Mac Observer says 44/16 is all you need

[sandyk]

Then we rip CD we avoid these pauses, and get correct binary from CD (if possible read it via error correction and repeats of reading). For this case we get fully identical binaries from two CDs manufactured in different plants.

 

Yuri

The BluSpec comparison CD sets could be considered as CDs manufactured in different plants, and when they are both ripped they have the same binary content. Nevertheless, I can still hear some differences between them when played from system memory, even when they were both saved to the same storage medium.

The language barrier is making it a little difficult for me to understand what you are trying to say, and some of it is going well over my head anyway.

WAV can has some difference even after conversion from WAV.

I presume you mean after conversion to .flac and back again to .wav ?

Alex

[audiventory]

The BluSpec comparison CD sets could be considered as CDs manufactured in different plants, and when they are both ripped they have the same binary content. Nevertheless, I can still hear some differences between them when played from system memory, even when they were both saved to the same storage medium.

The language barrier is making it a little difficult for me to understand what you are trying to say, and some of it is going well over my head anyway.

 

Alex,

 

I’m not specialist in CD hardware, I can suppose only how work semi-blackbox

 

That I wrote above and below about it is only hypothesis.

 

 

Real-time CD playback

 

1. Both CDs contains fully identical content

 

2. We read CD's content.

 

But here can be trouble. After reading perform error correction.

 

If correction is fault, or buffer empty due deviation of disk speed, to DAC sent or previous level or zero or anything other (dummy samples - I don’t know exactly what can inserted) until don’t arrear correct audio stream again.

 

Therefore in real-time between correct audio stream’s samples inserted dummy samples for supplying uninterrupted stream to DAC.

 

You can listen it as pauses, the played damaged CD.

 

Disk from one factory work correctly due no need recover unreadable blocks.

 

Disk from other factory has very short unreadable blocks (micro clicks, if allowable said so).

 

But it is only hypothesis.

 

 

CD ripping

 

Re-reading during ripping, sometime allow avoid dummy samples. CD ripper can differently process not recoverable parts of CD.

Different rippers can out different digital audio stream from damaged CD. Or deny such CD.

 

 

I presume you mean after conversion to .flac and back again to .wav ?

 

No difference between binary in/out data during WAV - WAV, WAV - FLAC, FLAC - WAV converting any times any combinations.

 

Yuri

[sandyk]

No difference between binary in/out data during WAV - WAV, WAV - FLAC, FLAC - WAV converting any times any combinations.

Which is as it should be, but the converted files can still sound not quite as good as the original. Again I would suggest reading TAS 220 and 221. Years ago I had a compilation music CD for testing at our listening sessions,, and the same content on another CD after it was converted to .flac and back to .wav again. Most were able to hear the differences within a few seconds through my Class A amplifier.

Regards

Alex

[alfe]

Alex,

 

I’m not specialist in CD hardware, I can suppose only how work semi-blackbox

 

That I wrote above and below about it is only hypothesis.

 

 

Real-time CD playback

 

1. Both CDs contains fully identical content

 

2. We read CD's content.

 

But here can be trouble. After reading perform error correction.

 

If correction is fault, or buffer empty due deviation of disk speed, to DAC sent or previous level or zero or anything other (dummy samples - I don’t know exactly what can inserted) until don’t arrear correct audio stream again.

 

Therefore in real-time between correct audio stream’s samples inserted dummy samples for supplying uninterrupted stream to DAC.

 

You can listen it as pauses, the played damaged CD.

 

Disk from one factory work correctly due no need recover unreadable blocks.

 

Disk from other factory has very short unreadable blocks (micro clicks, if allowable said so).

 

But it is only hypothesis.

 

 

CD ripping

 

Re-reading during ripping, sometime allow avoid dummy samples. CD ripper can differently process not recoverable parts of CD.

Different rippers can out different digital audio stream from damaged CD. Or deny such CD.

 

 

 

 

No difference between binary in/out data during WAV - WAV, WAV - FLAC, FLAC - WAV converting any times any combinations.

 

Yuri

 

Yuri,

You are not the only one who is guessing how a disc is read and when error correction take place:)

[audiventory]

Yuri,

You are not the only one who is guessing how a disc is read and when error correction take place:)

 

Yes, Alfe. I know basic principles of CD player. But I carefully talk about domain where I'm is not pro Possible some "little" details.

 

"Hypothesis" - it's about "why two CD from different plants sounds differently".

 

But according theory of probability, the hypotesis has little probability for to be true.

 

How many such identical CDs by different manufacturers that sound differently?

 

If 1 or 2 CD - such possible explain via the hypotesis.

 

If each CD is different possible other reason.

 

For clear experiment need old kind double blind test, but performed correctly: with calibrated and checked apparatus, with more 100 more participants, etc.

[alfe]

Yes, Alfe. I know basic principles of CD player. But I carefully talk about domain where I'm is not pro Possible some "little" details.

 

"Hypothesis" - it's about "why two CD from different plants sounds differently".

 

But according theory of probability, the hypotesis has little probability for to be true.

 

How many such identical CDs by different manufacturers that sound differently?

 

If 1 or 2 CD - such possible explain via the hypotesis.

 

If each CD is different possible other reason.

 

For clear experiment need old kind double blind test, but performed correctly: with calibrated and checked apparatus, with more 100 more participants, etc.

 

To make it short a CD from the same manufacturer from the same stamper can sound different.

Badly polished stamper after X shots start building random noise in the replica which affect the sound.

Moulding is a process related to humidity 55%, Temperature 21°c+/-1,clean room, water cooling... an open door during replication may change the sound

And the list is long, for example just a bad UV lamp during printing can create tilt on the disc which will affect the flatness of the disc which will be a source of jitter.

So it's not a hypothesis it's a fact.

[trithio]

Looks like copious amounts of virtual ink have already been spent on those identical checksums which sound different.

Didnt read much cause it sounds very uninteresting but one thing is clear: the subject has trollish superpowers! Simply mention it anywhere and you completely derailed the entire thread.

Always good to know.

[alfe]

Looks like copious amounts of virtual ink have already been spent on those identical checksums which sound different.

Didnt read much cause it sounds very uninteresting but one thing is clear: the subject has trollish superpowers! Simply mention it anywhere and you completely derailed the entire thread.

Always good to know.

 

Thritio,

I'm sure that you don't have 10% of the knowledge of Alex in audio, anyhow CD is another world than computer and identical checksums in a disc do not mean same sound, this I can prove it scientifically because I have more than 20 years of experience in this field and several granted patents.

[audiventory]

Which is as it should be, but the converted files can still sound not quite as good as the original. Again I would suggest reading TAS 220 and 221. Years ago I had a compilation music CD for testing at our listening sessions,, and the same content on another CD after it was converted to .flac and back to .wav again. Most were able to hear the differences within a few seconds through my Class A amplifier.

Regards

Alex

 

Video about binary identity WAV and FLAC (that I said before)

 

[video=youtube;3jPphh-CsHM]

[audiventory]

To make it short a CD from the same manufacturer from the same stamper can sound different.

Badly polished stamper after X shots start building random noise in the replica which affect the sound.

Moulding is a process related to humidity 55%, Temperature 21°c+/-1,clean room, water cooling... an open door during replication may change the sound

And the list is long, for example just a bad UV lamp during printing can create tilt on the disc which will affect the flatness of the disc which will be a source of jitter.

So it's not a hypothesis it's a fact.

 

Jitter must be fully eliminated by CD's intermadiate data buffer (independently overflow/50% filled/empty it). I think it is not jitter matter.

[alfe]

Jitter must be fully eliminated by CD's intermadiate data buffer (independently overflow/50% filled/empty it). I think it is not jitter matter.

 

http://www.rle.mit.edu/isg/documents/Vamvakos_TCAS11.pdf

 

Don't be so sure.

[audiventory]

http://www.rle.mit.edu/isg/documents/Vamvakos_TCAS11.pdf

 

Don't be so sure.

 

 

Alfe,

 

specify, please, what place of the article related to matter of CD buffer?

 

Yes, decoded digital signal from CD come to input of the buffer (of CD player) with jitter defined by mechanical, optical, etc. reasons.

 

Samples moved thru buffer.

 

From buffer we pick data sample-by-sample according clock of internal generator (of CD player) independed by CD drive and its jitter, isn't it?

[alfe]

Alfe,

 

specify, please, what place of the article related to matter of CD buffer?

 

Yes, decoded digital signal from CD come to input of the buffer (of CD player) with jitter defined by mechanical, optical, etc. reasons.

 

Samples moved thru buffer.

 

From buffer we pick data sample-by-sample according clock of internal generator (of CD player) independed by CD drive and its jitter, isn't it?

 

From this document if you read it you will see PPL is buffered with some jitter, if jitter is high it's transmitted to the output clock.

That's why jitter can't excess 8% in the spec of all type of discs

[YashN]

During playback in a computer audiophile chain, if you look closely and carefully, there is a lot of intermediate A/DC and D/AC going on, with thresholds and ground plane noise, RFI/EMI affecting everything.

 

Amplification and error-correction and interpolation all have an effect on SQ.

 

This despite the fact that you can still get bit-perfection between points A & B.

 

Something like PeterSt's Phasure Nos1a DAC can make your chain impervious to a lot of the issues, but there are other things as well, like signal integrity as well as spikes of energy consumption at the USB receiver side and its PDN.

 

Even DRAM isn't totally digital: it contains within its architecture an analog process...

 

Any digital circuit by sole virtue of its own operation produces jitter as well.

[YashN]

Which is as it should be, but the converted files can still sound not quite as good as the original. Again I would suggest reading TAS 220 and 221. Years ago I had a compilation music CD for testing at our listening sessions,, and the same content on another CD after it was converted to .flac and back to .wav again. Most were able to hear the differences within a few seconds through my Class A amplifier.

Regards

Alex

 

I have described probable mechanisms by which a lot of the controversial things you have mentioned could be explained in the DDR3 Row Hammer thread. It's a long thread, but worthwhile.

[audiventory]

From this document if you read it you will see PPL is buffered with some jitter, if jitter is high it's transmitted to the output clock.

That's why jitter can't excess 8% in the spec of all type of discs

 

The article don't describe simple bufer that we discuss. Here no any feedbacks unlike the article.

 

"From buffer we pick data sample-by-sample according clock of internal generator (of CD player) independed by CD drive and its jitter, isn't it?"

 

Output (get from buffer) clock fully isolated from input clock.

 

High values of input jitter can be "transmitted" as output gaps/skips (due empty/overflow buffer). I suppose, it more than just "jitter"

 

We can eliminate it if use buffer with floating length or simply more long buffer.

[alfe]

The article don't describe simple bufer that we discuss. Here no any feedbacks unlike the article.

 

"From buffer we pick data sample-by-sample according clock of internal generator (of CD player) independed by CD drive and its jitter, isn't it?"

 

Output (get from buffer) clock fully isolated from input clock.

 

High values of input jitter can be "transmitted" as output gaps/skips (due empty/overflow buffer). I suppose, it more than just "jitter"

 

We can eliminate it if use buffer with floating length or simply more long buffer.

 

And what you are going to do with reading speed don't forget CD is synchronous

[trithio]

Thritio,

I'm sure that you don't have 10% of the knowledge of Alex in audio, anyhow CD is another world than computer and identical checksums in a disc do not mean same sound, this I can prove it scientifically because I have more than 20 years of experience in this field and several granted patents.

 

Of course you are sure. And whats with that 'I can' stuff. How about you just do it !? Two identical checksums on one hdd&pc, prove they sound different.

[audiventory]

And what you are going to do with reading speed don't forget CD is synchronous

 

"...decoded digital signal from CD come to input of the buffer (of CD player) with jitter defined by mechanical, optical, etc. reasons."

 

"From buffer we pick data sample-by-sample according clock of internal generator (of CD player) independed by CD drive and its jitter..."

 

All feedbacks for rotary speed stabilizing must be placed before the buffer, isn't it?

 

As I know the buffer need for avoiding any CD reading unstability, including additional time of error correction after error detecting.

 

It sucessfully work even for a little damaged CD. But gaps (damadged pits, low speed) appears not often. Skips (high speed) almost impossible.

[alfe]

Of course you are sure. And whats with that 'I can' stuff. How about you just do it !? Two identical checksums on one hdd&pc, prove they sound different.

 

Did you realise that I'm talking about CD? I already answered to Alex to this question concerning computer and my answer was: impossible.

[alfe]

"...decoded digital signal from CD come to input of the buffer (of CD player) with jitter defined by mechanical, optical, etc. reasons."

 

"From buffer we pick data sample-by-sample according clock of internal generator (of CD player) independed by CD drive and its jitter..."

 

All feedbacks for rotary speed stabilizing must be placed before the buffer, isn't it?

 

As I know the buffer need for avoiding any CD reading unstability, including additional time of error correction after error detecting.

 

It sucessfully work even for a little damaged CD. But gaps (damadged pits, low speed) appears not often. Skips (high speed) almost impossible.

 

Yuri,

 

Cristal oscillator at the output of the FIFO (buffer) is powered by the same power supply that power the input of the FIFO.

That mean that the variations of loading at the input are transmitted to the output through the power supply.

[Teresa]

Theresa?...

 

Are you talking to me? If so I have no "h" in my name, it's "Teresa".

 

FYI I no longer offer my comments on anything, at anytime due to diminished mental abilities.

 

Hello.

[trithio]

Did you realise that I'm talking about CD? I already answered to Alex to this question concerning computer and my answer was: impossible.

 

Nope. Could be because you posted your CD stuff as answer to my no-CDs post? .

When someone does answer my post I assume he speaks about the same things. And I'll continue with that assumption in spite of the clear proof that it doesnt work so well around here.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying the

missunderstanding. And always glad to hear about other checksum 'believers'

[audiventory]

Yuri,

 

Cristal oscillator at the output of the FIFO (buffer) is powered by the same power supply that power the input of the FIFO.

That mean that the variations of loading at the input are transmitted to the output through the power supply.

 

Alfe,

 

For eliminating this effect uses filters (coils-resistors-capacitors circuits for defence noise thru wires and shields for defence noise thru air). In enought expensive CD players problem of isolating clock circuits, I suppose, solved enought for avoiding any influence of motor and/or decoding circuits to audio clock generator.

 

 

 

Same problem (air and wire noise isolation) also succesfully solved in internal computer's sound cards (pro-class, of course). It have noise level (jitter also define noise level) about -120 dB like USB, FireWire and other external pro-/semipro-cards.

[alfe]

Alfe,

 

For eliminating this effect uses filters (coils-resistors-capacitors circuits for defence noise thru wires and shields for defence noise thru air). In enought expensive CD players problem of isolating clock circuits, I suppose, solved enought for avoiding any influence of motor and/or decoding circuits to audio clock generator.

 

 

 

Same problem (air and wire noise isolation) also succesfully solved in internal computer's sound cards (pro-class, of course). It have noise level (jitter also define noise level) about -120 dB like USB, FireWire and other external pro-/semipro-cards.

 

We can keep on going like this for ever but high physical jitter is an issue for any type of players, engineers during decades tried to solve this issue with sometimes bright or stupid ideas, but infortunatly with a limited success.