Since They will No Longer Make CD's

falconcry72

nap wrote: »

Back up for home pc. I was also looking for a media storage solution for music only. Had my eye on the Western Digital 1 TB or 2 TB (I forget which) storage device they were selling on Amazon. :cool:

I've had great success with the "element" series of WD external drives. I've owned multiple 1TB's and 1 2TB for a couple years with no issues whatsoever. They're also very cheap!

heiney9

BeefJerky wrote: »

It boils down to redbook audio CD's not having any form of effective error correction. Really, a CD player will do its best to cover up an error, but the "error correction" system is worthless. These problems can cause changes to the data, jitter, clicks, or just downright failure to read a portion of the disc.

This is patently false, CIRC is extremely effective. While I won't argue the merits of a PC based system because I use one and believe it to be well worthwhile, but you can't make the above statement because it's simply not true.

http://home.btconnect.com/geffers/cd.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction

CD error correction is actually quite good and effective, as to the rest of the attributes of cd player vs. PC, that's for each to decide on their own.

H9

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

This is patently false, CIRC is extremely effective. While I won't argue the merits of a PC based system because I use one and believe it to be well worthwhile, but you can't make the above statement because it's simply not true.

http://home.btconnect.com/geffers/cd.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction

CD error correction is actually quite good and effective, as to the rest of the attributes of cd player vs. PC, that's for each to decide on their own.

H9

I'm aware of how redbook error correction works, however, the reality is that it isn't enough for optical media IMO. There is a good reason that data CD's have an additional level of error correction; it's because they really do need it to guarantee accuracy. I would rather audio CD's had a slightly shorter playing time, but the additional layer of error correction. This is why it is so difficult to guarantee that your audio CD rip is 100% perfect.

I still remember the good ol' days when I needed an expensive Plextor drive to even have a chance at a good audio CD rip. CD drives have a improved in this manner over the years, however, they can only do so much to make up for redbook's shortcomings.

WilliamM2

BeefJerky wrote: »

I still remember the good ol' days when I needed an expensive Plextor drive to even have a chance at a good audio CD rip. CD drives have a improved in this manner over the years, however, they can only do so much to make up for redbook's shortcomings.

That's odd. I don't use my original CD's in the car (scratches, theft, heat, etc.), I make copies. Been doing that for close to 14 years now. In all that time I've been easily able to get bit perfect copies with any CD-Rom drive, even at max ripping speed. I have had 3 or 4 discs that gave me problems, but they were in very poor condition, and that was easily solved by lowering the read speed. CD read errors are not all that common.

F1nut

falconcry72 wrote: »

Jerky,

F1nut is not saying that he thinks the files on a CD are better, or contain different information, than lossless files ripped the correct way to a HDD. He's saying that the CD playback method as a whole sounds better to him than does any PC-based playback method as a whole.

Thank you!

BeefJerky

WilliamM2 wrote: »

That's odd. I don't use my original CD's in the car (scratches, theft, heat, etc.), I make copies. Been doing that for close to 14 years now. In all that time I've been easily able to get bit perfect copies with any CD-Rom drive, even at max ripping speed. I have had 3 or 4 discs that gave me problems, but they were in very poor condition, and that was easily solved by lowering the read speed. CD read errors are not all that common.

Sounds like you had a better experience than me and many others back in those days. I remember buying a Plextor Ultraplex 40 SCSI drive just for CD ripping with EAC. I think I paid nearly $200 for it too. Good to hear you had good luck though.

F1nut wrote: »

Thank you!

He wouldn't have had to clarify if you had communicated properly to begin with.

inspiredsports

dorokusai wrote: »

I don't find it that expensive and I also don't keep every song, off every CD I've ever listened to or have in my library. If every song, on every album, from every artist was good...it still wouldn't be that big of a problem. It sounds like you just want to hate it so much that there's not much anyone could say to you. Good luck man.

BYW - I'm working on your wires.

I'm not running a single PC.

I own an Internet development firm with lots of servers and lots of hackers up to bad things. Drives fail all the time. We keep images of everything and while it only takes a few minutes to restore, it's still a pain in the ****. We have a mirror site far enough away to avoid a regional problem, and even lead lined box for absolute mission critical stuff.

I guess my problem is I don't want my music to remind me of work.

Until an easy and standard format lossless system is available, I believe CD's/SACD's are the only way to go.

Looking forward to the wires! :cheesygrin:

dfretwell

I threw all my CDs away a long time ago

F1nut

BeefJerky wrote: »

He wouldn't have had to clarify if you had communicated properly to begin with.

Hopefully this is clear enough for you, GFY!

falconcry72

F1nut wrote: »

Hopefully this is clear enough for you, GFY!

Coffee, this is keyboard, please say hello.

gudnoyez

All this talk about CD's going away made me go get the new Gary Moore Live at Montreux his last recording before his death which happened 7 months later R.I.P. Gary, the man could play. I sure am glad I got this before Cd's become extinct, also picked up Todd Rundgrens Arena a guitar based Rundgren Cd, thanks a lot for the post I'am on a CD shopping spree.

F1nut

falconcry72 wrote: »

Coffee, this is keyboard, please say hello.

I mean really! The guy acts like he knows it all yet spouts off, "It boils down to redbook audio CD's not having any form of effective error correction." Hmmm...news to me.

Then he comes back with, "I'm aware of how redbook error correction works, however, the reality is that it isn't enough for optical media IMO." Really? Seems to have been working very well for the last 25 years.

Hey I'm sorry Beef, but your credibility just flew out the window.

sucks2beme

The audio cd wasn't meant to last this long. Another better format was supposed to come
along at the beginning of the 90's. The cd is limited by tech that's over 30 years old.
SACD, DVD-a, all failed, and instead even worse formats became commonplace.
I'm ready for the next big thing. 192kbps! Trouble is, the world seems intent on
compressed music full of DRM crap, and mastered by sound engineers that think
11 is a valid setting for recording levels. Add lots of compression, and it's only good
for IPods. It's time for a revolution in sound. How about downloading well mastered stuff
in hi-res, no DRM, and price it at half of what CDs sell for today
straight from the artist's web site. The time is so right to get stupid
recording execs out of the way of music.

falconcry72

sucks2beme wrote: »

...How about downloading well mastered stuff
in hi-res, no DRM, and price it at half of what CDs sell for today
straight from the artist's web site...

This exists; it's just not nearly mainstream.

falconcry72

F1nut wrote: »

I mean really! The guy acts like he knows it all yet spouts off, "It boils down to redbook audio CD's not having any form of effective error correction." Hmmm...news to me.

Then he comes back with, "I'm aware of how redbook error correction works, however, the reality is that it isn't enough for optical media IMO." Really? Seems to have been working very well for the last 25 years.

Hey I'm sorry Beef, but your credibility just flew out the window.

It seems to me that BJ is arguing theory as opposed to practice. Theory is nice, especially when designing gear, but there's only one way to judge gear that already exists: listen to it. Then listen to it again. And again.

Has BJ heard a USB>SPDIF converter in a true HIFI system? How many? Which ones? What about a DAC with a USB input? How about a Squeezebox or other wireless audio streaming device? How about a high end CD transport? How many? Which ones? How about all of those things feeding into the same DAC? The answer is that I don't know whether he has or has not heard any of those things, because he is only arguing what something should sound like, not what specific pieces of gear actually do sound like.

This reminds me of the balanced vs. unbalanced thread in the 2-channel forum. Everyone is arguing theory, not practice. And again, if you're designing gear, then by all means, read up on some theory, but when making decisions about how existing gear sounds, theory means jack. Listening is all that matters. I have heard pieces of gear for which their unbalanced inputs/outputs sounded better. I have also heard gear for which their balanced inputs/outputs sounded better. I don't know if either connection is inherently better, but I absolutely know that certain specific pieces of gear implement their inputs differently, thus resulting in different SQ. I won't make a blanket statement about "methods", but I can tell you with a high level of certainty which connection sounds better on all of the gear that I currently own, because I've experimented thoroughly with it.

There's a difference between an Audiophile and an Audio Connoisseur. It's one thing to memorize facts about grapes, good seasons, and soil; it's another thing to actively search out different vintages in order to deeply and thoroughly experience how those technical differences actually manifest on your tongue.

I am an Audio Connoisseur and proud to be one.

With that in mind, I retire to a nice hoppy IPA.

Cheers,


Ben

headrott

falconcry72 wrote: »

It seems to me that BJ is arguing theory as opposed to practice. Theory is nice, especially when designing gear, but there's only one way to judge gear that already exists: listen to it. Then listen to it again. And again. .........................

Cheers,


Ben

I think you hit the nail on the head with this Ben. Thanks for making reasonable responses. These are the points I always try to make. Thanks for making them.

Greg

BeefJerky

F1nut wrote: »

Hopefully this is clear enough for you, GFY!

Nice...

F1nut wrote: »

I mean really! The guy acts like he knows it all yet spouts off, "It boils down to redbook audio CD's not having any form of effective error correction." Hmmm...news to me.

Then he comes back with, "I'm aware of how redbook error correction works, however, the reality is that it isn't enough for optical media IMO." Really? Seems to have been working very well for the last 25 years.

Hey I'm sorry Beef, but your credibility just flew out the window.

Honestly, your opinion of myself and my credibility doesn't mean anything to me.

This is what it boils down to. You failed to clearly communicate, but rather than clarify your views, you try to pass the blame. You then take it to the next level with a childish insult. This is something I have not resorted to, nor will I. Following that, you chose to respond with a pointless attack on my character and my views. However, you didn't actually respond with a rational explanation of your differing views or why you think I'm wrong.

If you would like to continue having a rational discussion regarding this, I would be more than happy to. The ball is in your court.

falconcry72 wrote: »

It seems to me that BJ is arguing theory as opposed to practice. Theory is nice, especially when designing gear, but there's only one way to judge gear that already exists: listen to it. Then listen to it again. And again.

My initial posts were solely in regards to the lossless files themselves. As far as that point goes, theory versus practice doesn't apply - it is fact. However, in later posts I did mention playback equipment, and acknowledged that it can make a difference. This was not something that I ever denied.

Has BJ heard a USB>SPDIF converter in a true HIFI system? How many? Which ones? What about a DAC with a USB input?

I have not tried an external USB>SPDIF converter, but this is primarily because it is not something that is in my budget right now. This is something that I would certainly like to try at some point down the road, as I'd like to compare it with the built-in SPDIF on my computer.

How about a Squeezebox or other wireless audio streaming device?

I do have a Squeezbox Radio, but I'm not really sure that it qualifies based on what we are discussing. I suspect you mean one of the ones with a digital output. I do not have one like that, but that is something that I plan to add at some point; probably multiple ones so I can have one in each room.

How about a high end CD transport? How many? Which ones? How about all of those things feeding into the same DAC? The answer is that I don't know whether he has or has not heard any of those things, because he is only arguing what something should sound like, not what specific pieces of gear actually do sound like.

I've only heard a few, and none were in my home. Again, budget.

This reminds me of the balanced vs. unbalanced thread in the 2-channel forum. Everyone is arguing theory, not practice. And again, if you're designing gear, then by all means, read up on some theory, but when making decisions about how existing gear sounds, theory means jack. Listening is all that matters. I have heard pieces of gear for which their unbalanced inputs/outputs sounded better. I have also heard gear for which their balanced inputs/outputs sounded better. I don't know if either connection is inherently better, but I absolutely know that certain specific pieces of gear implement their inputs differently, thus resulting in different SQ. I won't make a blanket statement about "methods", but I can tell you with a high level of certainty which connection sounds better on all of the gear that I currently own, because I've experimented thoroughly with it.

As for balanced versus unbalanced, there should only be one difference - noise rejection. The reason that balanced connections were invented was to reject interference, especially on long cable runs. Aside from that, there should be any inherent sound quality differences. However, I will readily admit that I have limited experience with balanced connections, and it is solely based on its use with microphones. Due to that, I will readily admit that what I just stated here about balanced/unbalanced is based only on theory. However, my thoughts regarding those SQ differences you heard are probably based on whether the internal design of the equipment is actually balanced or unbalanced. They would have to use a transformer to convert one to the other, so the input/output that goes through the transformer would probably sound different form the other (direct) input/output.

There's a difference between an Audiophile and an Audio Connoisseur. It's one thing to memorize facts about grapes, good seasons, and soil; it's another thing to actively search out different vintages in order to deeply and thoroughly experience how those technical differences actually manifest on your tongue.

I am an Audio Connoisseur and proud to be one.

As far as Audiophile vs Audio Connoisseur, I'm probably neither. I like to enjoy my music, and I like to experiment, but it isn't that high on my priority list or my budget.

With that in mind, I retire to a nice hoppy IPA.

Cheers,


Ben

I have a friend who is really into beer, and I know he loves his very hoppy as well. Funny thing is, I love the smell of the mixture as it is being prepared, but once it's fermented I don't like the smell or flavor of any beer.

tonyb

As Ben pointed out, and we try to explain everyday around here, theory vs practice. Practice being experience, no substitute for it. Anyone can spout their theory, also viewed as an opinion, but unless you have put any of it into practice....aka experience, your opinions don't carry much weight. Cable threads are a perfect example of this.

Good point Ben, carry on....

headrott

BeefJerky wrote: »

My initial posts were solely in regards to the lossless files themselves. As far as that point goes, theory versus practice doesn't apply - it is fact.

I'm sorry, but my ears and brain disagree with what you state as "fact".

This is why I asked what you have done personally to come up with these facts. By personal, I do not mean using a computer software program to pump out a set of numbers and state that shows what you are saying is fact. There is nothing you have personally done to show these facts. You are using a software program developed by someone else to compare 2 virtual files in a computer. There is nothing "real world" about it. It's all virtual. You cannot take credit and state something is fact by what someone else has designed to find these "facts". You are walking on their heels, not standing on your own feet. Contrast that with analog sound waves (yes, I do realise they were once digital) coming out of your speakers and entering your ear canal and then having your brain interpret it. That is real world. That is a personal experence with comparing CD audio and lossless files.

I can hear the difference between an original CD and a "bit for bit" copy of a CD. I've listened to them and the copy sounds more harsh. It's certainly not a night and day difference until you make 30 to 40 more copies of that same copy. That is, a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. Then it is painfully obvious that there is a difference. In a computer program it may see the bits (1's and 0's) as equivalent, but that is theoretical. In theory, they should have no degredation in the 1's and 0's. That is in a virtual world. In the real world (analog) once they are converted to my ears it is plain they are not equivalent.

You should try the real world approach with your ears and brain. You may find the same thing.

Greg

BeefJerky

headrott wrote: »

I'm sorry, but my ears and brain disagree with what you state as "fact".

This is why I asked what you have done personally to come up with these facts. By personal, I do not mean using a computer software program to pump out a set of numbers and state that shows what you are saying is fact. There is nothing you have personally done to show these facts. You are using a software program developed by someone else to compare 2 virtual files in a computer. There is nothing "real world" about it. It's all virtual. You cannot take credit and state something is fact by what someone else has designed to find these "facts". You are walking on their heels, not standing on your own feet. Contrast that with analog sound waves (yes, I do realise they were once digital) coming out of your speakers and entering your ear canal and then having your brain interpret it. That is real world. That is a personal experence with comparing CD audio and lossless files.

I can hear the difference between an original CD and a "bit for bit" copy of a CD. I've listened to them and the copy sounds more harsh. It's certainly not a night and day difference until you make 30 to 40 more copies of that same copy. That is, a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. Then it is painfully obvious that there is a difference. In a computer program it may see the bits (1's and 0's) as equivalent, but that is theoretical. In theory, they should have no degredation in the 1's and 0's. That is in a virtual world. In the real world (analog) once they are converted to my ears it is plain they are not equivalent.

You should try the real world approach with your ears and brain. You may find the same thing.

Greg

You are wrong. I don't even need to defend myself on this - at least not to anyone with an ounce of rationality. Not only do you fail to understand how digital works, but you also fail to understand basic math. No, you cannot hear a difference between a CD and a bit-for-bit copy (assuming they are played on the same equipment); there is no possible way. Your brain is lying to you, and this a prime example of the placebo effect. This really doesn't have anything to do with theory or practice; you have a blatant disregard for facts.

You may as well go and out and slap a mathematician in the face, because that is essentially what you are doing. What you are doing is like arguing whether or not 2+2=4.

Mathematician: Two plus two equals four.
Audiophile 1: Nah, two plus two is more like three point nine.
Audiophile 2: No way, two plus two is more like four point one.

tonyb

I see what your saying Beef, how else do they make 10000 cd's sound the same, but we are talking home use here and while bit for bit copying is what it is, it's the process of which we do it that makes the difference. I can tell the difference between an apple lossless file and a flac file, both lossless, both played back through the same gear. Theory says lossless is lossless, but it's in that conversion process that things get either added or lost. What your starting with also matters, lets face it, we all don't have master tapes to convert to lossless files. For example, if you start with a mp3 file, a lossless conversion will only bring out to the forfront the crappy parts of that file. It doesn't magically erase them. Studios have mega buck gear to make bit for bit copying of cd's, you can't tell me the cheap cd ripper in your common PC is as good or the software available for home use to rip as good as studios use. There's more to the game than 1's and 0's.

I have ripped one cd to another many times, and none of those times has the ripped cd produced exactly the same sound as the original, never.

BeefJerky

tonyb wrote: »

I see what your saying Beef, how else do they make 10000 cd's sound the same, but we are talking home use here and while bit for bit copying is what it is, it's the process of which we do it that makes the difference.

A bit for bit copy is an exact copy. It doesn't matter how a bit for bit copy is done, it will be exactly the same a bit for bit copy done on a different piece of equipment.

I can tell the difference between an apple lossless file and a flac file, both lossless, both played back through the same gear.

No you cannot. Your brain is lying to you.

Theory says lossless is lossless, but it's in that conversion process that things get either added or lost.

No, nothing gets added or lost. Again, this is fact, not theory.

What your starting with also matters, lets face it, we all don't have master tapes to convert to lossless files.

This is completely irrelevant.

For example, if you start with a mp3 file, a lossless conversion will only bring out to the forfront the crappy parts of that file.

No, it will not bring anything to the forefront. The lossless file will have exactly the same data as the decoded MP3, and will sound exactly the same as the decoded MP3.

It doesn't magically erase them.

Right, it doesn't change anything.

Studios have mega buck gear to make bit for bit copying of cd's, you can't tell me the cheap cd ripper in your common PC is as good or the software available for home use to rip as good as studios use.

A bit for bit copy on CD-ROM A will be exactly the same as a bit for bit copy on CD-ROM B. If they're not the same, then one (or both) of the drives didn't actually do a bit for bit copy. An inexpensive CD/DVD/Blu-ray drive is perfectly capable of doing a bit for bit copy.

There's more to the game than 1's and 0's.

No, there is not. A bit is a bit, no matter which way you slice it. If your bits are actually somehow getting changed, then your hardware is faulty - nothing more to it.

I have ripped one cd to another many times, and none of those times has the ripped cd produced exactly the same sound as the original, never.

Then, either you hardware is faulty and not really producing a bit for bit copy, or your brain is lying to you.

heiney9

BeefJerky wrote: »

I'm aware of how redbook error correction works, however, the reality is that it isn't enough for optical media IMO.

BeefJerky wrote:

My initial posts were solely in regards to the lossless files themselves. As far as that point goes, theory versus practice doesn't apply - it is fact

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.....which is it? Your opinion or fact?

H9

WilliamM2

tonyb wrote: »

I have ripped one cd to another many times, and none of those times has the ripped cd produced exactly the same sound as the original, never.

Then you did something wrong.

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.....which is it? Your opinion or fact?

H9

I was referring to two different things. This is very clear both in and outside the context of the posts. In the first quote I was talking about redbook error correction, and in the second quote I was talking about lossless files. The phrases "redbook error correction" and "lossless files" are even in the respective quotes. There is no contradiction.

I would suggest actually reading what someone has written before trying to expose them for some supposed error.

heiney9

BeefJerky wrote: »

I was referring to two different things. This is very clear both in and outside the context of the posts. In the first quote I was talking about redbook error correction, and in the second quote I was talking about lossless files. The phrases "redbook error correction" and "lossless files" are even in the respective quotes. There is no contradiction.

I would suggest actually reading what someone has written before trying to expose them for some supposed error.

I see, so on the one hand you state redbook playback has woefully inadequate error correction which makes them inferior to a PC based system, yet all the files sound the same whether it's a cd or a lossless PC generated file.

I am done here Beef thinks that numbers don't lie and because the numbers are the same the file is the same, period. Just like amplifiers that have better numbers sound better than amplifiers with lesser numbers. Audio is not always about the raw data.

Anyway have fun, but I can't continue to try and decode his logic.

H9

tonyb

Guess by all accounts, my brain and my ears are telling one big fib. Maybe we should just drop all this audio nonsense and go back to boomboxes........not!!

I haven't been this amused in awhile.

Beef, for someone who claims that audio isn't up there on his priority list and trying different gear not that big of a deal either, than thats pretty telling right there. This is by no other means a subjective hobby, and you really can't experience it to the fullest by painting yourself into a corner of theory and numbers. No offense ment my friend, for I myself was once stuck on theory and numbers. Good luck to you on your audio journey.

steveinaz

When it comes to Redbook, error correction has 2 by-products; 1) The "error" gets corrected and you hear no change. 2) The error doesn't get corrected and it is audibly apparent (drop-out/skip, etc). Bottom line, there are no "subtle" by-products of error correction.

headrott

Yes, I believe Brock's (H9's) Nelson Pass quote is relevant here. That is one of the best quotes about audio I have seen.

Greg

Face

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Then you did something wrong.

+1...