Lies about vinyl vs digital

[lucretius]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

John Swenson has also stated from his experience in a HDD fabrication plant that system noise is also stored on the HDD, albeit at a low level that he believed should not affect data retrieval.

 

If you have a link to this, I'd really appreciate it. If not, no sweat.

[lucretius]

21 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Do some research with Google where you will see ,if you can still find these waveform examples, that quite a bit of processing is  needed to accurately extract the binary data on HDD for example.

 

The process is a given. The only variable here is the bit sequence (input).  So where the input is identical, is not the output identical? On average identical? Is the output determined (within a range)? Random?

[lucretius]

16 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Barry and his wife accurately described the differences.

 

How can you describe memories of sensory experience as accurate, i.e. exact, precise, correct in all details, etc.?

[lucretius]

21 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Barry and his wife accurately described the differences. 

An extract only : " as though some random treble energy surrounded the details in the recordings."

 

What does that phrase even mean?

[lucretius]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 No, I don't have a link to this, as it was several years ago.

 

Would you be referring to this:

 

https://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-3-how-bit-perfect-software-can-affect-sound

[lucretius]

17 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Quote

Today, 09:03 PM #158 

bdiament

 bdiament is online now Senior Member bdiament's Avatar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Join Date:Jun 2009Location:An obscure stone out in the Orion armPosts:1,801

Hi spdif-usb,

Quote Originally Posted by spdif-usb View Post

...I understand. However, bigger files take longer to download as well as pose an additional burden on those (myself included)
 who are forced to live with a monthly capped internet volume. Since I could still uncompress the files after having downloaded them,
 as well as because the process of uncompression would produce files that are bit for bit identical to the files you claim you prefer,
 the thing that would then matter to me ultimately would be whether bit for bit identical files sound precisely identical to me (which, as a matter of fact, they do).
While I can not think of a mechanism by which identical files would sound different and can't think of a mechanism by which files with identical checksums (which up until a few weeks ago,
 I would have taken to indicate identical data) would sound different, I don't know that this is necessarily the case.
That is, my being able to conceive of a mechanism by which things would sound different is not required for them to indeed sound different.

 In any event, Soundkeeper is not offering downloads at this time anyway. Perhaps at some point in the future but not today.
 For now, we offer our files-on-disc burned to DVD-R. (Besides, I haven't figured out a way to allow the autographed artwork to download. ;-})

 Best regards,
 Barry
Soundkeeper Recordings
Barry Diament Audio

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f7-disk-storage-music-library-storage/do-apple-lossless-files-really-sound-same-aiff-15557/index7.html#post220053

 

I may be a little slow but I do not see support for your position in that excerpt.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

Barry and his wife accurately described the differences.

An extract only : " as though some random treble energy surrounded the details in the recordings."

 This was with the portable DVD USB powered writer version only .

 

Now that I think about it, I think Barry was playing with us, making fun of the "audiophiles".

[lucretius]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

There is also the possibility that Barry was just telling Alex what he thought Alex wanted to hear. 

 

That's makes sense, since Alex is Barry's number 1 fan.

[lucretius]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

The highlighted part refers to the email from Barry on  Sunday, April 7, 2013

 

Yes, but where is the support for your position?  Is it the highlighted part? Just asking.

[lucretius]

Alex,

 

Your friend Barry had this to say about Nordost cables:

“When I first built my own studio/listening room, I auditioned a wide variety of candidates for cabling and kept returning to Nordost cables. They always allowed me to feel like I was hearing past them, into the recording itself—which is exactly what I sought from the monitoring system in the studio."

 

Do you agree with him?

[lucretius]

delete

[lucretius]

5 hours ago, alfe said:

 

Actually you are building noise after each shot during the moulding process.

 

 

 

You mean "stamping" process? And if the pressed CDs can be read back bit-perfect, what does it matter?

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, marce said:

I set all my monitors using a colormunki, TV's using a DVD and with direct comparison to a calibrated monitor. I also use one of these

https://www.datacolor.com/photography-design/product-overview/spyder-checkr-family/

Having a photo of one on a calibrated monitor as well as showing it on the TV gives me more chance of getting the colours as realistic as possible. Doing it by eye looking at grass outside your window is not the best way, your eyes adjust white balance automatically.

 

Why not use the ColorMonki for the TV's?  But then if your TVs are anything like my old Sony, it's too difficult to type in values in the service menu while using ColorMonki.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

I tried all the settings on my HDTV and actually prefer the "Movie" setting. I did a custom setting by eyes only and it was very close to the movie setting, however the movie setting still looked the best to me after watching a few Blu-ray's. I found "Vivid" too bright, for example the skin tone of white people was far too red. With the "Movie" setting skin tone looked more like the white people I see in real life, pink to light red to light brown.

 

The problem with many HDTVs is that you can't get the accuracy with only the user controls -- one needs to go into the service settings.  But then for most people, professional calibration isn't worth it, i.e.the result one gets with the user controls is "good enough".

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, alfe said:

You said you can't trap noise in the polycarbonate and  my answer is: you always built noise at every shot , that 's why a stamper is limited to a certain number of copies.

And there is no such" read back bit perfect", there is error correction.

By stamping process you mean Galvanic.

 

You're putting words in my mouth.

 

I asked the questions:

 

1. If there is degradation from each generation copy, does that not imply the process is not bit-perfect?
2. If no, then how is the "inherent electrical noise" encapsulated in the polycarbonate?

 

Still waiting for an answer to the latter question.

 

Error correction is irrelevant to the end user, if he can get the intended bit-perfect data stream. In fact, the error correction ensures that the user gets the bit-perfect data intended.

 

Obviously, there's a point where too many errors are unacceptable  (where there's a chance the intended data is affected).  Irrelevant.

 

By 'stamping process', I was referring to replication with CD moulding machines. And it was a question asking what you were referring to.

 

Nonetheless, I take it you maintain there is noise captured in the CD Masters as well as the replicated CD's.

 

I don't have any CD Masters but I have many replicated CDs. Whereabouts within these replicated CDs will I find the noise?

 

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, alfe said:

Yes I maintain there is noise and jitter during glass mastering , galvanic and moulding

The noise is the shape of the pits.

 

I look at a CD and I see polycarbonate, aluminum, and lacquer. I'll accept that the shape of the pits can cause some noise when playing in a disc player but I don't see the pits themselves as the noise. In most cases, when playing the CD, I would think that the noise never reaches the speakers. I know some claim it does. And I think you agree that when playing the ripped files, the shape of the pits in the CD are then irrelevant.

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, davide256 said:

wax cylinders, anyone?

 

Hey, I'm not that old.

[lucretius]

27 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

As a matter of fact one might turn into being respectful if you see one's music room like I not so long ago saw Barry's. Paul, maybe you have a link to it, although I think it came about when you had a bit of CA rest. Maybe someone else has the link. His room with the huge screens and IIRC Magies. Never unveiled really by him, but so anyway.

 

Respect. 

[lucretius]

https://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-barry-diament-soundkeeper-recordings

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Rexp said:

I used DBpoweramp, what would you recommend? 

 

dBpoweramp is one of the best:

 

http://src.infinitewave.ca/

[lucretius]

I see Brian Lucey is in that thread.

[lucretius]

7 hours ago, Paul R said:

WAV is much harder to store metadata information in

 

Actually, it's not hard at all (use Mp3tag). The problem is a lack of a standard and getting players to recognize the metadata.  Last time I checked a wav file, I checked it against JRiver Media Center and there was no problem at all with metadata.

[lucretius]

On 5/20/2019 at 11:06 PM, Paul R said:

 

It's also that the available metadata for a WAV file can be specific to BWF, and include stuff that other formats do not recognize. In BWF format, it also has more strict rules that have to be followed.

 

I think that unless you clearly hear an advantage to WAV files, they are kinda clumsy to use. JRMC for example, stores a lot of metadata externally to WAV files. If you lose the JRMC database, rebuilding it can be a bit of a pain. Rebuilding with FLAC, AIFF, or other more common formats is usually much less troublesome. 

 

 

 

You can use ID3 tags for WAV (at least in Windows).  Never had a problem, although I prefer FLAC.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

That's non-standard, and support varies between applications.

 

Perhaps but it works fine with every player I ever tried that supports wav and tags. (However, this is for Windows.)

[lucretius]

12 hours ago, Paul R said:

And there is a bone even in that. You can record the album and have a digital playback that sounds exactly like the album. 😁

 

Sure but the distortion of the turntable/cartridge/phono preamp, etc. are also recorded.