The end of CD's debunked

headrott

BeefJerky wrote: »

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?

Why would I take you up on your offer? So I can become like you? I already know what the analog audio sounds like when I listen to a 10X copied CD. Why would I need a computer or any other machine to tell me what I already know (assuming said machine(s) can actually tell me that)? I was suggesting you "digital experts" use an oscilloscope to look at the wave form (assuming you can look at it in enough detail to view the jagged wave form of a 10X copied CD).

After reading your responses, I feel safe in saying that you use music as a distraction from life rather than a vehicle for discovery. Also, you use this forum as a distraction (you've admitted this yourself a couple times) from real life. I would suggest you use T.V. and most things you do as a distraction. Therefore, I would argue that your reality is the distorted one. If you're being distractd from real life, how much are you actually aware of, and participating in real life? Can you actually sit down and listen to music for a couple hours without being distracted? That is, sit in one spot with your eyes closed and being still and listen to what the music is describing, and/or listen to the subtle nuances of notes, rhythm, attack, decay, imaging, etc. etc.?

I would also argue that you are letting machines "listen" to the music for you rather than allowing yourself to listen to it. This is why you believe a machine over what you hear. You are far too distracted to actually believe what you are "listening" to. That is because you are not listening to it.

I will try the last part of my last reply in another way (as a question) being as you still have not acknowleged it. That is: Do you believe that there is any form of energy that can be transferred with out being affected (to any degree) using the technology we posess today?

Greg

P.S. Actually, I just read your last reply and again you stated that you use the internet as a distraction from real life. I think someone can get a better idea of what you are like over the internet better than you think.

WilliamM2

headrott wrote: »

That is: Do you believe that there is any form of energy that can be transferred with out being affected (to any degree) using the technology we posess today?

A CD is not a form of energy, neither is a file. Why do you keep asking this? If your copies really do not sound like the original, you are doing something wrong. Maybe the software you use has volume leveling, or some other feature turned on. Making bit perfect copies of CD's is old news, not some new technology.

BlueFox

Greg (headrott), you really need to calm down. You are the only one on the Internet who claims to be able to hear a difference with 'perfect' copied files. As has been pointed out, if you can hear a difference then there is something wrong with the copy/burn process, so they aren't 'perfect'. If copied files are so easy to hear with a difference then that would mean no two CDs would sound the same. Plastic discs being stamped out in a mass produced manner will contain way more difference in files than files being copied via a computer. Yet CD players are able to take these different files and produce the same sound.

F1nut

If copied files are so easy to hear with a difference then that would mean no two CDs would sound the same. Plastic discs being stamped out in a mass produced manner will contain way more difference in files than files being copied via a computer.

Ummm....no. It's because they are stamped that they all sound the same. Hello!

BeefJerky

headrott wrote: »

Why would I take you up on your offer? So I can become like you? I already know what the analog audio sounds like when I listen to a 10X copied CD. Why would I need a computer or any other machine to tell me what I already know (assuming said machine(s) can actually tell me that)? I was suggesting you "digital experts" use an oscilloscope to look at the wave form (assuming you can look at it in enough detail to view the jagged wave form of a 10X copied CD).

After reading your responses, I feel safe in saying that you use music as a distraction from life rather than a vehicle for discovery. Also, you use this forum as a distraction (you've admitted this yourself a couple times) from real life. I would suggest you use T.V. and most things you do as a distraction. Therefore, I would argue that your reality is the distorted one. If you're being distractd from real life, how much are you actually aware of, and participating in real life? Can you actually sit down and listen to music for a couple hours without being distracted? That is, sit in one spot with your eyes closed and being still and listen to what the music is describing, and/or listen to the subtle nuances of notes, rhythm, attack, decay, imaging, etc. etc.?

I would also argue that you are letting machines "listen" to the music for you rather than allowing yourself to listen to it. This is why you believe a machine over what you hear. You are far too distracted to actually believe what you are "listening" to. That is because you are not listening to it.

I will try the last part of my last reply in another way (as a question) being as you still have not acknowleged it. That is: Do you believe that there is any form of energy that can be transferred with out being affected (to any degree) using the technology we posess today?

Greg

P.S. Actually, I just read your last reply and again you stated that you use the internet as a distraction from real life. I think someone can get a better idea of what you are like over the internet better than you think.

Greg, I only brought up the oscilloscope offer because you chose to mention it in your post. As for your thoughts on my life, they're inaccurate, but I'm not surprised since you don't actually know me in real life (and probably never will).

At this point, I am going to take a cue from George Grand, as he is one of the few people on this forum that I respect. As much as I'm enjoying this discussion, we're beating a dead, rotting horse here. You choose to turn a blind eye (or should I say a deaf ear) to science, whereas I choose to embrace it. It's all good; life goes on, bra.

BlueFox

Ummm....no. It's because they are stamped that they all sound the same. Hello!

Yes, they sound the same, but it is not because they are stamped. Each CD is slightly different. Mechanical copies are never perfectly the same. Some pits are bigger/smaller than the same pits on other disks. The coating is not evenly applied between all disks. Microscopic ridges are like hills to a laser. Read jitter is different for each disk. Some disks have physical defects, others do not, or have different defects. Yet with all these differences, the end result is still the same.

Syndil

You can't argue someone's faith, as faith--by definition--is the belief in something that cannot be proven.

dkg999

GG - you may not be able to ride a dead horse, however you can keep beating it until the rotting flesh is completely pulverized and turning into dust.

I look forward to having this same discussion once a year for the next 20 years as we still wonder when the CD format will go away. I mean for how many years did we wonder when the vinyl LP was going away? Vinyl LP's did go away ........... right?

tonyb

Good point Doug, and your right, for the next 20 years someone will keep posting about the death of the cd, the record player, the dvd or whatever the flavor of the year is......and we'll still beat that horse too.

Tour2ma

Not to further flog ol' Buttercup here, but why the hell was the other thread closed?

cnh

I'm not one who subscribes to the "superiority" of analog vinyl, but that doesn't stop me from having vinyl in my collection and some equipment to play it on.

CDs...Doug has a point and I'm old school. I actually like looking through my CDs and loading them. What we will see in the coming years is something like Zen and the Art of the CD; that revels in the meditative benefits of this activity!

cnh

tonyb

Good point that we never bring up. Visual as an important part of audio. On the surface, you'd say WTF are you talking about, but if you think about it, alot of times you visualize moments in time when listening to certain music. Cover art on albums, cd cases, also contribute to those memories like an old photograph that you bring out every so often to touch and gaze apon. Kinda like a painting, you can view on the internet but can you really appreciate it unless you have it physically infront of you ? Some may disagree with this notion, but personally I think for me anyway, visual holds some merit for audio.

rromeo923

BOUGHT some music today! And no it was not a CD.

Vinyl!! Mission store $1

Paul Simon - There Goes Rhymin' Simon
Cat Stevens- Teaser and the Firecat

I guess growing up in the 70's makes me feel nostalgic. I love albums.

BlueFox

Their is a minor visual element to audio. For example, watching a live performance. However, music is almost exclusively an auditory experience. I will look at the CD, and notes, the first time I play it. I might even look at it again at some point in the future. However, 99.99999% of the time it is simply remove the CD from the holder, put it in the player, and listen to the music. Being able to eliminate that drudgery for 99.99999% of the time is a phenomenal ability.

BeefJerky

rromeo923 wrote: »

Cat Stevens- Teaser and the Firecat

I guess growing up in the 70's makes me feel nostalgic. I love albums.

Excellent album, but I still think Tea for the Tillerman is my favorite of his.

I grew up in the 80's, but I still grew up with vinyl. It definitely does have a great nostalgic feel to it, and I don't think I would ever completely get rid of my vinyl setup. I still have my Fisher-Price record player up in my closet that I used as a kid, so I always have that.

[Deleted User]

tonyb wrote: »

Good point that we never bring up. Visual as an important part of audio. On the surface, you'd say WTF are you talking about, but if you think about it, alot of times you visualize moments in time when listening to certain music. Cover art on albums, cd cases, also contribute to those memories like an old photograph that you bring out every so often to touch and gaze apon. Kinda like a painting, you can view on the internet but can you really appreciate it unless you have it physically infront of you ? Some may disagree with this notion, but personally I think for me anyway, visual holds some merit for audio.

+1. Album art and reading the liner notes are all part of the experience. :cool:

chumlie

+2 on that.

Tour2ma

^ Tactile is the word I've always use for the vinyl experience...

It's the whole pre-play "ceremony" of sliding the LP and sleeve out of the jacket, the LP out of the sleeve. The mastering the handling techniques, i.e., the "catch" coming out of the sleeve, the flip to get Side 1 topside and careful placement on the platter. Then there's the preening and setting the stylus in the groove, before retiring to the listening position with photos, liner notes and lyrics in hand for a 20-ish minutes music experience to be repeated as necessary.

Don't even get me started on flipping through a record bin...:cheesygrin:

CD's just don't offer vinyl's level of involvement. Best analogy I can come up with is: Vinyl is to CD as 6-spd manual is to automatic. But I can see where CD's offer more involvement than the digital download world.