atdavid This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Why post a database of human intervention in mastering when the discussion is about the abilities of a data format independent of whatever decisions a human made during mastering? >>>>Folks, that’s the kind of faulty logic that comes from reading technical books too much and not spending enough time in reality. The discussion of dynamic range and the dynamic range database has *everything* to do with the discussion of data rate, sampling rate and format. What the dynamic range database shows - if you analyze it - is you’re screwed no matter which digital format you buy into. He-loo! Unless you don’t care about dynamics. In which case you’re in the wrong hobby, gentle readers. Music is all about dynamics. Without dynamics you have elevator music. Here is Abbey Road on the Dynamic Range Database to analyze 👀 http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Beatles&album=Abbey+Road |
GFF is AI from the future, it has never been denied. Only AI could post 7.5 times a day for 7 years. The algorithms are still poor though. Hence the Turing test with the 18500 posts is definitely a fail. The jokes especially.
|
This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Why post a database of human intervention in mastering when the discussion is about the abilities of a data format independent of whatever decisions a human made during mastering? geoffkait18,603 posts11-29-2019 2:13pmHydrogen Audio? Don’t make me laugh! Ooops, too late! 😁 😁 😁
For those in my past who haven’t done so, I urge you to visit the unofficial dynamic range database and get eddicated.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Ten+years+after&album= |
You would have to understand what DR metric is and how it is calculated.
But first RMS is for you to study. Homework, before you go back to the future, GFF. You have to earn your ticket. BTW nobody is laughing at your jokes, they still suck.
|
|
This one dedicated to the Guy From the Future (GFF) who doesn't understand our technology and believes that vinyl has an intrinsically better dynamic range. "A related myth is that when vinyl has a higher dynamic range than CD, it means the audio was sourced from a different, more dynamic master, and that the difference in dynamics will be audible. It is true that recordings on vinyl sometimes have a spikier waveform and a measurably higher dynamic range than their counterparts on CD, at least when the dynamic range is reported by crude "DR meter" tools that compare peak and RMS levels. The higher "DR value" could indeed be a result of entirely different master recordings being provided to the mastering engineers for each format, or different choices made by the engineers, as happens every time old music is remastered for a new release. But even when the same source master is used, the audio is normally further processed when mastering for the target format (be it CD or vinyl), and this often results in vinyl having a spikier waveform and higher DR measurement. There are two types of processing during vinyl mastering that can increase the DR measurements and waveform spikiness, thus reducing the RMS and increasing the basic DR measurement by perhaps several dB: - The audio is subjected to low-pass or all-pass filtering, which can result in broad peaks becoming slanted ramps.
- The amount and stereo separation of deep bass content is reduced for vinyl, to keep the stylus from being thrown out of the groove.
It is quite possible that these changes are entirely inaudible, despite their effect on the waveform shape and DR measurement. The dynamic range of the waveform is also affected by the vinyl playback system; different systems provide different frequency responses. Factors include cartridge, tonearm, preamp, and even the connecting cables. A vinyl rip with weak bass may well have a higher reported DR value than a rip of the same vinyl on equipment with a stronger bass response." https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)
|
Sorry about the bad mathematics. "When does 24 bit matter? Professionals use 24 bit samples in recording and production [14] for headroom, noise floor, and convenience reasons."
Could not put it better. :) And the parallel parking analogy was only about dynamic range and not anything else regarding quality. Great discussion we have going on! :) |
We've discussed the frequency range of the ear, but what about the dynamic range from the softest possible sound to the loudest possible sound? One way to define absolute dynamic range would be to look again at the absolute threshold of hearing and threshold of pain curves. The distance between the highest point on the threshold of pain curve and the lowest point on the absolute threshold of hearing curve is about 140 decibels for a young, healthy listener. That wouldn't last long though; +130dB is loud enough to damage hearing permanently in seconds to minutes. For reference purposes, a jackhammer at one meter is only about 100-110dB. The absolute threshold of hearing increases with age and hearing loss. Interestingly, the threshold of pain decreases with age rather than increasing. The hair cells of the cochlea themselves posses only a fraction of the ear's 140dB range; musculature in the ear continuously adjust the amount of sound reaching the cochlea by shifting the ossicles, much as the iris regulates the amount of light entering the eye [9]. This mechanism stiffens with age, limiting the ear's dynamic range and reducing the effectiveness of its protection mechanisms [10]. Environmental noise Few people realize how quiet the absolute threshold of hearing really is. The very quietest perceptible sound is about -8dbSPL [11]. Using an A-weighted scale, the hum from a 100 watt incandescent light bulb one meter away is about 10dBSPL, so about 18dB louder. The bulb will be much louder on a dimmer. 20dBSPL (or 28dB louder than the quietest audible sound) is often quoted for an empty broadcasting/recording studio or sound isolation room. This is the baseline for an exceptionally quiet environment, and one reason you've probably never noticed hearing a light bulb. The dynamic range of 16 bits 16 bit linear PCM has a dynamic range of 96dB according to the most common definition, which calculates dynamic range as (6*bits)dB. Many believe that 16 bit audio cannot represent arbitrary sounds quieter than -96dB. This is incorrect. I have linked to two 16 bit audio files here; one contains a 1kHz tone at 0 dB (where 0dB is the loudest possible tone) and the other a 1kHz tone at -105dB. Above: Spectral analysis of a -105dB tone encoded as 16 bit / 48kHz PCM. 16 bit PCM is clearly deeper than 96dB, else a -105dB tone could not be represented, nor would it be audible. How is it possible to encode this signal, encode it with no distortion, and encode it well above the noise floor, when its peak amplitude is one third of a bit? Part of this puzzle is solved by proper dither, which renders quantization noise independent of the input signal. By implication, this means that dithered quantization introduces no distortion, just uncorrelated noise. That in turn implies that we can encode signals of arbitrary depth, even those with peak amplitudes much smaller than one bit [12]. However, dither doesn't change the fact that once a signal sinks below the noise floor, it should effectively disappear. How is the -105dB tone still clearly audible above a -96dB noise floor? The answer: Our -96dB noise floor figure is effectively wrong; we're using an inappropriate definition of dynamic range. (6*bits)dB gives us the RMS noise of the entire broadband signal, but each hair cell in the ear is sensitive to only a narrow fraction of the total bandwidth. As each hair cell hears only a fraction of the total noise floor energy, the noise floor at that hair cell will be much lower than the broadband figure of -96dB. Thus, 16 bit audio can go considerably deeper than 96dB. With use of shaped dither, which moves quantization noise energy into frequencies where it's harder to hear, the effective dynamic range of 16 bit audio reaches 120dB in practice [13], more than fifteen times deeper than the 96dB claim. 120dB is greater than the difference between a mosquito somewhere in the same room and a jackhammer a foot away.... or the difference between a deserted 'soundproof' room and a sound loud enough to cause hearing damage in seconds. 16 bits is enough to store all we can hear, and will be enough forever. Signal-to-noise ratio It's worth mentioning briefly that the ear's S/N ratio is smaller than its absolute dynamic range. Within a given critical band, typical S/N is estimated to only be about 30dB. Relative S/N does not reach the full dynamic range even when considering widely spaced bands. This assures that linear 16 bit PCM offers higher resolution than is actually required. It is also worth mentioning that increasing the bit depth of the audio representation from 16 to 24 bits does not increase the perceptible resolution or 'fineness' of the audio. It only increases the dynamic range, the range between the softest possible and the loudest possible sound, by lowering the noise floor. However, a 16-bit noise floor is already below what we can hear. When does 24 bit matter? Professionals use 24 bit samples in recording and production [14] for headroom, noise floor, and convenience reasons. 16 bits is enough to span the real hearing range with room to spare. It does not span the entire possible signal range of audio equipment. The primary reason to use 24 bits when recording is to prevent mistakes; rather than being careful to center 16 bit recording-- risking clipping if you guess too high and adding noise if you guess too low-- 24 bits allows an operator to set an approximate level and not worry too much about it. Missing the optimal gain setting by a few bits has no consequences, and effects that dynamically compress the recorded range have a deep floor to work with. An engineer also requires more than 16 bits during mixing and mastering. Modern work flows may involve literally thousands of effects and operations. The quantization noise and noise floor of a 16 bit sample may be undetectable during playback, but multiplying that noise by a few thousand times eventually becomes noticeable. 24 bits keeps the accumulated noise at a very low level. Once the music is ready to distribute, there's no reason to keep more than 16 bits. https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html |
Considering the car analogy was specific about what information is in typical music, and what the potential is of CD, and Not, how it is manipulated, then the car analogy is appropriate. Your Cadillac / VW analogy is also valid, it just represents a different problem on the way from the recording to our ears.
I am with you on the math, 144db is perceptibly about 169 times more dynamic range than 70db.
|
The parking the car analogy is actually not correct. The problem is not the original recording and it’s not the digital format. It’s the remastering or in some cases the original mastering that’s the problem. It’s the overly aggressive dynamic range compression that is the problem. They took what was originally a Cadillac and squashed it down to a VW.
Also I’m not sure I go along with somebody’s math which appears to say 144 dB is double the dynamic range of 70 dB.
|
In my private ranking of the sound quality factors recording/mastering is third, after ear/brain and loudspeaker/room systems. And before electronics.
|
@optimize, "But most of us thinks that more is better. A analogy is when you parallel parking your car. The car is the whole recorded music and the space you want to park your car is the format. If you have a big space it is easier to park but if the space is 10 m long your car (music) is still 4 m and there is 6 m of unused space. You don’t have a longer car because the space is longer.. :)" A great analogy, and one's that easy to understand. The OP is correct when he says, "Plus, I really think the recording (studio-mastering) means more to sound quality than the actual output format/resolution. I've heard excellent recorded/mastered recordings sound killer on iTunes streaming and CD." If you are looking for genuine sonic improvement over Redbook then remastering is where that dog is (sometimes) buried. Masterings can and do vary considerably in end result, and this does nothing to clarify matters. For example if you were to buy Bob Dylan's Street Legal album you would be faced with a number of buying decisions before you could be sure you had the best sonic copy as this quote from Wiki makes clear. "The original 1978 LP credits mastering to Stan Kalina at CBS Recording Studios NY; the album was produced by Don DeVito. In 1999, Street-Legal received a special remixing and remastering job from DeVito. The newer version boasted richer sound, correcting numerous issues with the original production. The new mix was also used in a 2003 SACD reissue of Street-Legal. However the original 1978 mix was reinstated for The Complete Album Collection Vol. 1." It all depends upon who did it, what with, and why? For what it's worth I'd take the 1999/2003 issue over any of the others. |
"We are probing the future generations. Unfortunately, but a lot of them have no real future. "
Right, so you are AI from the future and you were after probing your future generations, so you are simply lost in time! This is 2019, and we are your past generations! So nothing is lost, just reset your PlanckTime clock and go back to the future. Or to the future past your future. Then you can fix the generations for their future future past your future. |
No I am not a measuring guy. :)
But I realize that my previous post sounded like one.. :(
The point with it is to point out some levels and real numbers to get a perspective of what we are talking about. When 16 bits CD bit depth is 96 dB of dynamic range.
We do not always understand what that really mean and we go into the trap and think but 20 or 24 is better and it is better to be safe than sorry. ;)
That we have already with a wide margin achieved at 16 bits.
Now I do not say that CD is be all end all, but there is other factors why a format do not sounds to our liking. But it is not whether it is 16 bits or 24 bits. That specific part is irrelevant. :) |
https://images.app.goo.gl/KSJhYUn3eiAAnhav8OK, study this image in the link above. It displays what we can hear in dB and in frequency. From the softest sound we can hear from 20 to 20k hz. And up to our threshold of pain! As seen there are a area of "music" that is smaller than our ears can perceive. Now it is that the softhes/lowest of audibility of our hearing is most likely done and measured in a anechoic chamber were it is "completely" silent. When we do not capture music in anechoic chambers where it is completely silent it is understandable why the music area is smaller. And for example starts at 30 dB as their "silent". In their environment. And max sound pressure is 100 dB in the chart. (What musicians ar willing to jam at their threshold of pain, so it is understandable that we have some headroom there also.) :D So everybody can easily see that ~70 dB of dynamic range from the softest to the loudest sound pressure for music performance at the most. 24 bits digital audio has 144 dB dynamic range. 24 bits has the double dynamic range that of music has and also more than humans can perceive (even if we are in a anechoic chamber). But we are not and listen in silent rooms that has >=30 dB of noise. ;) So regarding if "we really need anything greater than 24" then for the bit dept is the answer: "NO". It is a interesting image that if we want to be able to hear (not just feel) 20 Hz then we most likely will be able to succeed if we play close to 120 dB! :) We can also see in the other end 20k Hz it is 100dB (if we are young).. Then those who are familiar with how a real implementation of a loudness control works and the science behind it that this image has something in common with that implementation. (As a reality check to see that the information in the image is OK..) :) |
Apparently they still don’t teach good grammar back in the past. Nice try though. You can’t teach comedy. Comedy is subjective. I was born with perfect comedic timing.
|
But if we are your grand grand somethings how come you are so much smarter?
I know, you are AI from the future! That's why all you jokes suck.
|
We are probing the future generations. Unfortunately, but a lot of them have no real future. Too much time spent with noses in books. Not enough time in reality. I’m getting all choked up. 😢 Geez, even a cosmic wedgie won’t work.
|
THEY are sending their cybertrolls from the future to undermine our democracy and the way we listen to music. They know nothing about our technology because theirs is so superior, they don’t bother. And you can recognize them by their jokes.
|
I think what VI is saying is that he is pretty much making up any numbers he is using and his statements are nothing more than unsubstantiated marketing numbers. His posts can be effectively in this thread, like most threads ignored. They are essentially advertisements targeting people looking for magic solutions to whatever ails them. You can pretty much guarantee that any reply VI will make to this post will be nonsensical, likely condescending, and using any number of tired jokes stolen from other people.
|
I offered 25% simply as a sop to see if anyone would bite. Would you bite at 10%? Alas, I’m correct. I know I am, too. You can bark and scold til you’re blue in the face. 🥶 I’m from the future. I only come back here to see if anyone is getting smart. And for the jokes. My future, unfortunately, cannot be yours as you are hung up. None so blind that will not see.
|
@atdavid You are completely right. I have worked with developing optical media testers for the industry for 10 years. When it was thing.
And I got scared when as a newbie to this forum reading about this misinformation about the optical media.
Just think on the simple fact that we developed and had for many years ago, servo systems that not only read but also write at 1x, 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x, 32x, 52x and higher speeds!!
Why should we suddenly today have issues with servos to track at 1x for listening on music if you do not have a lot of scratches in the disc. |
Tatyana69,
44.1/16 upsampled to 192/24 is still 44.1/16. A standalone upsampler is just a more accurate digital resampler or it is intentionally making the 192 signal less accurate which is okay if you like the result.
Your post would suggest 24/96 is enough? |
VI,
Your 50% information theory, which was previously 25% is a fantasy not a reality. Unless your CD is severely damaged, the multitude of control system and data correction methods on a CD player take care of all the things you claim and eliminate effectively all the errors with few exceptions. Modern CD players also buffer and reclock so you can't even claim timing issues.
VI, if you had any, and I do mean any data to back up what you claim, that data very easy to produce, then you would be broadcasting that from the rooftops. You do not. You just have an unfounded hypothesis. Basically a fantasy about the missing "information".
|
www.2l.no has plenty of free hires and redbook samples of all kinds. It also shows the source format, almost all studio DXD. It is easy to compare the same piece of music at all sampling/bit rates. Ask somebody to assign new ABX file names (do not check file sizes) and play them as long as you like- blindly. Note your ABX test choices. This double blind self-test will tell you the truth. About the hires and/or about yourself. |
When I say 50% of the information is missing what I mean by “information” is that dynamic range is doubled and resolution is increased considerably. I am not (rpt not) trying to say there is twice as much data available to the DAC as was on the CD 💿 Obviously, the data on the CD cannot be changed. But what can be changed is how the data is pulled off the CD. Yes, I know what you’re thinking - doesn’t Reed Solomon and the CD laser servo system take care of all the errors? 😳
We know, for example, the reason there IS a laser servo system in there in the first place is because the original designers were aware that the CD 💿 flops around while spinning, that the nanoscale laser beam cannot stay on the nanoscale data spiral without help. It helps but is not 100% effective. IT CANT KEEP UP. The laser beam is an out of control locomotive roaring down the track! 🚂
So when you add up the increase in dynamic range, the increased bass performance, increased air and increased signal to noise ratio SNR you get 50%, if your system can handle it. And I’m being conservative here. Who wouldn’t want to DOUBLE Dynamic Range? It’s subjective. Put those books down! Use your ears. And yes, I know what a lot of people will say, “but my system already sounds fabulous!”
There is no substitute for signal to noise ratio. |
"Are you saying you were comparing normal CD to native 192, or normal CD against CD upsampled do 192? "
I have not heard many native 192! People have ripped to 192 and claimed 192, but they are not authentic, and on playback are easy to spot as being inferior. DCS upsampled to 192 is excellent. When I upsample to 384 (by mistake) I notice something is not right and realise I need to drop down to 192.
It is NOT the same as upsampling rips via dbpoweramp, which is pretty ineffective, which is again possibly why some people cannot tell the difference and then make false claims of the situation.
Dull cds are brought to life. For example 10cc recordings are a bit on the dull side, but they are lifted by the DCS, to now being very acceptable, and closer and closer to vinyl.
|
Generally speaking, vinyl has almost always provided more dynamic range than digital. There are a number of reasons for that. One of course is the Loudness Wars (remastering) that have progressively sucked the life out of the music, mostly for CDs but also for SACD, BLU RAY, SHM-CD, SHM-Blu Ray and hi res streaming. To the point where you see dynamic ranges that look like a flatline on a very sick patient’s chart. Oh, well, I guess music industry executives have to eat, too.
The previous poster has a very good point. Putting overly compressed music on high density format discs is like shooting BBs with a 45.
Other reasons why dynamic range is relative poor on digital playback systems include - but are not limited to - ye olde scattered laser light interference, very low frequency and induced vibration and the self-inflicted flutter and vibration of the disc itself, as I’ve oft posted. |
The issue is that in general people think that a format that CAN store more dynamic range is better..
Think of why it is the music (songs) that is analysed for their softest and loudest passings. And not saying oh you have the song on format X that has dynamic range of Y dB. Therefore your song/music has Y dB.. ..no it doesn’t work like that..
(So you can put a recording that has a dynamic range of 20 dB. On a format that has 100 dB of dynamic range.)
My recording will still have *only* 20 dB. It doesn’t matter on what format it lays on. If it is 16 bits or 24 bits.
Another factor is that music in its own has naturally a dynamic range of 70 to 80 dB. So if we have a format that can contain the whole dynamic range of the music we have then we are done.
But most of us thinks that more is better.
A analogy is when you parallel parking your car. The car is the whole recorded music and the space you want to park your car is the format.
If you have a big space it is easier to park but if the space is 10 m long your car (music) is still 4 m and there is 6 m of unused space. You don’t have a longer car because the space is longer.. :) |
tatyana69,
Are you saying you were comparing normal CD to native 192, or normal CD against CD upsampled do 192?
|
I have a DCS Vivaldi stack, which includes the upsampler with suitable other equipment. Anyone who cannot tell the differences on upsampling between normal cd and 192 and at each between level, either needs new ears, or better equipment. Stating 24/44.1 is all any human can hear if done well is just nonsense, from someone who has not heard the difference. As per usual. If you haven't heard what is possible - don't state ridiculous facts. |
What a dork! Hey, good news! You have ESP. 😳
|
At David, please don’t get the demonic gingerbread man wound up, he might get abusive 🙄
|
Prove it, Mr. Smarty Pants 👖Talk is cheap! |
You don't have to accept it since there is lots of data on CD error rates, and certainly 25% is not "errors" or missing. Unfortunately some people have a disconnect from reality. One can only assume that a person who makes such a statement does not truly understand CDs, and hence does not realize that 25% of the data on a CD is error correction, but confuses this (or tries to confuse others) that it is "missing" data. porscheracer123 posts11-28-2019 1:53pmNo,
I will not accept that 25% of the data is missing. You are so wrong on
this I don't even know where to begin. You are spreading lies and
misinformation. |
porscheracer
No, I will not accept that 25% of the data is missing. You are so wrong on this I don’t even know where to begin. You are spreading lies and misinformation. >>>>That seems highly improbable since I haven’t been wrong since 1985. How about 20%? Let’s compromise. You seem like a nice guy. |
atdavid
GK, you could simply say 24/96 is good enough and let it go, not provide multiple irrelevant posts that show you have nothing to refute 24/96 is enough.
>>>>As is often you case with you your memory is either failing or you’re lying. Take your pick. I never refuted anything of the sort. Eat more fish! 🐟 🐟 |
Not having read *every* post i like the direction of the OP and Geoff....
first, most of what we like and don't seems to be locked in at recording and mastering. Listen to some 50 year old Verve and Mercury recordings - superb in 16/44. Now listen to Supertramp Crimes of the Century on CD. I rest my case.
Red book (16/44) gives us 96 dB snr vs most analog (which remember, we like) at 60-70 with a tail-wind. The problems must lie elsewhere - yea, they exist, but not in the fundamental coding.
A recording engineer can easily squander 20dB of SNR by getting the level check wrong. That, to me, is the big benefit of 24/96 -- in the studio it allows for another 8 bits of mistakes before we can hear it :-) No, seriously.
Time domain errors have little to do with coding format, and we still have not tamed those. Maybe Bob Stuart is right, maybe wrong, but he's chasing at lest one of the right topics.
I just want good, simply recorded, simply produced 16/44 -- badly done 24/96 just reveals all the awful warts.
Heck, i just heard "ripple" in 192 mp3 (!!!) sound fantastic (on a pretty superb system). Case closed.
G
|
No, I will not accept that 25% of the data is missing. You are so wrong on this I don't even know where to begin. You are spreading lies and misinformation. |
Yup Porscheracer, he will triple and quadruple down. He could simply provide easily measured error rates, jitter from CD players common in the audiophile world, heck anything. Nope, more subterfuge. Next he will probably give us the reasons why amplifiers cannot provide 250db SNR. GK, you could simply say 24/96 is good enough and let it go, not provide multiple irrelevant posts that show you have nothing to refute 24/96 is enough.
|
God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason, Ethan. I’ve explained the nature of the problem many times. Is your memory shot or are you lying? It’s hard to tell which. You can’t follow the discussion on many threads. Maybe you need a vacation, Ethan. |
See what I mean Porscheracer. GK's target market is people who don't think for themselves. Therefore, instead of providing information on C2 error rates, discussing the SNR of the detection system, discussing the off-angle rejection ratio of the optical system, or frankly anything relevant, he posts a link to a generic article in an attempt to make it look like he knows what he is doing, and yet, he has not even done the most basic of tasks, defining the nature of the problem. |
|
Porscheracer,
You don't fall into the target market of "people who don't think for themselves". It doesn't matter how right you are, you will never get an answer that is based in fact OR see any data to back up the claim, data that is extremely easy to generate. |
porscheracer120 posts11-28-2019 4:19am The third problem is produced by scattered laser light that fills up the entire inside of the CD transport and is picked up by the photodetector as real signal. I’m sorry to have to be the one to say this but you’re only hearing 50% of what’s on the CD if you’re listening to stock off the shelf systems.
I am sorry, but this is not at all correct. If what you said were true, you would getting muted sections of tracks all the time. >>>>>>Actually, you do not get muted sections all the time. You don’t get muted sections any of the time. The scattered light problem produces distortion because the system substitutes null bits when it doesn’t know what else to do. That particular distortion disappears when scattered light is eliminated. You’re just used to hearing the distortion, that’s all. But it’s always been there. I’m not saying scattered light is the only problem with CD playback. Also, it would be impossible to get accurate rips from CDs using software like dBpoweramp with AccurateRip. Finally, accurate rips would sound phenomenally better than what you could get from a CD transport. While often do sound better, there are other reasons for this other than this alleged 50% missing data. >>>>>>I did not say scattered light was the only problem, remember? So, would you accept that 25% of the data is missing? This is all system dependent and listener dependent. I can guarantee you will hear what I do. But if only you could hear what I hear with my ears. CD transports are inherently accurate. If they were not, it would be impossible to read text data from a CD drive in or attached to your computer with any reliability. >>>>>See, that’s my point? They’re not inherently accurate! They are ALL susceptible to seismic vibration, internal vibration, scattered light interference, vibration of the CD itself. The computer analogy is not correct. The CD player is not like a computer. That is the oldest false argument in the world. You were fooled into a false sense of security by the marketing team at Philips and SONY - “Perfect Sound Forever!” |
The third problem is produced by scattered laser light that fills up the entire inside of the CD transport and is picked up by the photodetector as real signal. I’m sorry to have to be the one to say this but you’re only hearing 50% of what’s on the CD if you’re listening to stock off the shelf systems.
I am sorry, but this is not at all correct. If what you said were true, you would getting muted sections of tracks all the time. Also, it would be impossible to get accurate rips from CDs using software like dBpoweramp with AccurateRip. Finally, accurate rips would sound phenomenally better than what you could get from a CD transport. While often do sound better, there are other reasons for this other than this alleged 50% missing data. CD transports are inherently accurate. If they were not, it would be impossible to read text data from a CD drive in or attached to your computer with any reliability. |
Not a slip, just checking you. You passed, I continue rooting for you. Give me some credit, I am the only one.
Sincerely,
🐷
|
Please keep your rooting to yourself. 🐷
One assumes you meant intellectual property. Probably a Freudian slip. |
I am rooting for you. I respect my elders and intelectual property. Nobody should be messing up with your style. All these newcomers, what do they know? They just want a slice of your fame. What is next? He will start selling New Dark Matter? Shameless. |
|
