Jump to content
IGNORED

Why audiophiles still use CDs?


hdo

Recommended Posts

Hi alfe,

 

I believe that in time, we're going to find that there is more to the story than jitter. Just a hunch on my part.

 

Regarding the answer to the question, are you saying dither is how a mastering engineer adapts a master to CD?

If so, how would that make the CD sound better than playback of the same file from a computer?

(This is going back to what you suggested in post #51 in response to Roch's statement. Or did I misunderstand?)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

 

:) you know what I meant

It would not sound better or worst if properly mastered.

I'm not going to explain to you the over use of dither in some equipments and from some engineers.

 


Link to comment
:) you know what I meant

It would not sound better or worst if properly mastered.

I'm not going to explain to you the over use of dither in some equipments and from some engineers.

 

Hi alfe,

 

If I knew what you meant, I wouldn't have asked.

I am not asking you to explain the use of dither, thank you.

 

I asked you to back up a statement you made which said Roch's findings would be the opposite if the mastering engineer did the mastering for CD instead of for the computer.

I don't know how anyone would do that and I asked you how it might be accomplished.

In the absence of a response to that question, I have no idea what you were saying (or why).

 

If you are suggesting the use of dither, which is used on just about every CD, since the same dither is still there when the CD is ripped to a computer, I see no basis for this accounting for any perceived differences and certainly nothing that would change what Roch (and I) hear.

 

If you want to explain, I'm all ears. If not, that is fine too.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
Hi alfe,

 

If I knew what you meant, I wouldn't have asked.

I am not asking you to explain the use of dither, thank you.

 

I asked you to back up a statement you made which said Roch's findings would be the opposite if the mastering engineer did the mastering for CD instead of for the computer.

I don't know how anyone would do that and I asked you how it might be accomplished.

In the absence of a response to that question, I have no idea what you were saying (or why).

 

If you are suggesting the use of dither, which is used on just about every CD, since the same dither is still there when the CD is ripped to a computer, I see no basis for this accounting for any perceived differences and certainly nothing that would change what Roch (and I) hear.

 

If you want to explain, I'm all ears. If not, that is fine too.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

 

When you finish a mastering job you hear the result with a computer not with a CD am I wrong?

Or if you do as for the tape before all the steps of recording on CD the story will be different.

The music today is made by computer for computer.

 


Link to comment

Hi alfe,

 

Actually, I've found the same results since before computers were used, when masters were put onto digital tape (with a corresponding time code track).

 

I can also make all mastering moves onto an analog tape -- or simply transfer an analog tape flat -- to digital tape, CD-R or files or whatever the CD replication facility would like. In my experience, the results are still the same: rip to a computer and you get the sound that is the source of the CD, something the CD just doesn't do.

 

I understand your experience may be different.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
Just taking the original recording and transferring it to a CD, then comparing the disc (in any transport or player I've ever heard) and playback from the computer with the original recording will reveal (at least to my ears) that the computer playback sounds identical to the original and the CD never does. With luck, it can get *very* close. But in my view, there is a huge difference between very close and spot on. And most of the time, it isn't that close.

 

Ripping is typically done in error correcting mode, which is how computers read CDs, whereas CD transports or players don't.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
Ripping is typically done in error correcting mode, which is how computers read CDs, whereas CD transports or players don't.

 

Hi jabbr,

 

Are you saying transports and players don't use error correction?

As far as I know (always subject to modification) error correction has always been part of the CD standard.

 

As to the differences between disc playback and computer playback, I think the audible differences come about for many reasons, some of which I've mentioned earlier and have written about in a blog entry called "Listening to Tomorrow".

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
Hi jabbr,

 

Are you saying transports and players don't use error correction?

As far as I know (always subject to modification) error correction has always been part of the CD standard.

 

As to the differences between disc playback and computer playback, I think the audible differences come about for many reasons, some of which I've mentioned earlier and have written about in a blog entry called "Listening to Tomorrow".

 

I could be more precise: although error correction is built into the CD hardware, it does not mean that the CD readout needs to be "bit perfect". The standard allows for interpolation. That's to say that the hardware is only required to "do its best". Ripping software does more to ensure that the rip is "bit perfect" which is an additional layer of error correction on top of the CD hardware's. Its this additional layer of error correction that makes the ripped file better than the CD readout. Gordon Rankin was the first person to point this out to me.

 

"Music Performed" is a great piece.

 

Regarding "Listening to Tomorrow" certainly putting the music on a server is vastly more reasonable than trying to keep track of, store and retrieve 1000s of CDs! Playing music becomes much more enjoyable for that reason alone -- but I'm not too much into the idea that one lossless file format has an intrinsically better sound than another. That's to say the difference in error correction is a better reason why your observation that ripped music sounds more true to the original -- it actually is :)

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
Hi jabbr,

 

Are you saying transports and players don't use error correction?

As far as I know (always subject to modification) error correction has always been part of the CD standard.

 

As to the differences between disc playback and computer playback, I think the audible differences come about for many reasons, some of which I've mentioned earlier and have written about in a blog entry called "Listening to Tomorrow".

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

 

Different type of error correction but I'm sure you know that.

 


Link to comment
I could be more precise: although error correction is built into the CD hardware, it does not mean that the CD readout needs to be "bit perfect". The standard allows for interpolation. That's to say that the hardware is only required to "do its best". Ripping software does more to ensure that the rip is "bit perfect" which is an additional layer of error correction on top of the CD hardware's. Its this additional layer of error correction that makes the ripped file better than the CD readout. Gordon Rankin was the first person to point this out to me.

 

"Music Performed" is a great piece.

 

Regarding "Listening to Tomorrow" certainly putting the music on a server is vastly more reasonable than trying to keep track of, store and retrieve 1000s of CDs! Playing music becomes much more enjoyable for that reason alone -- but I'm not too much into the idea that one lossless file format has an intrinsically better sound than another. That's to say the difference in error correction is a better reason why your observation that ripped music sounds more true to the original -- it actually is :)

 

Hi jabbr,

 

I hear what you're saying but believe there is more to it than just the error correction. For example the computer gets to start with binary data, where the CD transport/player must decode the 8:14 modulation. And the transport/player also has to track the pits, keep the laser focussed, etc., etc., more often than not with the same power supply used for D-A conversion. I could be wrong (and know some will say I am) but I think there is sonic value in the absence of all the extra steps.

 

Thank you for your kind feedback on the blog entries. I'm very glad you liked "Music Performed".

 

Regarding lossless, my experience (the only one of which I can speak) is that those format to not sound the same raw PCM formats such as .aif and .wav, which are also referred to in some quarters as lossless. I realize lots of folks find them all sonically indistinguishable from each other and others prefer one over the others.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
You shouldn't hear much (if any) difference between so-called high-res and 16/44 from the same master,

 

I did some listening tests with some 24/192 files digitally recorded on a Pyramix DXD workstation, downsampled to 16/44 and upsampled back to 24/192 vs original files.

 

Concur about what modern mastering can do for old recordings. The 24/96 download of the Ludwig/Wunderlich/Klemperer Das Lied sounds faboulous, though I haven't tried comparing it to the CD layer of the same mastering.

Link to comment
I did some listening tests with some 24/192 files digitally recorded on a Pyramix DXD workstation, downsampled to 16/44 and upsampled back to 24/192 vs original files.

 

And what did you find?

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
Oops, sorry, I didn't include the context.

 

I couldn't hear a difference. It could be my gear or my aging ears. Maybe I'll try again with all solid state electronics or headphones.

 

Thanks. I find the quality of the remastering to be much important than the sample rate.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
Thanks. I find the quality of the remastering to be much important than the sample rate.

 

 

I too find that to be true - especially of older, originally analog material. Putting a pint's worth of whisky in a fifth bottle, doesn't make that pint a fifth of whisky, nor does making-up the difference with water :)

George

Link to comment
Hi jabbr,

 

I hear what you're saying but believe there is more to it than just the error correction. For example the computer gets to start with binary data, where the CD transport/player must decode the 8:14 modulation. And the transport/player also has to track the pits, keep the laser focussed, etc., etc., more often than not with the same power supply used for D-A conversion. I could be wrong (and know some will say I am) but I think there is sonic value in the absence of all the extra steps.

 

Yes but alot of this is "implementation dependent" i.e. quality of cd player, transport etc. and you note that in all cases the ripped files sound better. So despite all the implementation dependent stuff I think the difference that you still hear is related to the accuracy of the data (better on computer)

 

 

Thank you for your kind feedback on the blog entries. I'm very glad you liked "Music Performed".

 

That really is what music is about :)

Regarding lossless, my experience (the only one of which I can speak) is that those format to not sound the same raw PCM formats such as .aif and .wav, which are also referred to in some quarters as lossless. I realize lots of folks find them all sonically indistinguishable from each other and others prefer one over the others.

 

Well this is amusing sometimes because often the computer/network/system will invisibly compress and decompress the data behind the scenes so what you think is uncompressed actually isn't and likewise if your disk drive is compressing for you, hard to gain anything by zipping something that's already zipped. This is really really common on SSDs for example.

 

I'd say that it really is up to our software to be sure not to introduce sonic artifacts w.r.t. whether something starts life as aif or wav or flac for that matter.

 

You know these complex systems have so so many variables that it can be hard to sort out what is what. I have a really hard time trying to test things out myself -- and life is short, and we need more time to be able to go out and listen to live music and support all the musicians who are working so hard :) :)

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
You know these complex systems have so so many variables that it can be hard to sort out what is what. I have a really hard time trying to test things out myself -- and life is short, and we need more time to be able to go out and listen to live music and support all the musicians who are working so hard :) :)

 

YES. YES and YES... I think all this very tiny nitpicking on SQ really takes away from the most important... the music.

Link to comment
Yes but alot of this is "implementation dependent" i.e. quality of cd player, transport etc. and you note that in all cases the ripped files sound better. So despite all the implementation dependent stuff I think the difference that you still hear is related to the accuracy of the data (better on computer)

 

:) poor CD , no accuracy of data ,no DDP files, no clue about checksum complete useless format.

Next time you get a rom disc be careful the data may be inaccurate.

 


Link to comment
. . . You know these complex systems have so so many variables that it can be hard to sort out what is what.

I have a really hard time trying to test things out myself -- and life is short, and we need more time to be able to go out and listen to live music and support all the musicians who are working so hard :) :)

 

 

Try system thinking the next time!

Let the pro's at the manufacturer compose your rig rather than the usual crap chute of mismatching parts.

 

The saving from NOT buying components again & again can be spent on live experiences

Promise Pegasus2 R6 12TB -> Thunderbolt2 ->
MacBook Pro M1 Pro -> Motu 8D -> AES/EBU ->
Main: Genelec 5 x 8260A + 2 x 8250 + 2 x 8330 + 7271A sub
Boat: Genelec 8010 + 5040 sub

Hifiman Sundara, Sennheiser PXC 550 II
Blog: “Confessions of a DigiPhile”

Link to comment
:) poor CD , no accuracy of data ,no DDP files, no clue about checksum complete useless format.

Next time you get a rom disc be careful the data may be inaccurate.

 

You very well know that CD-ROM/Yellow Book uses different error detection than CD-DA/Redbook and that the errors I'm talking about are for standalone CD players/transports and not properly ripped CD -> hard drive which successfully recovers from hardware errors.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
You very well know that CD-ROM/Yellow Book uses different error detection than CD-DA/Redbook and that the errors I'm talking about are for standalone CD players/transports and not properly ripped CD -> hard drive which successfully recovers from hardware errors.

 

 

Think this will help to understand error correction:

 

 


Link to comment
I'm starting to think people on this forum don't actually like music at all but rather more concerned with log files and DR ratings and whatever other reports you can get rather then the enjoyment of music... I feel sad.

 

The whole purpose of this site / forum is to discuss the use of computer technology in music reproduction - without that, it would be simply a music appreciation forum.

 

So, yes, there is a good deal of focus on "log files and DR ratings".

John Walker - IT Executive

Headphone - SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable Ethernet > mRendu Roon endpoint > Topping D90 > Topping A90d > Dan Clark Expanse / HiFiMan H6SE v2 / HiFiman Arya Stealth

Home Theater / Music -SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable HDMI > Denon X3700h > Anthem Amp for front channels > Revel F208-based 5.2.4 Atmos speaker system

Link to comment
The whole purpose of this site / forum is to discuss the use of computer technology in music reproduction - without that, it would be simply a music appreciation forum.

 

So, yes, there is a good deal of focus on "log files and DR ratings".

 

I agree, I use log files and DR ratings too, but they are not the be all end all whether something will sound good or not in your computer setup. That's all I meant, I've just noticed the constant back and forth lately, I'm smarter than you type of stuff lately and that's not really why I initially came here.

Link to comment
I agree, I use log files and DR ratings too, but they are not the be all end all whether something will sound good or not in your computer setup. That's all I meant, I've just noticed the constant back and forth lately, I'm smarter than you type of stuff lately and that's not really why I initially came here.

 

If the current conversations are not to your liking, perhaps you could start a thread or two more in line with your interests and see how it goes.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

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...