The end of CD's debunked
Comments
-
Ummmmmmm..........that's been stated several times all over these types of threads.
What do you mean by this? FLAC uncompresses on the "fly" so the output is ALWAYS 1411kbps, never less.
H9
Then I have all the wrong information on how this format works. Because I have flac files that are 1411 kbps and some that range from 600-1200~. I have it in my head that a 800 kbps "flac" file is not a true 1411 kbps flac file nor would it sound like one. If that's wrong and that file will output at 1411 kbps and no less, then I'm terribly wrong and apologize. I've said it countless times too that I don't know much about this FLAC stuff even though I'm young and should right? (That's a sarcastic remark) Forgive my ignorance. I guess I need to smoke a joint and calm myself because I have a very frustrating issue with my music collection that needs to be re-done right.I based it on this line: "Now unless people are sources newsgroups to find this material I have no clue. However I did the whole young dumb and download everything and it certainly got me anywhere."
I obviously misread it, it happens. However, I'm not going to apologize since you are clearly overreacting to the situation. Heiny9's response to you was fairly blunt, but certainly not rude. However, you decided to snap at him as well.
I would have mis-read that too if I hadn't made the mistake of using the word "anywhere" instead of what SHOULD have been there, "no where". Then it would have made more sense. And don't worry about apologizing... only big men do that. If people thought before they spoke then that could go a long way. My behavior is rude but how did you expect me to respond to that? -
Drenis, where are you seeing these numbers? I look at my saved files in Windows (I use compression level 8 which makes smaller files to save space, but takes longer to compress) all of them range between 29,000kb and 42,000kb based on the length of the song. But that is the compressed file.
http://www.flac.org/flac.htm#whatisflac"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
My initial response to you was nothing but polite. I simply stated in an amiable way that I could not help you with something that I perceived you to be asking for. That's it.I would have mis-read that too if I hadn't made the mistake of using the word "anywhere" instead of what SHOULD have been there, "no where". Then it would have made more sense. And don't worry about apologizing... only big men do that. If people thought before they spoke then that could go a long way. My behavior is rude but how did you expect me to respond to that?
However, you chose to get offended and responded in a rude manner, with such gems as "Put on some glasses" and "Thanks for pointing me out to be some criminal." You stated yourself that you mistyped, so the first rude comment certainly wasn't necessary. In addition, I did not state that you were a criminal, nor was it something that I implied. Worse, you chose to unnecessarily jump down heiney9's throat over nothing as well. You are the common denominator here. -
Drenis, where are you seeing these numbers? I look at my saved files in Windows (I use compression level 8 which makes smaller files to save space, but takes longer to compress) all of them range between 29,000kb and 42,000kb based on the length of the song. But that is the compressed file.
http://www.flac.org/flac.htm#whatisflac
I also wonder what he is talking about. At first I thought it was file size but he uses kbps, which is kilo bits per second. I remember in the past some guy was all upset because FLAC files and Apple Lossless files were different sizes, so, obviously, bits were lost. :rolleyes:Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
I was referring to my personal experience with iTunes.
Sorry, I couldn't tell from the quote you used. Something like blah, blah, blah, if I recall. -
Geez man.....some of you guys can take a thread and point it south like no tomarrow.
Long live the cd.....'nuff said.
HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
Long live the cd.....'nuff said.
I just finished putting together another CD rack yesterday. SACDs at the top, CDs at the bottom. I needed another rack since the previous one is getting filled with Blurays, but there still are 4 shelves of CDs. By and large, other than the non-hybrid SACDs, all are on the iPod in Apple Lossless. One thing that is interesting with having the physical media is how much room they take up, compared to the 120GB drive on the iPod. But as others have said, it is nice to look over at the racks and see rows and rows of CDs.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
And you would still be incorrect.
John reinforced my thought from the other thread that again you can prove it to yourself there is an audible difference between the original CD and a 10X copied file by listening for yourself with an unbiased point of view. Everyone must experience reality for themselves to believe it. Until you do, you will not believe it. If you choose to not experience reality, so be it.The number of copies means nothing when it comes to digital formats. Nothing is lost or gained between each copy..
The number of copies may mean nothing when viewing the file in a virtual world in a computer in a digital format. Also, could it be that Audacity cannot detect any errors in the transfer as well as my ear can? Just a thought. But, when this digital format is converted to analog and enters my ear canal, brain and consiousnous, it means a lot. This is because the 10X copied former digital file now converted to analog, sounds harsh to me, especially on the high end.You would think wrong then. In fact, it's really easy to prove to yourself! Download Audacity, which is a free audio editor. This software will allow you took at the waveforms in as much detail as you want. However, I doubt you will do this, much less come back here and admit that you were wrong.
I have used other programs to look at the wave forms of copied files (converted from analog to digital, then put on a CD) besides Audacity. Again, it's a digital file in a virtual world. I was actually referring to using an oscilliscope after the digital file is converted to analog (in a CD player) and looking at this wave form. That's right! You would have to leave your precious computer out of the equation to do this (other than copying the file and putting it onto CD). Uh oh! Scarry, huh?I could say the same about warped version of reality. Enjoy your flat earth...
I honestly don't know what you mean by the first part of this reply. I do know that it's not a valid response to the ideas I brought up though. Perhaps you could try again.
That is: Anyone that believes there is a perfect transfer of any form of energy needs to look at (and in this case more importantly, listen to) reality.
Greg
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."![:\](https://forum.polkaudio.com/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
John reinforced my thought from the other thread that again you can prove it to yourself there is an audible difference between the original CD and a 10X copied file by listening for yourself with an unbiased point of view.
The only way to do this with a truly unbiased point of view is via a double-blind test. Think you could pick out the copy from the original in a double-blind comparison?
RT-12, CS350-LS, PSW-300, Infinity Overture 1, Monoprice RC-65i
Adcom GFA-545II, GFA-6000, Outlaw Audio 990, Netgear NeoTV
Denon DCM-460, DMD-1000, Sony BDP-360, Bravia KDL-40Z4100/S
Monster AVL-300, HTS-2500 MKII -
The only way to do this with a truly unbiased point of view is via a double-blind test. Think you could pick out the copy from the original in a double-blind comparison?
Yep, I absolutely do on my system.
Just as I picked out the original "throwback Pepsi" from the newest canning of the "throwback Pepsi" in a "double blind test. That was harder than picking the original CD compared to that CD copied 10 times over.
Greg
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
You'll have to excuse my skepticism if I do not take your word. Bits is bits. Regardless of the storage media, how many times it has been copied or the method of transport, the bitstream is first processed through an error-correction circuit and then passed off to the DAC. Unless the disc is so physically damaged that transport's error concealment circuit kicks in, the bitstream passed to the DAC will be exactly the same, bit-for-bit. Applying analog thinking to digital media simply does not apply until after the DAC.
RT-12, CS350-LS, PSW-300, Infinity Overture 1, Monoprice RC-65i
Adcom GFA-545II, GFA-6000, Outlaw Audio 990, Netgear NeoTV
Denon DCM-460, DMD-1000, Sony BDP-360, Bravia KDL-40Z4100/S
Monster AVL-300, HTS-2500 MKII -
John reinforced my thought from the other thread that again you can prove it to yourself there is an audible difference between the original CD and a 10X copied file by listening for yourself with an unbiased point of view. Everyone must experience reality for themselves to believe it. Until you do, you will not believe it. If you choose to not experience reality, so be it.
Nonsense. Same as your "virtual world". Do you understand computers, or files at all?That is: Anyone that believes there is a perfect transfer of any form of energy needs to look at (and in this case more importantly, listen to) reality.
What are you talking about? A file (or CD) is not a form of energy. -
As Syndil mentioned, you cannot get rid of all human bias without a double-blind test; this is simply the way the human psyche works. You claim you have done them to prove your point, but I am extremely skeptical as well. Please indulge us by informing us of the exact method you are using for your claimed blind tests.John reinforced my thought from the other thread that again you can prove it to yourself there is an audible difference between the original CD and a 10X copied file by listening for yourself with an unbiased point of view. Everyone must experience reality for themselves to believe it. Until you do, you will not believe it. If you choose to not experience reality, so be it.
It seems that Syndil and WilliamM2 have hit the nail on the head. You are trying to apply analog thinking to digital media and devices. This is simply not valid. Audacity shows the file exactly as it is. Your ears and brain, however, are not able to be completely unbiased like Audacity.The number of copies may mean nothing when viewing the file in a virtual world in a computer in a digital format. Also, could it be that Audacity cannot detect any errors in the transfer as well as my ear can? Just a thought. But, when this digital format is converted to analog and enters my ear canal, brain and consiousnous, it means a lot. This is because the 10X copied former digital file now converted to analog, sounds harsh to me, especially on the high end.
I mentioned the use of an oscilloscope in the prior thread a few times, and you never acknowledged it. So, I must admit that I find it funny that you all of a sudden choose to bring it up. I'm not afraid of what an oscilloscope would show in regards to lossless files; I know that it would confirm what I am claiming.I have used other programs to look at the wave forms of copied files (converted from analog to digital, then put on a CD) besides Audacity. Again, it's a digital file in a virtual world. I was actually referring to using an oscilliscope after the digital file is converted to analog (in a CD player) and looking at this wave form. That's right! You would have to leave your precious computer out of the equation to do this (other than copying the file and putting it onto CD). Uh oh! Scarry, huh?
In fact, I am willing to make a serious offer here. I have an oscilloscope sitting in my garage that I would be willing to send you. However, you must agree to actually conduct a real, scientific study with it in regards to this claim. If you are then able to provide evidence to support your claims, I will be the first to admit that I was wrong. However, if it turns out that you were wrong, you will also need to admit to that. Do you have the cajones to take me up on this offer?
You claimed that I wasn't looking at reality due to my understanding of how digital devices work. I responded by making it clear that you were the one with the warped sense of reality. Simply put, digital does not work in the same way as analogue. Your warped reality involves ignoring how digital devices actually do work.I honestly don't know what you mean by the first part of this reply. I do know that it's not a valid response to the ideas I brought up though. Perhaps you could try again. That is: Anyone that believes there is a perfect transfer of any form of energy needs to look at (and in this case more importantly, listen to) reality. -
.... -
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." Friedrich Nietzsche
-
I'm not choosing sides as I am mostly a lurker here at Club Polk, but is someone saying when your computer copies a bunch of ones and zeroes, that we loose some ones and maybe even some zeroes? Unless there is a problem writing to the hard drive, it can't happen.
-
Could info and talk about lossless wave files, flics, and flacs possibly be a bit more sleep-inducing? Wow. This thread, and the joys of listening to a good copy/version of In The Midnight Hour or Mustang Sally are light years apart.
-
Very entertaining thread...
BeefJ, you were right in the other thread. You've no need of the insights on forum dynamics I offerred there.
How do you know if you lose a zero? Can you even know how many you had to begin with? :cheesygrin:... that we loose some ones and maybe even some zeroes?
More on topic...
CD's are going the way of vinyl, pure and simple. Doesn't mean they are doomed to extinction, just 2nd class, boutique status.
Article in the OP thinks that gross sales determine product viability, same mistake the OP made in the other thread.More later,
Tour...
Vox Copuli
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. - Old English Proverb
"Death doesn't come with a Uhaul." - Dennis Gardner
"It's easy to get lost in price vs performance vs ego vs illusion." - doro
"There is a certain entertainment value in ripping the occaisonal (sic) buttmunch..." - TroyD -
Good thing there weren't web sites in 1492. One debate like this and Columbus would of stayed home."The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson
-
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.Yes I do.
If I don't, you butt tubas take far too much license with my words and get off of trying to prove me wrong on some puny little insignificant detail while ignoring the bigger picture. I obviously wasn't enough of an a$$hole though since that happened anyway.Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time. -
CD's are going the way of vinyl, pure and simple. Doesn't mean they are doomed to extinction, just 2nd class, boutique status.
The nice thing about CDs is you can always burn your own, or use a Bluray disc for high-res files. However, try to make your own vinyl record. Not gonna happenLumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
RT-12, CS350-LS, PSW-300, Infinity Overture 1, Monoprice RC-65i
Adcom GFA-545II, GFA-6000, Outlaw Audio 990, Netgear NeoTV
Denon DCM-460, DMD-1000, Sony BDP-360, Bravia KDL-40Z4100/S
Monster AVL-300, HTS-2500 MKII -
sucks2beme wrote: »Good thing there weren't web sites in 1492. One debate like this and Columbus would of stayed home.
Now thats a Texas size funny right there....lol !!HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
I want one!
Could it be more sleep inducing? Absolutely! Let's start with some basic calculus. However, before we start class, we need to take role call.George Grand wrote: »Could info and talk about lossless wave files, flics, and flacs possibly be a bit more sleep-inducing? Wow. This thread, and the joys of listening to a good copy/version of In The Midnight Hour or Mustang Sally are light years apart.
Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller? -
I have used other programs to look at the wave forms of copied files (converted from analog to digital, then put on a CD) besides Audacity. Again, it's a digital file in a virtual world. I was actually referring to using an oscilliscope after the digital file is converted to analog (in a CD player) and looking at this wave form. That's right! You would have to leave your precious computer out of the equation to do this (other than copying the file and putting it onto CD). Uh oh! Scarry, huh?
Since you have not responded, should I assume that you are not brave enough to take me up on my offer to prove your claim?I mentioned the use of an oscilloscope in the prior thread a few times, and you never acknowledged it. So, I must admit that I find it funny that you all of a sudden choose to bring it up. I'm not afraid of what an oscilloscope would show in regards to lossless files; I know that it would confirm what I am claiming.
In fact, I am willing to make a serious offer here. I have an oscilloscope sitting in my garage that I would be willing to send you. However, you must agree to actually conduct a real, scientific study with it in regards to this claim. If you are then able to provide evidence to support your claims, I will be the first to admit that I was wrong. However, if it turns out that you were wrong, you will also need to admit to that. Do you have the cajones to take me up on this offer? -
Dead. The freakin' horse is dead. You can't ride a dead horse. Well you can, but it looks pretty silly.
-
Since you have not responded, should I assume that you are not brave enough to take me up on my offer to prove your claim?
?????
Wow.
You're just..I don't even...just...wow.
I'll bet you're a BLAST at parties, huh?Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you! -
That's actually a good idea. Especially for the more valuable/more mint LP's in your collection. You can actually listen to it without wearing it out.Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you! -
That is some funky stuff right there Mike, pretty cool though and a new one on me.HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
That is really freaking cool. I might try that out sometime, just for fun.
Once rigor mortise sets in, you just put some wheels on the legs and off you go! No, but seriously George, you are the voice of reason around here; we need that.George Grand wrote: »Dead. The freakin' horse is dead. You can't ride a dead horse. Well you can, but it looks pretty silly.
Well, since neither you nor anyone else here actually knows me in real life, you wouldn't have a clue. And that's okay. My internet "life" and my real life are two different entities, and I certainly don't get caught up in whether or not some random stranger on the internet likes me or not. If I really bother you that much, then feel free to put me on ignore; I'd consider it an honor!?????
Wow.
You're just..I don't even...just...wow.
I'll bet you're a BLAST at parties, huh?
I use the internet (and these message boards) for information, as well as an occasional escape from real life. A good debate/discussion, even if the other person(s) is/are clueless, is a good distraction. I also enjoy these kinds of discussions; I wouldn't keep posting if I didn't.
