I see it at Discogs.com, each sampler set is two CDs with the same set of tracks. One disc is BluSpec mastered version, the other is the same music on a conventional (red-laser burned glass master) CD. How could a comparison be done otherwise as you seem to suggest. I'm sure that is not what you meant--just a matter of the way I read you.

 

Second item: I thought that you have been clearly claiming that tracks ripped from each disc (red and blue lasered masters) sound different--to you and to some others. That is what I wish to experience for myself. It should not matter if you rip them at your place or I buy a set and rip them here.

But why are you now suggesting that I burn the files to a CD-R? What on earth would that accomplish? My room and system, including my computer and DAC are all HIGHLY resolving. And as I have been saying, the whole point of CA is to get away from the flawed CD playback process. I have said several times that I do not doubt or discourage new mattering/pressing processes; I just doubt that they benefit someone who uses decent DAE to rip to hard drives.

 

Lastly, if I was looking to audition the BluSpec process for its benefits to users of CD players, I certainly would not go about it by ripping and then reburning the files to another disc. I would have to play the actual BluSpec and conventional discs serially.

 

Thanks and regards,

ALEX

 

P.S. Rereading what I just wrote, I find the tone more challenging that is my style or intention. I know that most of us here are trying to move the discussion in a friendly manner. So please take my words at face value with no ill intention.

 

Alex

I supplied the comparison CDs after a member of another forum stated that he didn't have PC playback capabilities, but would like to try burning them to a CD to see if he could still hear the differences when he played them as a normal CD.

He could, and so can other people. Barry has already stated in THIS forum that he thought the BluSpec comparison CDs may have come from different masters, until he ripped them and could no longer hear differences. As the Blu Spec CDs seemed like ideal candidates to highlight differences with different ripping methods, I used the BluSpec version for the rip using a better PSU etc. and the normal version for the typical type burning route, and saved to HDD instead.

This means that I am not directly showing the differences between both CDs in the set.

Using a CD for this purpose could be a good way to highlight the fact that files with identical checksums can sound different, as both versions go through the same CD processing in the player, because they come from the same CD. This rules out variables as suggested elsewhere.

If you wish to hear the actual differences between the BluSpec CDs themselves, you would need to purchase a copy.

Regards

Alex

 

P.S.

I make no apologies for using other methods to highlight the differences between rips with identical checksums, as not everybody has gear as resolving as that used by Martin Colloms and several other prominent C.A. members.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
WAV files are fine as iTunes/A+ is happy to play them with no conversion needed. Would prefer some acoustic jazz rather than the stuff on the Rock samplers, though Simon & Garfunkel's "Sounds of Silence" (the first track on Rock sampler volume 2) would be lovely.

 

Also, can you provide a link to anything official about BluSpec (or BluSpec2) discs being pressed using a different material? All the searching I just did states only that the glass masters are made using the blue-laser from the BluRay process--yielding more precise and defined short and long lands.

 

Thanks and regards,

ALEX

 

Superdad

The information about BluSpec CD was as originally stated on CD Japan, and quoting Sony.

Give me a little time and I will see if I can come up with material more to your taste than some of this rather old Sony material.

Regards

Alex

 

 

 

November 2008

 

Sony Music Entertainment Launches Blu-spec CD Format

 

 

 

Blu-spec CD

 

Blu-spec CD format boasts a new approach to the faithful reproduction of music by utilizing the leading edge blue laser diode technologies optimized for the manufacturing of Blu-ray. During the manufacturing of CD, laser beam is pinpointed to encode data on the microscopic tracks molded on the polycarbonate plastic constituting the surface of the disc.

 

Compared to the conventional laser beam used for the manufacturing of standard CD, the blue laser beam used for the manufacturing of Blu-spec CD has a shorter wavelength, allowing more accurate encoding of the data. The use of the laser also eliminates the need to use cooling fans that cause vibrations. Furthermore, polycarbonate plastic optimized for Blu-ray is used to ensure accurate reading of the data. Amazingly and importantly, Blu-spec CD format is fully compatible with standard CD players.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Superdad

The information about BluSpec CD was as originally stated on CD Japan, and quoting Sony.

Give me a little time and I will see if I can come up with material more to your taste than some of this rather old Sony material.

 

 

...Furthermore, polycarbonate plastic optimized for Blu-ray is used to ensure accurate reading of the data....

 

SandyK: No need to dig further, that second-to-last sentence from the press release is fine. That's just the only place so far where it has been stated that BluSpec discs are also pressed on a different material.

 

So thanks very much!

Link to comment

Hi Alex

I was in a hurry due to flitting between forums. I meant the rather dated musical content as supplied by Sony on the comparison CDs

 

Regards

Alex.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Alex

I supplied the comparison CDs after a member of another forum stated that he didn't have PC playback capabilities, but would like to try burning them to a CD to see if he could still hear the differences when he played them as a normal CD.

He could, and so can other people. Barry has already stated in THIS forum that he thought the BluSpec comparison CDs may have come from different masters, until he ripped them and could no longer hear differences. As the Blu Spec CDs seemed like ideal candidates to highlight differences with different ripping methods, I used the BluSpec version for the rip using a better PSU etc. and the normal version for the typical type burning route, and saved to HDD instead.

This means that I am not directly showing the differences between both CDs in the set.

Using a CD for this purpose could be a good way to highlight the fact that files with identical checksums can sound different, as both versions go through the same CD processing in the player, because they come from the same CD. This rules out variables as suggested elsewhere.

If you wish to hear the actual differences between the BluSpec CDs themselves, you would need to purchase a copy.

Regards

Alex

 

P.S.

I make no apologies for using other methods to highlight the differences between rips with identical checksums, as not everybody has gear as resolving as that used by Martin Colloms and several other prominent C.A. members.

 

 

Wow, I think you are mixing WAY too many variables there!

 

Assuming that Sony truly mastered (audio chain signal-wise) both discs exactly the same (a big assumption), I think there are only two valid proper tests:

 

1) Evaluation of BluSpec disc versus standard glass-master cutting/CD pressing as a direct playback medium. That is, someone would buy an as-released 2-disc set and play them in a high-quality traditional CD player or CD transport>DAC. (i.e. Play track 1 of BluSpec, eject the disc, play track one of standard disc). Seems likely and plausible that, depending upon the CDP, BluSpec will sound noticeably better. (I suspect that the worse the transport but better the DAC, the greater the audible difference.)

 

2) Evaluation/detection of any audible difference between BluSpec and standard when both discs have been ripped (using identical optical drive and DAE s/w) to a hard drive and played back through a high-quality computer>s/w>DAC chain.

 

Being open minded I absolutely will NOT claim in advance that no differences will be heard in test 2. I want to do it for myself, though as I stated previously, I believe proper DAE reduces pressing accuracy issues to almost zero.

 

Funny thing is, your paraphrasing of Barry D. supports my supposition, not yours. You wrote "Barry has already stated in THIS forum that he thought the BluSpec comparison CDs may have come from different masters, until he ripped them and could no longer hear differences."

That is precisely what I have been getting at: Traditional CD playback is greatly affected by pressings, disc materials, etc. (CD-Rs burned back from rips sound better in CDPs than the original discs), but computer audio rips (CAV data mode, no realtime interpolations, etc.) eliminate the variability. Barry did not say both discs sounded worse once he ripped them, just that he could no longer hear the differences. That is my one and only point in this thread!

 

Cheers,

ALEX

 

P.S. I just ordered the Sony BluSpec Feel the Difference Rock Set 2 from Amazon.

Link to comment

I think you just cleared up any possible confusion in my mind - why don't you go back to the gasbag forums and try to bait someone else? Your talent for making an jackass of yourself will blend in better over there.

 

-Paul

 

 

You are in a state of confusion if you do not understand whether we are talking about CDs or HDs in a thread on lossless audio formats.

 

 

 

Do tell. Can you also hear the difference between audio files stored on unencrypted drives and drives with whole disk encryption? Care to recommend any encryption protocols with sound?

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
. Barry did not say both discs sounded worse once he ripped them, just that he could no longer hear the differences. That is my one and only point in this thread!

 

Superdad

My main point in recent replies, is that if we are able to take 2 (or even 3) .wav files ripped by different methods, and saved to different locations, then burn them to the same CD-R, AND still hear differences when played in a normal CD player or CD Rom, yet they still have identical checksums after being ripped again to a PC , then we have a gaping big hole in our present knowledge of digital audio.

Regards

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Superdad

My main point in recent replies, is that if we are able to take 2 (or even 3) .wav files ripped by different methods, and saved to different locations, then burn them to the same CD-R, AND still hear differences when played in a normal CD player or CD Rom, yet they still have identical checksums after being ripped again to a PC , then we have a gaping big hole in our present knowledge of digital audio.

Regards

Alex

 

Okay. I guess that is different than trying to assess the merits of a particular method or technology, which in your case I thought was about the benefits of BluSpec. I'm just not big on mixing up a bunch of variables.

 

Now I see your point is that files on a hard drive, stored in the same WAV or AIFF format, and having IDENTICAL CHECKSUMS, can sound different if they were ripped with differing methods or on different hardware systems. That supposition is VERY controversial, and I will need to prove it for myself before I can accept it.

 

Mind you, I am not a tin ear, a hard nose skeptic. I can hear and decide on differences between orientation of a set of resistors or capacitors, the effects of cryogenic treatment, a millimeter angling change of my speakers, and tiny changes in A+'s iZotope filter settings. So if there is any appreciable difference between files, I will hear it.

 

If you have a pair of uncompressed, identical checksum files that you find sound different from one another, then please, let's arrange to get them to me--and to anyone else here who has interest.

 

Best,

ALEX

Link to comment
Must...stop...reading...

 

Come on, the play is just beginning... (for some people, but not for me)

 

First we had the graphs, now, we have mathematical equations...

 

Following this sequence we could finish discussing about philosophy...

 

If we spend all this precious time listening to music, I guess the conclusions would vary a lot.

 

But now I know for sure nobody will win @sone, but I fully recognize your expertise.

 

Happy listening!

 

Roch

Link to comment
Must...stop...reading...

Eloise

Speaking of reading, did you read the PM that I sent you, or am I on your Ignore list ? (grin)

Regards

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

Superdad

Although I have done 100s of uploads for members of another forum, I have learned the hard way that many people listen with gear that doesn't come close to being revealing. I am happy to provide comparison files to those I believe may have equipment of adequate resolution. I do not include normal USB DACs, as distinct from Asynchronous types, or Squeeze Boxes in that category, although the SBs are capable of vast improvement when using markedly improved power supplies, such as described in a very long DIY Audio thread, into a good DAC via SPDIF.

Yes, I have heard both modified and unmodified SBs, as well as a Transporter.

 

Regards

Alex

 

P.S.

I am having problems with an Optus Cable Modem at the moment, that keeps dropping to dial up speeds, and even fails completely until Power Refreshed. I am having trouble convincing the script reading monkeys at Optus that the problem is either there, or in their M.TU. outside , despite being a Principal Telecommunications Officer with Telstra before retiring.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Although I have done 100s of uploads for members of another forum, I have learned the hard way that many people listen with gear that doesn't come close to being revealing.
Revealing what? Revealing music, or revealing unwanted artifacts some of which might actually be caused by part of the gear you mentioned in the first place?
If you had the memory of a goldfish, maybe it would work.
Link to comment

I am referring to digital equipment into a decent analogue section that is far more musical, uncoloured and accurate, than the vast majority of VINYL playback. Comments like yours are not helpful in this discussion,( as was my cheap shot back at your preference for vinyl ) and will not be further replied to.

If that is the way this thread is heading, I will no longer be participating in it, and will take further discussions with Superdad off-line.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

Although I have done 100s of uploads for members of another forum, I have learned the hard way that many people listen with gear that doesn't come close to being revealing. I am happy to provide comparison files to those I believe may have equipment of adequate resolution.

 

SandyK: I can assure you, having spent the past 38 of my 51 years chasing and building a world-class music system, plus competing and developing in the industry with the company I co-owned (Hovland Company, with awards around the world), that my full-range system (ample and defined into the low 20Hz) in the room I custom built (see pic album in my profile) is way more than up to the task of hearing any meaningful differences between whatever files you will share.

 

While it might seem otherwise (given the specific nature of my questions and my skepticism), I am not at all invested in a negative outcome. I promise that if I hear differences I will report them publicly. But I will also checksum compare the two files myself since your claim is predicated on the difficult notion that differently created files with the same digits can sound different.

 

By the way, I was one of the few folks who, at least 6 years ago, was publicly ranting about ALAC files not sounding the same as AIFFs (it was much more marked and obvious when we were running 1GB G4 Mac minis in the days before any memory player s/w was available). In fact, it was the year when Chris was first starting this site, he came to our CES suite, and along with showing him the early prototype of what was to be a very advanced network/USB/optical drive DAC, I demonstrated to him the difference between AIFF and ALAC--even remember what the tune was. (Played the same thing for John Atkinson, who, while he enjoyed a deep technical lesson from our engineer about the exact process differences between CDP/transport playback and CDROM DAE methods, heard the file differences but still insisted that ALAC was fine. At least that's how I remember it all.)

 

So post a couple of files. Good acoustic jazz would be preferable, or some vocals, or some old King Crimson (Larks' Tongues or Wake of Poseidon) or Jethro Tull (Minstrel in the Gallery) would be lovely!

 

Ciao,

ALEX

Link to comment

Hi Paul,

 

Here is one for you to chew on- why does a CD sound different when it is ripped and played back from a computer, compared to when it is played back from a CD player? Even when connected to the same DAC?

 

Almost everyone I know can hear a difference with that one. Same digital data, same DAC.

(Grin)

 

Paul

 

I think a good part of the reason is that the CD player has a lot more work to do.

What is on the CD is not .aif or .wav but *CD audio*. (It does however *look* simpler than that if one opens the CD on a Mac, where they'll see a window of .aif files.)

 

Neither does the CD doesn't contain "ones and zeros" as many in Audioland seem to have been led to believe.

The CD actually contains a set of sine waves (analog!) and in the zero crossings we have the encoded information, which is *still* not audio and still not "ones and zeros".

 

In basic terms, in order to get music from a CD, the player or transport must:

1. read the spinning disc (often not in a linear fashion as, for safety, the information is written redundantly)

2. focus on the spiral of pits

3. track the spiral of pits

4. decode the eight-to-fourteen modulation

5. derive the binary information from this (at last, the "ones and zeros")

6. perform any necessary error correction

7. feed the DAC

all in real time (or virtually real time) as the music is playing.

 

The computer, while still reading from its own storage, doesn't have to deal with 8:14, etc.

If nothing else, I think the simplification of the task accounts for at least some of the sonic differences.

 

***

Regarding another topic that came up in this thread, I think glass mastering and other replication processes involved in making CDs can make a *profound* difference in the sonics - when the CD is played via a transport or CD player. Since most folks are still listening to them that way, as a producer and engineer, I consider this important.

 

I've said since auditioning the first CD I mastered (back in January 1983) that CDs made at different replication plants all sound different from each other and *none* sounds indistinguishable from the master used to make it. This is just as true today as it was then. What I *have* found is that some replicators consistently make CDs that sound appreciably more like the masters than other replicators do. And what the better replicators have in common is slow (i.e., real time) cutting of the glass master and longer injection molding cycles.

 

Interestingly, when I was talking with replicators prior to selecting who would press Soundkeeper discs, almost all of them told me the sound of their discs was "exactly the same as the master". My experience told me they either were reciting what they'd been told or they weren't listening (or they just couldn't hear it). Only one replicator told me (with no prompting from me) the discs would "never sound exactly the same". (He got the job and delivers the most faithful discs I've experienced to date.)

 

All that said, my own experience so far has been that when properly ripped, pressing differences go away. (At least that has been the experience so far.) Still, it makes be feel better to do the rip from the best pressing I can get my hands on.

 

***

And to the topic at hand, I have not yet heard any so-called "lossless" format that sounds, to my ears, indistinguishable from the raw PCM source.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment

All that said, my own experience so far has been that when properly ripped, pressing differences go away. (At least that has been the experience so far.) Still, it makes be feel better to do the rip from the best pressing I can get my hands on.

 

INDEED! And one of key arguments for putting traditional CDPs/transports in our rearview mirror.

Thank you Barry.

 

Now if only the signal that makes it to the glass master was truer to the source. So many reissues have been such a disappointment. Sometimes its the remix, sometimes the tape machine, sometimes the board, or the compression, or the A/D. Human politics and preference enter in as well.

Most of the CDs I buy these days are of new music, so I don't have to wonder about some other version being better. But there are a many favorite older recordings that I spend far too much time and money chasing to get closer to source and feeling (sometimes of my original import pressings, but sometimes they can be even better).

Link to comment

Hi Superdad,

 

INDEED! And one of key arguments for putting traditional CDPs/transports in our rearview mirror.

Thank you Barry.

 

While I'm with you on that (the server is how I listen now and has been since I first assembled it), I must keep in mind that most of the world still listens to the CDs I produce, record and/or master via a CD player or transport. Hence, I still consider pressing quality to be important.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
Hi Superdad,

While I'm with you on that (the server is how I listen now and has been since I first assembled it), I must keep in mind that most of the world still listens to the CDs I produce, record and/or master via a CD player or transport. Hence, I still consider pressing quality to be important.

 

Absolutely Barry. And I think of it a bit like a fine restaurant: if care is taken in one area of preparation, it is likely to be taken throughout, with the end meal being more satisfying. (See also the edit/addition to my last post regarding reissues.) Despite occasional flubs--and my own disagreements with some top-end tweaks or overly conservative cuts at the bottom end--I often find the care taken on some JVC XRCDs or Toshiba "Black Triangle" releases to be of great service to the music.

 

Regards,

ALEX

Link to comment
Still, it makes be feel better to do the rip from the best pressing I can get my hands on.

What would be interesting to know IMO is, if you had a harddrive containing rips of both the best and worst pressing, and you had then verified these rips were bit for bit identical to eachother, which one of both rips would you delete next from your harddrive? Further, near the end of this article is a reference to a freeware program called FlacWavLoader and, although this thread is about Apple Lossless and AIFF, nevertheless I think it would be interesting to know if you still hear any differences when you have converted Apple Lossless to AIFF before the playback starts, because if not, you might perhaps want to consider offering your customers the opportunity to download FLAC or Apple Lossless files instead of only WAV and AIFF files.

If you had the memory of a goldfish, maybe it would work.
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...