CD vs Vinyl sound

heiney9

Jesse, why are you wasting your time with this one. He hasn't even begun to scratch the surface of learning and hasn't a clue what he is talking about. His fire has been extinguished.

H9

headrott

Cpyder wrote: »

Here's one more example where I changed 3 samples at/around 7, 14, and 21 seconds. See how it flagged those 3 differences in the bits of data?

Ok, but I am still not hearing anything...........

Greg

headrott

BlueFox wrote: »

Because he has no idea what he is talking about, and keeps repeating his nonsense in an attempt to start arguments. Digital data can be copied an infinite number of times with no degradation. To say otherwise in the face of decades of actual operation is either the height of ignorance, or trolling.

Every time you play a CD you are copying the data from the CD to the player. Does it sound different each time you play it? Of course not. If it did it is because something is broken, not because the digital data changes when it is copied.

This post will be copied many times as it leaves my computer, and arrives on this forum. I will check it after it is posted, and verify if it is correct, or has been changed.

Error Check:

Looks like the original post made it unchanged. Science wins again over ignorance, fantasy, and wishfull thinking.

I said nothing about "reading" a CD into a DAC and outputing analog sound. I was talking about making a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. of a CD. On some sites they call it "weeding" and "re-weeding". They pass around a copy of and audio CD. In order to do this, it is not copied from the same original source CD, it is copied from a copy of it, and then passed on again and again. This is what degrades the audio at the electron level because the electrons are not passed from one source to another perfectly. It may be a close approximation to the same, but is absolutely not the same. The more times this occurs, the more the signal is degraded. Just as an analog signal is, except it occurs more quickly with an analog signal because it is not copied as efficiently. Despite what any computer program tells me or you, the degredation is there. I can hear it. A computer generating numbers trying to convince me otherwise won't change the fact that what I am hearing is a degraded audio signal. Please go back and read my other posts to see why that is. Please don't misrepresent what i am saying.

Greg

Cpyder

headrott wrote: »

Ok, but I am still not hearing anything...........

Greg

I was simply showing how ANY changes to a digital audio file are easily flagged and reported if there's errors. You were saying earlier you didn't think that digital was all that accurate as far as detecting errors.

Cpyder

headrott wrote: »

I said nothing about "reading" a CD into a DAC and outputing analog sound. I was talking about making a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. of a CD. On some sites they call it "weeding" and "re-weeding". They pass around a copy of and audio CD. In order to do this, it is not copied from the same original source CD, it is copied from a copy of it, and then passed on again and again. This is what degrades the audio at the electron level because the electrons are not passed from one source to another perfectly. It may be a close approximation to the same, but is absolutely not the same. The more times this occurs, the more the signal is degraded. Just as an analog signal is, except it occurs more quickly with an analog signal because it is not copied as efficiently. Despite what any computer program tells me or you, the degredation is there. I can hear it. A computer generating numbers trying to convince me otherwise won't change the fact that what I am hearing is a degraded audio signal. Please go back and read my other posts to see why that is. Please don't misrepresent what i am saying.

Greg

Digital code isn't technically copied . It's not taking a snapshot of the data and storing that. The computer reads the values and re-writes the data. So if a pit on a cd has been degraded a little, but not enough to cause an error, a copy of that data will not transfer this degraded pit's characteristics. It reads it as a 1 or 0 and then re-writes a 1 or 0 to whatever medium it is writing to. Any degredation, as long as a 1 or 0 is read, does NOT get carried over. That's why you can make unlimited copies without loosing information.

Don't confuse digital with analog. With analog, the "values" at an instantaneous point in time technically have unlimited significant digits. For example, 3.4947197571100...... Digital is only 1 or 0. There is no such thing as a .5 or a 1.1.

Another way to think about it is in this way: To distribute a analog picture, you could take a picture of the picture with a non-digital camera and pass it along to your friend. He could do the same thing and pass it along to another friend. You lose information with every picture taken. With digital, you take the first picture, convert it to numbers, and then send those numbers to your friends. Their computer will generate an image based on those numbers, and everyone will have the EXACT same picture as everyone else.

Edit: In digital you have to choose a point where you stop caring about sig-figs. This is the bit-depth. If you wanted to report 3.4947197571100.... to 5 decimal points, it would read in binary like this:

3.49471 = 00110011001011100011010000111001001101000011011100110001

And 1 decimal would look like this:

3.5 = 001100110010111000110101

See how more signifcant digits adds more data. Sort of a side tangent but this is why 24-bit audio takes up more space than 16-bit audio.

headrott

Cpyder wrote: »

I was simply showing how ANY changes to a digital audio file are easily flagged and reported if there's errors. You were saying earlier you didn't think that digital was all that accurate as far as detecting errors.

My point of that post is that I believe my ability to listen to a degraded audio signal is better than your computer's ability to detect a degraded audio signal.

How fine is your computers ability to detect the degredation of an audio signal? I am willing to bet my ability (using my ears and brain) to listen to and detect a degraded audio signal is better than your computer's ability to do the same. Your computer is only able to work on finite levels, my brain and hearing have the ability to listen on infinite levels.

Greg

hearingimpared

"Oh, you put the shell right in here, and it spins all around, all around, oh, oh, oh . . . and comes out there." ~Curley Howard - The Three Stooges :D

yepimonfire

BlueFox wrote: »

Maybe not, but the full moon is known for bringing out the "lunatics". Sort of like some of these threads.

yes like those stereowizards who have been channeling bad room modes into my house, had to have catholic audiophile come here and cast them out, unfortunatley i recently discovered he molested my receiver, it will never sound the same

audio is not magic, not religion, not mystic. it is science.

yepimonfire

headrott wrote: »

Ok, but I am still not hearing anything...........

Greg

i think this proves the computer is better, sorry greg, but you get an F - -

Cpyder

headrott wrote: »

How fine is your computers ability to detect the degredation of an audio signal? I am willing to bet my ability (using my ears and brain) to listen to and detect a degraded audio signal is better than your computer's ability to do the same. Your computer is only able to work on finite levels, my brain and hearing have the ability to listen on infinite levels.

Greg

My computer is amazingly accurate at finding errors in a digital code. So is yours. A computer can easily determine that these numbers aren't the same: 123 vs. 132. That's all it's doing when it is comparing two files for differences. (Just the string of numbers is longer)

We may be talking about two different things though. There's really no such thing as a digital audio signal, per se. It's just a string of numbers - it's not audio. You can't hear it - you must convert any digital string of numbers into analog before they make any sense to our ears, eyes, etc. After you convert a digital signal into analog, then you may find differences for numerous reasons (electrical interference, random noise from components etc.) This happens after the signal is in analog. As long as you keep the information in digital format, there will be no difference between any two copies. If there is, then the data didn't get "copied" correctly and any computer will report this error and try again. If it fails, it fails, but there won't be any secret bits that sneak through or get dropped from the code you're not aware of. A computer WILL know and WILL report it.

yepimonfire

F1nut wrote: »

You have a lot to learn. These days the THD of any SS amp, even the dirt cheap ones, are below the threshold thought to be audible. What's interesting is that tube amps have much higher THD ratings and a lot of folks think they sound better than SS amps. Therefore, THD has a lot less to do with it than you think.



Are you kidding me!?! Every part of the audio chain has to do with imaging.



Just about every amp has its limits and when pushed into clipping they all sound bad. Some of what makes SS amps sound different is the design/circuit topology and the components used. The class type (goes to design) of the amp plays a large part in how it sounds. Pure class A SS amps sound different (better) than class A/B or class D......by design.



Ummm....yes, it will run out of juice, a few dB after your other amp will. For example, it takes double the power to get a 3 dB increase in volume, so if your speakers are rated at 90dB........

1 watt= 90dB
2=93
4=96
8=99
16=102
32=105
64=108
132=111
264=113

So, let's say your Marantz will be able to play roughly 5dB louder than your Kenwood. Not a lot really.

While I don't know the exact headroom rating of either amp you own, I'm willing to bet both are around 1.5dB making that a non-factor.

All for now, gotta go.

5 db is almost a 2x increase in percieved volume, dont you know how decibels work? and i can get a 127db output from just the front channels of my system, there is no way in hell i can legally listen that loud without the cops showing up. the kenwood has little to no headroom open the thing up and it is mostly empty space, the marantz on the other hand is full of stuff, and it has a MASSIVE power transformer, big difference in headroom. a 50w will only give you a 17db gain, using speakers rated at 87db, thats not much. and imaging has nothing to do with anything but the source and speakers. do you even know what imaging is or these other terms you foolishly throw around like your some "audio god"? you couldnt even give me an accurate db measurment and apparently you think 5db is not much, it is almost double the percieved volume.

yepimonfire

heiney9

NM..........I'm not getting involved with this BS poster

hearingimpared

heiney9 wrote: »

NM..........I'm not getting involved with this BS poster

I can't see his posts Brock but I did see your reply before you edited it and it makes all the sense in the world.

heiney9

hearingimpared wrote: »

I can't see his posts Brock but I did see your reply before you edited it and it makes all the sense in the world.

I can't either, but I peaked.

headrott

yepimonfire wrote: »

audio is not magic, not religion, not mystic. it is science.

Actually, it's nature.

"Two notes of the cord, that's our full scope. But to reach the chord is our lifes hope" - The Moody Blues

Greg

[Deleted User]

Everyone calm down, take a deep breath! No one is a fool, nor a lunatic. Maybe this thread has gone as far as it needs to?
Should it be closed and everyone walk away? I hate to see it spiral out of orbit.
Ken

nooshinjohn

No reason to close it Ken, but trolls should be dealt with accordingly.

"audio god"

Glad to know that F1 is a GOD though. Now I can show him the proper respect.:D

headrott

Ken,

Thank you for allowing everyone to think about things instead of just closing the thread. I agree that things are spiralling faster, but that is some peoples' intentions I believe. Not everyone is looking to call people names and belittle people. There are some though. I hope that people can disclose useful information rather than belittle. I, for one choose the information.

Greg

Edit: The comments towards Jesse are absolutely uncalled for and should not be tolerated though.

mhardy6647

A 5 dB increase, while certainly audible, is not "almost twice as loud"; that would be a 10 dB increase (10 deciBel = one Bel, named after Alexander Graham Bell). The scale is not linear, it is logarithmic. A 20 dB increase is four times as loud relative to the reference point, and would require one hundred times as much input power to achieve.

A 3 dB increase is typically considered "just notably audible" and requires twice as much power, as F1 pointed out, compared to the reference sound level. That is why -3 dB points are often used (by reputable manufacturers) to define the frequency response of components (particularly loudspeakers).

hearingimpared

Kenneth Swauger wrote: »

Everyone calm down, take a deep breath! No one is a fool, nor a lunatic. Maybe this thread has gone as far as it needs to?
Should it be closed and everyone walk away? I hate to see it spiral out of orbit.
Ken

Please no, as I would like to see it get back on track, you know, "CD vs. Vinyl."

[Deleted User]

At the end of the day everything can sound great or terrible, or somewhere in between. I've heard CDs that sound amazing, truly excellent and there are others that fall short. The same with records and tapes, I just threw away a record that I couldn't stand (I have probably thrown away three records in my life) and it was recommended by a person that I still believe knows what he's saying. It just didn't click with me.
No one recording medium has the lock on sounding like real live music. Some seem to hit the mark more than others. But, there are too many choices that happen between the musician sitting in front of the microphone and me sitting in front of my speakers that effect the final sound to look for absolutes.
Regards, Ken

yepimonfire

well ive said my peace and im getting no where by arguing, and secondly, ABSOLUTLEY NO ONE who has made a post on this thread is a troll, trolls post useless posts just to anger people and they have no desire to contribute to the community of people on the forum, they are usually boredand find it hilarious to confuse or disgruntle people.

im ending with in my opinion, no analog media is capable of storing, reproducing, or copying like digital is, if you feel differently, great, spend your money on vinyls. have a nice day, whether you chose to have a digital or analog one!

shack

heiney9 wrote:

I can't either, but I peaked.

Not me...it only took a couple of posts to realize there was no intelligent life on his planet...

Beam me up Scotty!

F1nut

yepimonfire wrote: »

5 db is almost a 2x increase in percieved volume, dont you know how decibels work?

Do you?

and i can get a 127db output from just the front channels of my system,

Really? What gear are you running and please list the rated power output of your amp and the efficiency of your speakers.

there is no way in hell i can legally listen that loud without the cops showing up.

That would depend on a number of factors such as the time of day, the type of residence you live in/distance to neighbors and the local laws.

the kenwood has little to no headroom open the thing up and it is mostly empty space, the marantz on the other hand is full of stuff, and it has a MASSIVE power transformer, big difference in headroom.

"Full of stuff".....could you be a little more techincal, please?

a 50w will only give you a 17db gain, using speakers rated at 87db, thats not much.

It's not bad either and for some, plenty. Regardless, what is your point?

and imaging has nothing to do with anything but the source and speakers. do you even know what imaging is or these other terms you foolishly throw around like your some "audio god"?

As I stated previously, you have a lot to learn. I'd suggest you stick around, keep an open mind and one day you too may have someone call you an audio god.

you couldnt even give me an accurate db measurment and apparently you think 5db is not much, it is almost double the percieved volume.

Please see my comment immediately above.


With that, I'm out of this one Ken.

reeltrouble1

I wonder if screen names were elimanated what threads would be closed??????

I use both media and plan on continuing to do so.

RT1

yepimonfire

F1nut wrote: »

Do you?



Really? What gear are you running and please list the rated power output of your amp and the efficiency of your speakers.



That would depend on a number of factors such as the time of day, the type of residence you live in/distance to neighbors and the local laws.



"Full of stuff".....could you be a little more techincal, please?



It's not bad either and for some, plenty. Regardless, what is your point?



As I stated previously, you have a lot to learn. I'd suggest you stick around, keep an open mind and one day you too may have someone call you an audio god.



Please see my comment immediately above.


With that, I'm out of this one Ken.

unfortunately everything youve said so far conflicts with everything i have learned from multiple sources and to accept what you say goes against books worth of study. i'd suggest you go to amazon.com and pick up some books on audio reproduction and recording and then come back. either way no point in arguing with people who have heir minds already made up.

nooshinjohn

yepimonfire wrote: »

unfortunately everything youve said so far conflicts with everything i have learned from multiple sources and to accept what you say goes against books worth of study. i'd suggest you go to amazon.com and pick up some books on audio reproduction and recording and then come back. either way no point in arguing with people who have heir minds already made up.

There are so many grammatical and spelling errors here that is is laughable at best. It is clear you cannot spell and you expect us to believe you can read?:p;):D

On a serious note, F1's experience comes from just that, experience. If you are only getting yours from books, then you are missing most of the story, and that has little relevance here. Get your learn on with actual equipment and then make comments based on your observations.:)

yepimonfire

nooshinjohn wrote: »

There are so many grammatical and spelling errors here that is is laughable at best. It is clear you cannot spell and you expect us to believe you can read?:p;):D

On a serious note, F1's experience comes from just that, experience. If you are only getting yours from books, then you are missing most of the story, and that has little relevance here. Get your learn on with actual equipment and then make comments based on your observations.:)

now you are just grasping at straws :rolleyes:

yepimonfire

lets stop the arguing and actually discuss things, one interesting thing i noticed was i hooked up my Ipod to the phono inputs on my receiver and got extra warmness, wtf? yes my receiver has a seperate pre-amp for phono. any ideas?

oh an btw, the whole science versus experience thing with me has probably come from being beaten to death on audioholics for making claims that werent "scientific" such as claiming i have a "bad sounding" amp.
if i wanted to forget science and go with experience for a moment my opinions may change.