CD vs Vinyl sound

hearingimpared

See ya, bozo listed.

yepimonfire

heiney9 wrote: »

Noyournotonfire.............you are wrong and have been added to the IL

H9

what is an IL and how am i wrong?

headrott

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

I tend to favor the funk of mixo-lydian over ionian, its just does something swapping the end and beginning while leaving the middle the same, of course the flat 7 is bound to appear and in the end what mixo is about.

certainly not identical, but oh so musical.

RT1

I think these types of threads sometimes lean towards phrygian mode.

Greg

SCompRacer

yepimonfire wrote: »

ripped to FLAC, burnt to a blank CD, ripped from the blank CD to FLAC, copied from the main hard drive to en external one, the burnt back to a CD and ripped to FLAC again, then re-converted to WAV. put the original recording from the CD into audacity, then placed the 6 times copied file in and inverted it, what do i hear? silence. myth debunked. want the WAV file to prove it? just ask....

Where is the vinyl track you compared the CD track to?

headrott

yepimonfire wrote: »

i like the lenard audio institute defenition of an audiophile, it fits alot of people on here

"Audiophiles' became one of the most bizarre cults of the previous century. Claiming to be gifted with golden ears, audiophiles can hear electrons traveling in wires, and have the ability to channel thought into crystals to ward off evil harmonics. Cloaking themselves in mystical terms unrelated to music and physics, they can be heard chanting model numbers and superlatives. This delusional mix of paranoia and marketing hype, where descriptions attain to greater meaning than the described, exists in all areas of society."

I don't claim to be gifted with "golden ears" or any such nonsense. I simply have some ears and a brain. Oh, I also have the patience to actually sit down between two pretty high quality quality speakers hooked up with some relatively good quality wires, hooked up to relatively good equipment without any expectations either way of what I am going to hear and actually listen. Yes, actually listen without disctractions to what is being played. Then, I make up my mind what I am hearing. That's all.

Greg

headrott

cnh wrote: »

Theoretically, if one is using a good program to burn a file that has been stored in a high quality lossless format you should produce an identical digital copy. The question, therefore is 'what' are you using?

I, myself, can't hear what you are referring to on my burns.

It would also follow from your argument that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO STORE SOMETHING ON A HARD DRIVE IN A LOSSLESS FORMAT. That lossless formats don't exist?

cnh

cnh, I would argue that no format is truely lossless. That is a term given to something that is not attainable with the equipment we currently have. Just as there are no lossless IC cables. Some of the electrons are diminished and lost when traveling through the cable from whatever source to whatever equipment they are going to. And, that's just the IC cable not including all other wires and plugs, etc. the signal is traveling through. So yes, my argument would be there is no way to store something on a hard drive in a truely lossless format. It doesn't exist.

I will say there are formats and equipment that lose less information than others.

Greg

yepimonfire

"Where is the vinyl track you compared the CD track to?"


this was about whether or not Cds can be copied without altering the quality so there is no vinyl, i was only proving it remains the same.

SCompRacer

yepimonfire wrote: »

"Where is the vinyl track you compared the CD track to?"


this was about whether or not Cds can be copied without altering the quality so there is no vinyl, i was only proving it remains the same.

Well, my mistake then. But there was this statement made by you prior to the CD copy post.

yepimonfire wrote: »

i just want to say even with its very minor flaws and issues digital ALWAYS WINS, reason being, it is virtually immortal, you can play the same CD 375837583459345873584953 times and it will sound the exact same as before, every play of an analog tape or vinyl reduces the quality of the sound, and eventually erases itself. you can also copy digital things inumerously without losing quality, ive also noticed alot of vinyls arent very accurate in representing low frequencies (below 50hz) or very high ones (18khz+)

If every play of a vinyl record reduces the quality of sound, I would expect we could see that in Audactiy after...lets say six recordings of the same vinyl track.

yepimonfire

then we need to do a double blind test, get two vinyls, play one six times, do not play the other, switch back and forth between the two WITHOUT knowing which is which, so there is no placebo effect.

SCompRacer

No double blind test needed. If vinyl wears and degrades after each play, we should see it in the waveform display of each subsequent track.

dkg999

Well Ollie, that's another fine mess you've gotten us into :eek:

Cpyder

SCompRacer wrote: »

No double blind test needed. If vinyl wears and degrades after each play, we should see it in the waveform display of each subsequent track.

If the differences are small it will be hard to notice/compare them due to the presence of noise in the recording.

Once a record is played a great amount of time, it becomes very evident that there are losses in the upper frequencies. You can see this in the spectrogram. The question that remains is: How many plays are needed before this becomes visibly obvious? As said before by heiney and others, it depends on several factors of your playback setup.

yepimonfire

this was my original point, i have digital recordings (cds) that belonged to my parents in the late 80s and they still sound the same way they did when they got them, granted you do not scratch and damage the discs, CDs will continue to play back the exact same waveform for the life of the CD. vinyl wears out, i know this because my grandmother has several 70s vinyl records and the high end of the recordings has been completly trashed. point is CDs DO NOT do this over time.

dkg999

And the properties and elasticity of the vinyl

yepimonfire

part of it has to do with the medium itself, if you were to put digital music onto a vinyl, it would play good for so long until it begins stuttering, poping, and doing all sorts of other weird things corrupt digital things do. if you could put an analog signal onto a comapct disc (which im sure with the right tools you could, laser disks used this type of tech for video) it would last much longer. but if you were to put an analog song on something like a hard drive, it would degrade over time, reason being is waveforms are complex, digital waveforms are pretty simple and you either have a - or + voltage the dac has to resolve

nooshinjohn

yepimonfire wrote: »

i like the lenard audio institute defenition of an audiophile, it fits alot of people on here

"Audiophiles' became one of the most bizarre cults of the previous century. Claiming to be gifted with golden ears, audiophiles can hear electrons traveling in wires, and have the ability to channel thought into crystals to ward off evil harmonics. Cloaking themselves in mystical terms unrelated to music and physics, they can be heard chanting model numbers and superlatives. This delusional mix of paranoia and marketing hype, where descriptions attain to greater meaning than the described, exists in all areas of society."

Welcome back Seafart... you have not been missed.

IL listed.

yepimonfire

glad to know i wont have any stereowiccans viewing my posts and casting black audio incantations to curse me with standing wave issues.

how about everybody here who thinks science and physics dont matter just go ahead and IL me now?

shack

I am so glad another individual has come here to set us straight about the error of our audio ways. Since he has imparted such a vast amount of knowledge in a few posts... about things I was never aware of over that last 40 years regarding audio, electronics, computers, etc :rolleyes:...there is no reason for me to read another single one of his posts. Off to the IL.

Cpyder

yepimonfire wrote: »

:rolleyes:
no, doing an out of phase test is absolute, if there is any difference between the two waveforms you can hear the song if they are the same you cannot hear ANYTHING, it is silence.

You could also use Foobar's bit comparator. It will analyze every bit between the two and spot differences. Then you don't have to spend the 3 minutes listening to the inverted vs normal tracks.

Cpyder

headrott wrote: »

cnh, I would argue that no format is truely lossless. That is a term given to something that is not attainable with the equipment we currently have. Just as there are no lossless IC cables. Some of the electrons are diminished and lost when traveling through the cable from whatever source to whatever equipment they are going to. And, that's just the IC cable not including all other wires and plugs, etc. the signal is traveling through. So yes, my argument would be there is no way to store something on a hard drive in a truely lossless format. It doesn't exist.

I will say there are formats and equipment that lose less information than others.

Greg

BlueFox wrote: »

Sorry. In this case you are completely wrong. That is one of the benefits of digital data. You do not lose a little over time. The only way to lose digital data is to erase it, or have defective equipment. We can all send the same file, in a serial manner, to everyone on this forum, and the file will be the same for the last person as it is for the first person.

I've gotta side with BlueFox here. Headrott, you're right - bits of data can be lost in rare situations. But like BlueFox said, a benefit of digital is it's resistance to data loss. Losing an electron here and there won't matter as long as the signal strength is still strong enough to overcome noise and register at the other end of the line.

Digital isn't stored and transmitted at the electron level. If a signal is strong enough, it will be interpreted as a 1 or a 0. If you lose information from a 1 it doesn't become a 0.8, for example. It either reads as a 1 or nothing.

If data was lost when transferring from hard drive to hard drive, for example, you could easily check using a multitude of programs. I have moved files, converted them, burned them, etc and I've never not seen a 100% copy go through. Errors can happen, but in the digital realm it's easy to check. In the analog realm, not so much.

If you're skeptical I have a good test for you. Shoot me your email in a PM and I'll send you a 10 second lossless audio sample. You can convert it to any other lossless format, send it back, and I will bit-for-bit compare your track with the track on my computer. I'm betting they will be exactly the same. Think about all the physical states the sample will be in between you and I. It will be wirelessly transmitted through the router, sent down miles of wire to the ISP, sent across the country to your house, get stored on a magnetic hard drive in your computer and then sent back. And I'm betting not a signal bit of data will be lost. Aren't computers awesome!?

Anyone can take me up on this offer. Send shoot me a PM.

Fongolio

Cpyder wrote: »

I've gotta side with BlueFox here. Headrott, you're right - bits of data can be lost in rare situations. But like BlueFox said, a benefit of digital is it's resistance to data loss. Losing an electron here and there won't matter as long as the signal strength is still strong enough to overcome noise and register at the other end of the line.

Digital isn't stored and transmitted at the electron level. If a signal is strong enough, it will be interpreted as a 1 or a 0. If you lose information from a 1 it doesn't become a 0.8, for example. It either reads as a 1 or nothing.

If data was lost when transferring from hard drive to hard drive, for example, you could easily check using a multitude of programs. I have moved files, converted them, burned them, etc and I've never not seen a 100% copy go through. Errors can happen, but in the digital realm it's easy to check. In the analog realm, not so much.

If you're skeptical I have a good test for you. Shoot me your email in a PM and I'll send you a 10 second lossless audio sample. You can convert it to any other lossless format, send it back, and I will bit-for-bit compare your track with the track on my computer. I'm betting they will be exactly the same. Think about all the physical states the sample will be in between you and I. It will be wirelessly transmitted through the router, sent down miles of wire to the ISP, sent across the country to your house, get stored on a magnetic hard drive in your computer and then sent back. And I'm betting not a signal bit of data will be lost. Aren't computers awesome!?

Anyone can take me up on this offer. Send shoot me a PM.

Which is why error correction is simply unnecessary and pointless and yet still used in almost every cdp and comp based software players?

headrott

yepimonfire wrote: »

glad to know i wont have any stereowiccans viewing my posts and casting black audio incantations to curse me with standing wave issues.

how about everybody here who thinks science and physics dont matter just go ahead and IL me now?

I don't think they don't matter, I just believe that they (scientists, physicists) can misinterpret and even misrepresent when reality is reality, based on the acuracy of the observations. Do you think that all scientists are perfect? Do you believe science is perfect? Good luck to you if you believe that. Have a nice day. I trust my own personal observations over what any science book or scientist says regarding the music I hear. But, I accept the responsibility of that as well. If I am deluding myself, I can't blame anyone but myself. On the other hand if you are trusting your numbers to what a scientist/physicist says about the the music you are listening to then who is correct or incorrect? The scientist, not you. The consequence of that is that your observations are based on what someone else observed, not you. You would be like a blind (or deaf) person when it comes to observing the sounds you are hearing.

Greg

Cpyder

Fongolio wrote: »

Which is why error correction is simply unnecessary and pointless and yet still used in almost every cdp and comp based software players?

I never said error correction isn't necessary. Errors can occur. But not often and when they do they are almost always corrected. If they can't be corrected, there are algorithms to interpolate and "guess" what the byte should have read. This doesn't fix the error but will "fill" in the error with something close the the original instead of an audible pop or click. This is what's called a graceful degradation.

Edit: Of course media can be scratched to the point of no return, though.

headrott

BlueFox wrote: »

Sorry. In this case you are completely wrong. That is one of the benefits of digital data. You do not lose a little over time. The only way to lose digital data is to erase it, or have defective equipment. We can all send the same file, in a serial manner, to everyone on this forum, and the file will be the same for the last person as it is for the first person.

Incorrect. The equipment is by its design and assembly defective even when working the best it can and that was my point. Do you really believe that any digital electronic device made by anyone works perfectly without any error, ever? Digital data may be theoretically transferred perfectly (i.e. it's either there or not), but what about what happens to it when transferring from one source and/or medium to another? It is degraded. Just as anything is degraded over time and distance. There is no perfect transfer of any signal, digital or otherwise.

Greg

Cpyder

headrott wrote: »

I don't think they don't matter, I just believe that they (scientists, physicists) can misinterpret and even misrepresent when reality is reality, based on the acuracy of the observations. Do you think that all scientists are perfect? Do you believe science is perfect? Good luck to you if you believe that. Have a nice day. I trust my own personal observations over what any science book or scientist says regarding the music I hear. But, I accept the responsibility of that as well. If I am deluding myself, I can't blame anyone but myself. On the other hand if you are trusting your numbers to what a scientist/physicist says about the the music you are listening to then who is correct or incorrect? The scientist, not you. The consequence of that is that your observations are based on what someone else observed, not you. You would be like a blind (or deaf) person when it comes to observing the sounds you are hearing.

Greg

One point, then I promise to get back on topic.

Science isn't perfect. But I cannot think of any other method that is anywhere close to as accurate at modeling and predicting the world around us. With that said, I think it's also true that there really aren't that many great scientists studying high fidelity music reproduction. And I also don't think scientific research in high-end audio is peer reviewed very heavily. The peer review process is one of the most powerful aspects of scientific research. So I agree with you in that there is a lot left to study with music reproduction. And because it's really not going to make the world around us any better (as medicine does, for example) I don't think there are many people standing in line to research what format is better: vinyl or cd. Haha

Cpyder

headrott wrote: »

Incorrect. The equipment is by its design and assembly defective even when working the best it can and that was my point. Do you really believe that any digital electronic device made by anyone works perfectly without any error, ever? Digital data may be theoretically transferred perfectly (i.e. it's either there or not), but what about what happens to it when transferring from one source and/or medium to another? It is degraded. Just as anything is degraded over time and distance. There is no perfect transfer of any signal, digital or otherwise.

Greg

I'm confused. Are you saying you can't transfer digital information from one hard drive to another, for example, perfectly? (One source to another) It can be verified so easily, though.

Digital is just a string of numbers. Here you go: 123456789. Copy that code and put it in your next post. If it matches, you just witnessed a digital signal being transfered absolutely perfectly. And that is how digital audio works. It's no different. The string of numbers is just longer. That's the only difference.

F1nut

BlueFox wrote: »

Another troll who has no idea what he is talking about. Plonk!

I'm not going to get into who is right or wrong about the subject matter here, but calling Greg a troll is completely uncalled for. He is a valued and respected member.

headrott

Cpyder wrote: »

I've gotta side with BlueFox here. Headrott, you're right - bits of data can be lost in rare situations. But like BlueFox said, a benefit of digital is it's resistance to data loss. Losing an electron here and there won't matter as long as the signal strength is still strong enough to overcome noise and register at the other end of the line.

Digital isn't stored and transmitted at the electron level. If a signal is strong enough, it will be interpreted as a 1 or a 0. If you lose information from a 1 it doesn't become a 0.8, for example. It either reads as a 1 or nothing.

If data was lost when transferring from hard drive to hard drive, for example, you could easily check using a multitude of programs. I have moved files, converted them, burned them, etc and I've never not seen a 100% copy go through. Errors can happen, but in the digital realm it's easy to check. In the analog realm, not so much.

If you're skeptical I have a good test for you. Shoot me your email in a PM and I'll send you a 10 second lossless audio sample. You can convert it to any other lossless format, send it back, and I will bit-for-bit compare your track with the track on my computer. I'm betting they will be exactly the same. Think about all the physical states the sample will be in between you and I. It will be wirelessly transmitted through the router, sent down miles of wire to the ISP, sent across the country to your house, get stored on a magnetic hard drive in your computer and then sent back. And I'm betting not a signal bit of data will be lost. Aren't computers awesome!?

Anyone can take me up on this offer. Send shoot me a PM.

As I stated before Cpyder, I know that people throw out numbers that they get from a computer, multimeter, etc. to show that there is no loss of data. I question the accuracy of these readings. Have you? You can question the accuracy of my hearing so that makes questioning the accuracy of your readings fair game, agreed? The difference between your readings and my hearing is where they are coming from. My hearing is coming form me, but your readings are coming from a computer program in a machine designed by someone else and therefore based off of someone elses design. As I stated earlier, you cannot claim accuracy or inaccuracy of those numbers you generate with your computer.

Greg

yepimonfire

BlueFox wrote: »

It is cheap to add, and, at least for CDs, has a real benefit when playing scratched, or otherwise damaged CDs. Would you rather throw away scratched CDs, or have the software correct the error?

actually error correction is not only in the players, but also built into the cd, the data repeats itself multiple times, which is one of the reasons DVDs hold more data, they have no error correction.

yepimonfire

BlueFox wrote: »

Not trueAnother troll whoTrue has no idea what he is talking about. Plonk!

why do people call normal posters trolls?????????/ TROLLS ARE PEOPLE WHO PURPOSELY START COMMOTION, got it? for instance if i were to come in here and say something profane or rude and it was off topic, i am now a troll. why do i have to give a lesson on this on ever forum i join?

i asked a legitamate question on AH and got accused of being a troll.