Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35

Thread: Sound quality question.

  1. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    River Forest, Il, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,616
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenOC View Post
    Sorry if you meant SSDs. They have no moving parts, of course. Most HDs these days spin at 7200 RPM, which is much faster than a CD, which spins at about 460 RPM as the laser reads the inner tracks, when it starts, and slowing to about 200 RPM as the laser moves to the outside tracks. The idea is to have a constant track velocity no matter where the laser is positioned.
    Interesting, I didn't realize that conventional HD spun so fast.
    To return to the OP point, a CD burned to a HD is in no any inferior, and can be superior, to conventional CD replay. It isn't a big difference. But that will depend upon the relative quality of the equipment involved

  2. #17
    Senior Member gHeadphone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Ah, sorry i was half asleep! Here is the article http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...tions-answered

    Quote Originally Posted by jegreenwood View Post
    Link to article?

  3. #18
    Senior Member bigshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hollywood U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,410
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Triplets View Post
    Yes. But timing errors are more likely when the laser has to read a spinning disc rather than a static HD. And jitter is easily detectable. It shrinks the sound stage. The percussion and double basses seem to be standing next to the conductor instead of a proper distance back. Instruments have less overtone and reverb. The sense of a Concert Hall space is diminished
    Hard drives spin faster than CDs do. CDs have built in error correction... and hard drives have checksums. It doesn't matter one way or the other. They both produce perfect playback.

    Jitter is clocking error, not vibrations from spinning. But it doesn't matter, because jitter is absolutely inaudible in even the cheapest players. Jitter is a hoodoo hyped by audio equipment salesmen to get you to spend more money.

    It's common to see people applying false analogies regarding mechanical or analogue error to digital. They are two different animals and have different kinds of error. If you do a little reading and try to understand how digital audio works, you can sort out the wheat from the chaff. The three links at the bottom of my post are a great place to start.
    Last edited by bigshot; Apr-15-2017 at 17:53.
    CD Sound Is All You Need: http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
    AES Audio Myths Seminar: http://youtu.be/BYTlN6wjcvQ
    AES Damn Lies Seminar: http://youtu.be/Zvireu2SGZM

  4. #19
    Senior Member Oldhoosierdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Central Indiana
    Posts
    552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gHeadphone View Post
    Do you use a windows machine? If so EAC (Exact Audio Copy) I've found to be great. Best bet is lossless (ALAC for apple/itunes, FLAC otherwise). Here is a CNET article showing how. https://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-r...ithout-itunes/

    If you are on a mac use XLD, which is what i use nowadays. https://sourceforge.net/projects/xld/


    Lossless files are bigger but they don't lose any info, others do. Other users may choose to favour smaller sizes over losing a small amount of info, but i like lossless.

    Whether most people hear a big difference, well there are likely thousands of pages on the internet arguing each side, i suggest trying a lossless and an MP3 and seeing which you prefer.

    Here is an article discussing the pros and cons.

    Let us know what you decided to do, id be interested!
    Ok. I checked media player settings. It copies mp3 at 320. 320 what, I don't know. I did a test of mp3 vs flac copied to the computer and they sound identical to me. Also burned the files back to cd and it still sounded great.

    I started all of this because I didn't want to spoil the great music quality of the cds. Evidently mp3 doesn't, or if it does I can't tell. I will keep everything as is for now.
    Thanks everyone.
    Last edited by Oldhoosierdude; Apr-28-2017 at 19:16.

  5. #20
    Senior Member Merl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    2,130
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I did some testing a few years back of 320cbr v vbr, FLAC v 320, FLAC v transcode, Transcode v 320cbr etc and there really wasn't the audible difference I'd expected. Nearly all my computer files are FLAC but I have 320 rips that sound just as good. There's an awful lot of nonsense talked about bitrates (this is where the FLACSNOBS start taking me to bits).

  6. Likes Klassik liked this post
  7. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    965
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldhoosierdude View Post
    Ok. I checked media player settings. It copies mp3 at 320. 320 what, I don't know. I did a test of mp3 vs flac copied to the computer and they sound identical to me. Also burned the files back to cd and it still sounded great.
    This in not an uncommon experience. There are studies out there showing that people can't tell a difference between uncompressed files and high bitrate MP3s. Perhaps your hearing will become so trained down the road that you can tell a difference or maybe you'll hear a difference if you get better equipment, but probably these high bitrate MP3s will serve you just fine. Then again, uncompressed/lossless compression is a good way to go as well if you have enough storage space.
    Last edited by Klassik; Apr-28-2017 at 21:24. Reason: Grammar

  8. Likes merlinus, EddieRUKiddingVarese liked this post
  9. #22
    Senior Member Becca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    2,879
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldhoosierdude View Post
    Ok. I checked media player settings. It copies mp3 at 320. 320 what, I don't know. I did a test of mp3 vs flac copied to the computer and they sound identical to me. Also burned the files back to cd and it still sounded great.
    If you played them on the computer then you are at the mercy of the quality of the soundcard in the system. Most computers these days have integrated sound and the quality is distinctly average which means that differences in MP3/FLAC are probably masked by the deficiencies in the computer.

    As a note, most of the time I can't tell the difference between 320Kbps MP3 and FLAC but every once in a while, usually in very complex musical passages, I can detect a certain blurring which results from MP3 throwing out some of the data.

  10. #23
    Senior Member bigshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hollywood U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,410
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    All codecs are not created equal. AAC is a better codec than MP3, and if you use AAC 320 VBR, AAC will actually go above 320 if necessary to fully render the sound in perfect sound quality. MP3 LAME 320 CBR and AAC 320 VBR are audibly transparent on even the best sound equipment.
    CD Sound Is All You Need: http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
    AES Audio Myths Seminar: http://youtu.be/BYTlN6wjcvQ
    AES Damn Lies Seminar: http://youtu.be/Zvireu2SGZM

  11. Likes EddieRUKiddingVarese liked this post
  12. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    River Forest, Il, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,616
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Klassik View Post
    This in not an uncommon experience. There are studies out there showing that people can't tell a difference between uncompressed files and high bitrate MP3s. Perhaps your hearing will become so trained down the road that you can tell a difference or maybe you'll hear a difference if you get better equipment, but probably these high bitrate MP3s will serve you just fine. Then again, uncompressed/lossless compression is a good way to go as well if you have enough storage space.
    The OP should stop worrying. If he can't perceive a difference between different formats and bit rate, just enjoy the music and be glad that you don't suffer from Audiophilia Nervosa
    Last edited by Triplets; Apr-29-2017 at 12:55.

  13. Likes Becca, Klassik, EddieRUKiddingVarese and 1 others liked this post
  14. #25
    Senior Member millionrainbows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,913
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldhoosierdude View Post
    I have copied files before and the default was always mp3 files, but I can use other types. I never noticed much of a difference.
    You will lose some quality, but it's not audible.

  15. #26
    Senior Member Becca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    2,879
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I would be interested to take a recording from a CD in .wav format, copy it, convert it to 320K MP3, then back again to .wav and then subtract the compressed/decompressed waveform from the original to find out what was dropped. I'm sure that I could find some software somewhere to do it, but it's not high enough on my priority list ... yet.
    Last edited by Becca; Apr-29-2017 at 21:29.

  16. Likes EddieRUKiddingVarese liked this post
  17. #27
    Banned (Temporarily)
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Father of Electronic muse
    Posts
    4,972
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Would it be the Digital version of 4'33" who knows...........

  18. Likes Klassik liked this post
  19. #28
    Senior Member bigshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hollywood U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,410
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EddieRUKiddingVarese View Post
    Would it be the Digital version of 4'33" who knows...........
    That's one of the few works that actually benefit from having a 24 bit noise floor!
    CD Sound Is All You Need: http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
    AES Audio Myths Seminar: http://youtu.be/BYTlN6wjcvQ
    AES Damn Lies Seminar: http://youtu.be/Zvireu2SGZM

  20. Likes Klassik, EddieRUKiddingVarese liked this post
  21. #29
    Senior Member fjf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Europe, Mediterranean
    Posts
    254
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Becca View Post
    I would be interested to take a recording from a CD in .wav format, copy it, convert it to 320K MP3, then back again to .wav and then subtract the compressed/decompressed waveform from the original to find out what was dropped. I'm sure that I could find some software somewhere to do it, but it's not high enough on my priority list ... yet.
    You loose the higher frequencies the most. The audible range is 20Hz-20KHz, but the older you are, the less you hear high frequencies; most people hear very little over 15KHz. Therefore, you dont hear any difference between good quality lossy and lossless. I store in my NAS lossless, but because I am a bit obsessive.

  22. Likes EddieRUKiddingVarese liked this post
  23. #30
    Senior Member bigshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hollywood U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,410
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    44.1 has to do with the frequency range. Lossy is all about artifacting. If you find the point where there's enough bandwidth to render the sound without compression artifacts, it's transparent, even to teenage ears. AAC at 320 goes all the way to the highest and lowest frequency that CDs are capable of.
    Last edited by bigshot; Apr-18-2018 at 06:14.
    CD Sound Is All You Need: http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
    AES Audio Myths Seminar: http://youtu.be/BYTlN6wjcvQ
    AES Damn Lies Seminar: http://youtu.be/Zvireu2SGZM

  24. Likes EddieRUKiddingVarese, gopack87 liked this post
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Youtube vs CD sound quality
    By ginsan in forum Classical Music Discussion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: Apr-05-2015, 23:09
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: Mar-28-2015, 05:59
  3. Sound Quality Question (issue with a CD set)
    By Fritz Kobus in forum Hi-Fi
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Oct-05-2014, 22:06
  4. Where do you draw the line on sound quality...?
    By StlukesguildOhio in forum Classical Music Discussion
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: Mar-03-2012, 19:52

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •