Group: rec.audio.high-end
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Sound quality question
Re: Sound quality question
codifus <codifus@optonline,net > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 9:29 pm, guido.neit...@web.de (Guido Neitzer) wrote:
> > codifus <codi...@optonline,net > wrote:
> > > Guido, for a mere $160 more, you could buy the Creative EMU 0404 USB
> > > and hook it up to your system. Your Airport express would then
> > > optically feed the 0404USB which would then D/A and send the audio to
> > > your Rotel.
> >
> > Actually, why should I do that? I said that I rarely play music through
> > the computer as I much prefer the feeling of inserting a disc and
> > sitting down to listen.
> A computer based music server gives you access to your entire music
> library with a click of a few keystrokes. Convenince goes up 100 fold.
> You already have a computer based music server based on itunes and the
> Airport express, like mine. The one additional item could have really
> brought your computer music alive. I know it did with mine. The EMU
> 0404USB is actually the main reason that I blew my speakers because I
> was enjoying listen to music for longer periods of time at substantial
> volume. I cooked my crossovers twice.
Some people like touching CDs. Some people like cleaning LPs. Some like
having everything one click away. If nothing else, audiophilia embraces
a multitude of preferences.
> > Oh, yeah. Night and day. Sorry, but I have a lot of experience with
> > music and also with good reproduction. Sorry, no dice.
> You can choose to ignore the advice I give if you like. You seem to
> show yourself as someone who really appreciates music by the type of
> system you have assembled. I find it curious that you can spend
> $4000.00 on a pair of speakers but can't give $160 a try on a product
> that is well regarded to improve your audio experience. You can even
> return the product in 30 days for most shopping outlets. No harm done,
> well maybe $8 total for shipping the return item.
I doubt the EMU provided 'night and day' difference, unless one is
using a really crappy D/A to start with.
--
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock
with them.
codifus <codifus@optonline,net > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 9:29 pm, guido.neit...@web.de (Guido Neitzer) wrote:
> > codifus <codi...@optonline,net > wrote:
> > > Guido, for a mere $160 more, you could buy the Creative EMU 0404 USB
> > > and hook it up to your system. Your Airport express would then
> > > optically feed the 0404USB which would then D/A and send the audio to
> > > your Rotel.
> >
> > Actually, why should I do that? I said that I rarely play music through
> > the computer as I much prefer the feeling of inserting a disc and
> > sitting down to listen.
> A computer based music server gives you access to your entire music
> library with a click of a few keystrokes. Convenince goes up 100 fold.
> You already have a computer based music server based on itunes and the
> Airport express, like mine. The one additional item could have really
> brought your computer music alive. I know it did with mine. The EMU
> 0404USB is actually the main reason that I blew my speakers because I
> was enjoying listen to music for longer periods of time at substantial
> volume. I cooked my crossovers twice.
Some people like touching CDs. Some people like cleaning LPs. Some like
having everything one click away. If nothing else, audiophilia embraces
a multitude of preferences.
> > Oh, yeah. Night and day. Sorry, but I have a lot of experience with
> > music and also with good reproduction. Sorry, no dice.
> You can choose to ignore the advice I give if you like. You seem to
> show yourself as someone who really appreciates music by the type of
> system you have assembled. I find it curious that you can spend
> $4000.00 on a pair of speakers but can't give $160 a try on a product
> that is well regarded to improve your audio experience. You can even
> return the product in 30 days for most shopping outlets. No harm done,
> well maybe $8 total for shipping the return item.
I doubt the EMU provided 'night and day' difference, unless one is
using a really crappy D/A to start with.
--
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock
with them.
Re: Sound quality question
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> I doubt the EMU provided 'night and day' difference, unless one is
> using a really crappy D/A to start with.
>
Well, I found, as others have reviewed, that the D/A inside the airport
express is "adequate."
The difference was right there.
CD
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> I doubt the EMU provided 'night and day' difference, unless one is
> using a really crappy D/A to start with.
>
Well, I found, as others have reviewed, that the D/A inside the airport
express is "adequate."
The difference was right there.
CD
Re: Sound quality question
codifus <codifus@optonline,net > wrote:
[Ignoring the rest because I think the last two paragraphs are the most
important here]
> You already have a computer based music server based on itunes and the
> Airport express, like mine. The one additional item could have really
> brought your computer music alive.
As I said: I don't want that. I use my computer about 10 to 14 hours a
day in my normal "work life" - do you really think, a computer can make
my music listening more relaxing?
> You can choose to ignore the advice I give if you like. You seem to
> show yourself as someone who really appreciates music by the type of
> system you have assembled. I find it curious that you can spend
> $4000.00 on a pair of speakers but can't give $160 a try on a product
> that is well regarded to improve your audio experience.
I think you mis-estimate the usage of the Airport Express in my system.
It is used when we have visitors, a brunch, whatever, and only for
background music. Also when I'm browsing the iTunes Store for the
"previews". That's it. Never for any serious listening. Yes, I have
spent more than $10k on the system but I've not spent one dollar for
something I wouldn't use.
That's just it. If I'd listen more to music through the computer, I'd
probably get a high quality DAC, but that is not the situation here.
cug
--
http :// www .event-s,net
codifus <codifus@optonline,net > wrote:
[Ignoring the rest because I think the last two paragraphs are the most
important here]
> You already have a computer based music server based on itunes and the
> Airport express, like mine. The one additional item could have really
> brought your computer music alive.
As I said: I don't want that. I use my computer about 10 to 14 hours a
day in my normal "work life" - do you really think, a computer can make
my music listening more relaxing?
> You can choose to ignore the advice I give if you like. You seem to
> show yourself as someone who really appreciates music by the type of
> system you have assembled. I find it curious that you can spend
> $4000.00 on a pair of speakers but can't give $160 a try on a product
> that is well regarded to improve your audio experience.
I think you mis-estimate the usage of the Airport Express in my system.
It is used when we have visitors, a brunch, whatever, and only for
background music. Also when I'm browsing the iTunes Store for the
"previews". That's it. Never for any serious listening. Yes, I have
spent more than $10k on the system but I've not spent one dollar for
something I wouldn't use.
That's just it. If I'd listen more to music through the computer, I'd
probably get a high quality DAC, but that is not the situation here.
cug
--
http :// www .event-s,net
Re: Sound quality question
Guido Neitzer wrote:
> codifus <codifus@optonline,net > wrote:
>
> [Ignoring the rest because I think the last two paragraphs are the most
> important here]
>
>
>>You already have a computer based music server based on itunes and the
>>Airport express, like mine. The one additional item could have really
>>brought your computer music alive.
>
>
> As I said: I don't want that. I use my computer about 10 to 14 hours a
> day in my normal "work life" - do you really think, a computer can make
> my music listening more relaxing?
I completely understand. The last thing you want to do is sit by the
computer. I don't know if you realize, but you don't have to sit by the
computer to realize the benefits of a computer based music server. What
I am trying to convey is, the music server enables you instant access to
all your music, you can make playlists for all your favorite selections,
and finally, you don't have to sit by the computer to enjoy all its
benefits.
With this simple and inexpensive upgrade, you can have all the
convenience of a computer based music server and very good sound
quality, to boot.
Your existing situation is such that you get up when you want to change
a CD, no? Well, with your music server, you go to the other room, select
your playlist, click play, then go back and sit down. I assume you'll
keep your music server in another room computers can be quite noisy,
what with fans on the power supply and the video card etc.
For even more convenience, programmable remotes are being created to
adapt to existing music server, such tuneview for itunes.
Anyway, I won't harp on this anymore after this post. I was trying to
share a new way of the love of music with someone else. They way you can
combine all your favorite sings through a playlist is something that
really makes a music server shine.
>
>
>>You can choose to ignore the advice I give if you like. You seem to
>>show yourself as someone who really appreciates music by the type of
>>system you have assembled. I find it curious that you can spend
>>$4000.00 on a pair of speakers but can't give $160 a try on a product
>>that is well regarded to improve your audio experience.
>
>
> I think you mis-estimate the usage of the Airport Express in my system.
> It is used when we have visitors, a brunch, whatever, and only for
> background music. Also when I'm browsing the iTunes Store for the
> "previews". That's it. Never for any serious listening. Yes, I have
> spent more than $10k on the system but I've not spent one dollar for
> something I wouldn't use.
iTunes is capable of so much more, and I know now I sound like some sort
of pracher for Apple or EMU. I am niether, just someone who appreciates
a well made product, be it software or a reasonably priced DAC:)
>
> That's just it. If I'd listen more to music through the computer, I'd
> probably get a high quality DAC, but that is not the situation here.
Fair enough, no more from me. Forgive me for the harrassment, I just had
to share.
>
> cug
>
CD
Guido Neitzer wrote:
> codifus <codifus@optonline,net > wrote:
>
> [Ignoring the rest because I think the last two paragraphs are the most
> important here]
>
>
>>You already have a computer based music server based on itunes and the
>>Airport express, like mine. The one additional item could have really
>>brought your computer music alive.
>
>
> As I said: I don't want that. I use my computer about 10 to 14 hours a
> day in my normal "work life" - do you really think, a computer can make
> my music listening more relaxing?
I completely understand. The last thing you want to do is sit by the
computer. I don't know if you realize, but you don't have to sit by the
computer to realize the benefits of a computer based music server. What
I am trying to convey is, the music server enables you instant access to
all your music, you can make playlists for all your favorite selections,
and finally, you don't have to sit by the computer to enjoy all its
benefits.
With this simple and inexpensive upgrade, you can have all the
convenience of a computer based music server and very good sound
quality, to boot.
Your existing situation is such that you get up when you want to change
a CD, no? Well, with your music server, you go to the other room, select
your playlist, click play, then go back and sit down. I assume you'll
keep your music server in another room computers can be quite noisy,
what with fans on the power supply and the video card etc.
For even more convenience, programmable remotes are being created to
adapt to existing music server, such tuneview for itunes.
Anyway, I won't harp on this anymore after this post. I was trying to
share a new way of the love of music with someone else. They way you can
combine all your favorite sings through a playlist is something that
really makes a music server shine.
>
>
>>You can choose to ignore the advice I give if you like. You seem to
>>show yourself as someone who really appreciates music by the type of
>>system you have assembled. I find it curious that you can spend
>>$4000.00 on a pair of speakers but can't give $160 a try on a product
>>that is well regarded to improve your audio experience.
>
>
> I think you mis-estimate the usage of the Airport Express in my system.
> It is used when we have visitors, a brunch, whatever, and only for
> background music. Also when I'm browsing the iTunes Store for the
> "previews". That's it. Never for any serious listening. Yes, I have
> spent more than $10k on the system but I've not spent one dollar for
> something I wouldn't use.
iTunes is capable of so much more, and I know now I sound like some sort
of pracher for Apple or EMU. I am niether, just someone who appreciates
a well made product, be it software or a reasonably priced DAC:)
>
> That's just it. If I'd listen more to music through the computer, I'd
> probably get a high quality DAC, but that is not the situation here.
Fair enough, no more from me. Forgive me for the harrassment, I just had
to share.
>
> cug
>
CD
Re: Sound quality question
Codifus <codifus@optonline,net > wrote:
> I completely understand. The last thing you want to do is sit by the
> computer. I don't know if you realize, but you don't have to sit by the
> computer to realize the benefits of a computer based music server.
I probably do, as I have done the media server setup in the past (not
for me though), I am a software engineer and not one that came back from
retirement to do some Cobol programming ..., I was DJing for around 15
years, I did FOH mixing, and so on. Believe me, I know what is possible
and what not and I do probably better than most people with "media
servers".
> I assume you'll keep your music server in another room computers can be
> quite noisy, what with fans on the power supply and the video card etc.
I don't even have a desktop computer. I know that my MacBook Pro can
handle that easily. I can have it on my lap and access the NAS in my
study with all the music, stream any audio content to the Airport
Express station - but I don't want to. When I listen to music I WANT the
manual handling.
> Anyway, I won't harp on this anymore after this post. I was trying to
> share a new way of the love of music with someone else.
I can understand why people like this setup. I can understand home
theater setups. I can understand CD changers. Just not for me.
I'm just old-fashioned. Since I'm using CDs I can't call myself Mr.
Analogue anymore, but my listening style hasn't changed in the last 25
years.
> iTunes is capable of so much more, and I know now I sound like some sort
> of pracher for Apple or EMU. I am niether, just someone who appreciates
> a well made product, be it software or a reasonably priced DAC:)
To make that clear: I love iTunes. I buy songs from iTunes. I ripped ALL
my CDs to the computer (twice, lossless as backup and AAC for the iPod)
I love my iPod touch (even more, when I get unhacked apps on it), I love
my MacBook Pro. I do development in WebObjects and Cocoa about 10 to 14
hours a day (the technology behind the iTunes Store), I know about half
the (original) developer team that developed the iTunes Store
personally, I give training in that technology and so on. What I want to
say with that? That I can understand you. ;-)
So, we are on the same line about that product. It's just that it
doesn't fit in my listening habit at home. And even less in the
listening habit of my wife. We both have several iPods and we use them
very regularly for workout, in the car, while climbing, running, in the
office and so on. But I use the technology nearly never at home. It's
like a chef coming home and not starting to cook there too ...
cug
--
http :// www .event-s,net
Codifus <codifus@optonline,net > wrote:
> I completely understand. The last thing you want to do is sit by the
> computer. I don't know if you realize, but you don't have to sit by the
> computer to realize the benefits of a computer based music server.
I probably do, as I have done the media server setup in the past (not
for me though), I am a software engineer and not one that came back from
retirement to do some Cobol programming ..., I was DJing for around 15
years, I did FOH mixing, and so on. Believe me, I know what is possible
and what not and I do probably better than most people with "media
servers".
> I assume you'll keep your music server in another room computers can be
> quite noisy, what with fans on the power supply and the video card etc.
I don't even have a desktop computer. I know that my MacBook Pro can
handle that easily. I can have it on my lap and access the NAS in my
study with all the music, stream any audio content to the Airport
Express station - but I don't want to. When I listen to music I WANT the
manual handling.
> Anyway, I won't harp on this anymore after this post. I was trying to
> share a new way of the love of music with someone else.
I can understand why people like this setup. I can understand home
theater setups. I can understand CD changers. Just not for me.
I'm just old-fashioned. Since I'm using CDs I can't call myself Mr.
Analogue anymore, but my listening style hasn't changed in the last 25
years.
> iTunes is capable of so much more, and I know now I sound like some sort
> of pracher for Apple or EMU. I am niether, just someone who appreciates
> a well made product, be it software or a reasonably priced DAC:)
To make that clear: I love iTunes. I buy songs from iTunes. I ripped ALL
my CDs to the computer (twice, lossless as backup and AAC for the iPod)
I love my iPod touch (even more, when I get unhacked apps on it), I love
my MacBook Pro. I do development in WebObjects and Cocoa about 10 to 14
hours a day (the technology behind the iTunes Store), I know about half
the (original) developer team that developed the iTunes Store
personally, I give training in that technology and so on. What I want to
say with that? That I can understand you. ;-)
So, we are on the same line about that product. It's just that it
doesn't fit in my listening habit at home. And even less in the
listening habit of my wife. We both have several iPods and we use them
very regularly for workout, in the car, while climbing, running, in the
office and so on. But I use the technology nearly never at home. It's
like a chef coming home and not starting to cook there too ...
cug
--
http :// www .event-s,net
Re: Sound quality question
"Iordani" <somewhere@earth,net > wrote in message
news:fudnus0299f@news5.newsguy,com ...
>I have a sound system which I'm very pleased with.
> (System Audio Explorer speakers and Musical Fidelity A300 amp and A3
> CD-player)
>
> If I were to convert my CDs to some lossless file format and store them on
> an (external) hard disk drive and then play them using computer and some
> media player to feed my amp, would there be any theoretical or real
> difference in sound quality compared to using my CD player.
>
> Answers and/or pointers highly appreciated.
I've been happy with the www .slimdevices,com squeezebox. I do not store
with a lossless format though. There should be no difference to the
equipment between lossless and the original cd. You can expect a lossless
format to probably take about half the space of the original cd. You might
want to experiment with the lossy formats a bit to see if you can really
detect the difference.
"Iordani" <somewhere@earth,net > wrote in message
news:fudnus0299f@news5.newsguy,com ...
>I have a sound system which I'm very pleased with.
> (System Audio Explorer speakers and Musical Fidelity A300 amp and A3
> CD-player)
>
> If I were to convert my CDs to some lossless file format and store them on
> an (external) hard disk drive and then play them using computer and some
> media player to feed my amp, would there be any theoretical or real
> difference in sound quality compared to using my CD player.
>
> Answers and/or pointers highly appreciated.
I've been happy with the www .slimdevices,com squeezebox. I do not store
with a lossless format though. There should be no difference to the
equipment between lossless and the original cd. You can expect a lossless
format to probably take about half the space of the original cd. You might
want to experiment with the lossy formats a bit to see if you can really
detect the difference.
Re: Sound quality question
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:24:44 -0700, Iordani wrote
(in article <fudnus0299f@news5.newsguy,com >):
> I have a sound system which I'm very pleased with.
> (System Audio Explorer speakers and Musical Fidelity A300 amp and A3
> CD-player)
>
> If I were to convert my CDs to some lossless file format and store them on
> an (external) hard disk drive and then play them using computer and some
> media player to feed my amp, would there be any theoretical or real
> difference in sound quality compared to using my CD player.
>
> Answers and/or pointers highly appreciated.
There are several aspects to this question. First of all, I have read in a
number of sources that using a lossless compression scheme (such as Apple
Lossless in iTunes) can theoretically result in BETTER sound than one can get
playing back the CD on a CD player. Apparently, the reason for this is that
the lossless algorithms, when "ripping" a CD will try a digital word with
errors over and over again until it gets the word error free (most errors on
CD playback are random rather than hard, I'm told). This means that the
compressed file is error free when finished. If it's true that the playback
sound quality of a CD is determined by the number of interpolated errors
incurred on playback (which I do not know as a fact **), then, all else being
equal, the uncompressed lossless file should, again, theoretically, be better
than CD. I can't comment on this one way or another, but I can tell you how I
do the computer music server routine and I'm more than pleased with the
results.
I rip CDs using ALC (Apple Lossless Compression) and store the music on
iTunes. My computer is connected to an 802.11N wireless router. In my
listening room, I have an Apple TV box connected to my big-screen TV both
audio and video. BUT, my stereo system is completely separate from my home
theater system. To get the music to that, I use a long glass fiber TOSLINK
cable which connects to my Assemblage DAC 2.6 and D2D-1 Sample-rate converter
which I have set to 96 KHz up-sampling and the DAC is a 24-bit unit. This
setup works great because the digital to analog conversion is NOT taking
place in the computer and thus is not dependent upon the questionable quality
of either a computer's on-board sound circuitry or that of a sound card.
Also, by using the Apple TV and an outboard high-quality DAC setup, one is
doing the decoding far removed from the computer with all of its clock
signals and internal RF hash. One does NOT need a Mac to do this, a Windows
PC will work just fine. Merely download iTunes for Windows from the Apple
site and buy yourself an Apple TV box for US$229. You can also stream HD
movies and videos via this box, Access U-Tube on your TV set, and view your
digital pictures in HD on your HDTV. So, its a well spent $229.
Whether this results in "better than CD" sound I don't know. My CD player (A
Sony XA777ES SACD player) sounds great and so do the Assemblage units. But I
must say that playback from the lossless compression through my computer
certainly sounds at least as good as playing the CD through the CD player and
is certainly more convenient. I can choose the CD I want to listen to from my
easy chair.
** I used to have a Meridian CD player that had an "error reporter" built in
to it. It was a series of LEDs across the front of the unit which flashed in
response to errors. The more errors encountered the more LEDs that lit-up.
One LED counted full interpolation errors. All I can tell you is that it was
quite a light show (This was in the late 1980's) and one wondered at the time
how CD could even work with so many errors.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:24:44 -0700, Iordani wrote
(in article <fudnus0299f@news5.newsguy,com >):
> I have a sound system which I'm very pleased with.
> (System Audio Explorer speakers and Musical Fidelity A300 amp and A3
> CD-player)
>
> If I were to convert my CDs to some lossless file format and store them on
> an (external) hard disk drive and then play them using computer and some
> media player to feed my amp, would there be any theoretical or real
> difference in sound quality compared to using my CD player.
>
> Answers and/or pointers highly appreciated.
There are several aspects to this question. First of all, I have read in a
number of sources that using a lossless compression scheme (such as Apple
Lossless in iTunes) can theoretically result in BETTER sound than one can get
playing back the CD on a CD player. Apparently, the reason for this is that
the lossless algorithms, when "ripping" a CD will try a digital word with
errors over and over again until it gets the word error free (most errors on
CD playback are random rather than hard, I'm told). This means that the
compressed file is error free when finished. If it's true that the playback
sound quality of a CD is determined by the number of interpolated errors
incurred on playback (which I do not know as a fact **), then, all else being
equal, the uncompressed lossless file should, again, theoretically, be better
than CD. I can't comment on this one way or another, but I can tell you how I
do the computer music server routine and I'm more than pleased with the
results.
I rip CDs using ALC (Apple Lossless Compression) and store the music on
iTunes. My computer is connected to an 802.11N wireless router. In my
listening room, I have an Apple TV box connected to my big-screen TV both
audio and video. BUT, my stereo system is completely separate from my home
theater system. To get the music to that, I use a long glass fiber TOSLINK
cable which connects to my Assemblage DAC 2.6 and D2D-1 Sample-rate converter
which I have set to 96 KHz up-sampling and the DAC is a 24-bit unit. This
setup works great because the digital to analog conversion is NOT taking
place in the computer and thus is not dependent upon the questionable quality
of either a computer's on-board sound circuitry or that of a sound card.
Also, by using the Apple TV and an outboard high-quality DAC setup, one is
doing the decoding far removed from the computer with all of its clock
signals and internal RF hash. One does NOT need a Mac to do this, a Windows
PC will work just fine. Merely download iTunes for Windows from the Apple
site and buy yourself an Apple TV box for US$229. You can also stream HD
movies and videos via this box, Access U-Tube on your TV set, and view your
digital pictures in HD on your HDTV. So, its a well spent $229.
Whether this results in "better than CD" sound I don't know. My CD player (A
Sony XA777ES SACD player) sounds great and so do the Assemblage units. But I
must say that playback from the lossless compression through my computer
certainly sounds at least as good as playing the CD through the CD player and
is certainly more convenient. I can choose the CD I want to listen to from my
easy chair.
** I used to have a Meridian CD player that had an "error reporter" built in
to it. It was a series of LEDs across the front of the unit which flashed in
response to errors. The more errors encountered the more LEDs that lit-up.
One LED counted full interpolation errors. All I can tell you is that it was
quite a light show (This was in the late 1980's) and one wondered at the time
how CD could even work with so many errors.
Re: Sound quality question
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fugeuk05uq@news2.newsguy,com
> There are several aspects to this question. First of all,
> I have read in a number of sources that using a lossless
> compression scheme (such as Apple Lossless in iTunes) can
> theoretically result in BETTER sound than one can get
> playing back the CD on a CD player. Apparently, the
> reason for this is that the lossless algorithms, when
> "ripping" a CD will try a digital word with errors over
> and over again until it gets the word error free (most
> errors on CD playback are random rather than hard, I'm
> told).
One big inherent problem with CD players is that as a rule, they lack the
ability to retry tracks that don't read right the first time. This contrasts
with the better CD ripping programs that can read and reread a track, until
reliable data is obtained.
I've been benefitting from this advantage for over a decade. It primarily
applies to damaged CDs. If you're playing a disc in good condition, there's
no possible advantage.
Most frequently, one of my kids simply loved a CD to death - often
scratching it heavily while using it in a portable player. The problem
wasn't the portable player, but the casual usage environment that tends to
surround them.
> This means that the compressed file is error free
> when finished.
Doesn't matter whether your finished product is compressed or not. I
generally produce a corrected .wav file, and simply burn another CD.
> If it's true that the playback sound
> quality of a CD is determined by the number of
> interpolated errors incurred on playback (which I do not
> know as a fact **), then, all else being equal, the
> uncompressed lossless file should, again, theoretically,
> be better than CD.
Interpolation is not as accurate as what one obtains when retries are used
to extract exact information.
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fugeuk05uq@news2.newsguy,com
> There are several aspects to this question. First of all,
> I have read in a number of sources that using a lossless
> compression scheme (such as Apple Lossless in iTunes) can
> theoretically result in BETTER sound than one can get
> playing back the CD on a CD player. Apparently, the
> reason for this is that the lossless algorithms, when
> "ripping" a CD will try a digital word with errors over
> and over again until it gets the word error free (most
> errors on CD playback are random rather than hard, I'm
> told).
One big inherent problem with CD players is that as a rule, they lack the
ability to retry tracks that don't read right the first time. This contrasts
with the better CD ripping programs that can read and reread a track, until
reliable data is obtained.
I've been benefitting from this advantage for over a decade. It primarily
applies to damaged CDs. If you're playing a disc in good condition, there's
no possible advantage.
Most frequently, one of my kids simply loved a CD to death - often
scratching it heavily while using it in a portable player. The problem
wasn't the portable player, but the casual usage environment that tends to
surround them.
> This means that the compressed file is error free
> when finished.
Doesn't matter whether your finished product is compressed or not. I
generally produce a corrected .wav file, and simply burn another CD.
> If it's true that the playback sound
> quality of a CD is determined by the number of
> interpolated errors incurred on playback (which I do not
> know as a fact **), then, all else being equal, the
> uncompressed lossless file should, again, theoretically,
> be better than CD.
Interpolation is not as accurate as what one obtains when retries are used
to extract exact information.
Re: Sound quality question
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:26:32 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fuj4ao025k4@news4.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:fugeuk05uq@news2.newsguy,com
>
>> There are several aspects to this question. First of all,
>> I have read in a number of sources that using a lossless
>> compression scheme (such as Apple Lossless in iTunes) can
>> theoretically result in BETTER sound than one can get
>> playing back the CD on a CD player. Apparently, the
>> reason for this is that the lossless algorithms, when
>> "ripping" a CD will try a digital word with errors over
>> and over again until it gets the word error free (most
>> errors on CD playback are random rather than hard, I'm
>> told).
>
> One big inherent problem with CD players is that as a rule, they lack the
> ability to retry tracks that don't read right the first time. This contrasts
> with the better CD ripping programs that can read and reread a track, until
> reliable data is obtained.
>
> I've been benefitting from this advantage for over a decade. It primarily
> applies to damaged CDs. If you're playing a disc in good condition, there's
> no possible advantage.
>
> Most frequently, one of my kids simply loved a CD to death - often
> scratching it heavily while using it in a portable player. The problem
> wasn't the portable player, but the casual usage environment that tends to
> surround them.
>
>> This means that the compressed file is error free
>> when finished.
>
> Doesn't matter whether your finished product is compressed or not. I
> generally produce a corrected .wav file, and simply burn another CD.
>
>> If it's true that the playback sound
>> quality of a CD is determined by the number of
>> interpolated errors incurred on playback (which I do not
>> know as a fact **), then, all else being equal, the
>> uncompressed lossless file should, again, theoretically,
>> be better than CD.
>
> Interpolation is not as accurate as what one obtains when retries are used
> to extract exact information.
>
That's theory, as I understand it, anyway. But the question is: can one
really hear the difference or is it another one of these examples where a
difference that makes no difference is no difference at all?
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:26:32 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fuj4ao025k4@news4.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:fugeuk05uq@news2.newsguy,com
>
>> There are several aspects to this question. First of all,
>> I have read in a number of sources that using a lossless
>> compression scheme (such as Apple Lossless in iTunes) can
>> theoretically result in BETTER sound than one can get
>> playing back the CD on a CD player. Apparently, the
>> reason for this is that the lossless algorithms, when
>> "ripping" a CD will try a digital word with errors over
>> and over again until it gets the word error free (most
>> errors on CD playback are random rather than hard, I'm
>> told).
>
> One big inherent problem with CD players is that as a rule, they lack the
> ability to retry tracks that don't read right the first time. This contrasts
> with the better CD ripping programs that can read and reread a track, until
> reliable data is obtained.
>
> I've been benefitting from this advantage for over a decade. It primarily
> applies to damaged CDs. If you're playing a disc in good condition, there's
> no possible advantage.
>
> Most frequently, one of my kids simply loved a CD to death - often
> scratching it heavily while using it in a portable player. The problem
> wasn't the portable player, but the casual usage environment that tends to
> surround them.
>
>> This means that the compressed file is error free
>> when finished.
>
> Doesn't matter whether your finished product is compressed or not. I
> generally produce a corrected .wav file, and simply burn another CD.
>
>> If it's true that the playback sound
>> quality of a CD is determined by the number of
>> interpolated errors incurred on playback (which I do not
>> know as a fact **), then, all else being equal, the
>> uncompressed lossless file should, again, theoretically,
>> be better than CD.
>
> Interpolation is not as accurate as what one obtains when retries are used
> to extract exact information.
>
That's theory, as I understand it, anyway. But the question is: can one
really hear the difference or is it another one of these examples where a
difference that makes no difference is no difference at all?
Re: Sound quality question
Sonnova wrote:
>> Interpolation is not as accurate as what one obtains when retries are used
>> to extract exact information.
>
> That's theory, as I understand it, anyway. But the question is: can one
> really hear the difference or is it another one of these examples where a
> difference that makes no difference is no difference at all?
For a single sample (loss of a single 16 bit value, or 1/44,000 of a
second) no, it's not audible. The thing is, the way the data is
interleaved in red book CD, it's rare for read problems to affect only
one sample - by the time the DAC is in interpolate mode many nearby
samples are lost and there's a lot of interpolation going on.
Yes, it's audible - as a loss of detail at low levels of interpolation,
to out and out distorted nastiness at higher levels.
//Walt
Sonnova wrote:
>> Interpolation is not as accurate as what one obtains when retries are used
>> to extract exact information.
>
> That's theory, as I understand it, anyway. But the question is: can one
> really hear the difference or is it another one of these examples where a
> difference that makes no difference is no difference at all?
For a single sample (loss of a single 16 bit value, or 1/44,000 of a
second) no, it's not audible. The thing is, the way the data is
interleaved in red book CD, it's rare for read problems to affect only
one sample - by the time the DAC is in interpolate mode many nearby
samples are lost and there's a lot of interpolation going on.
Yes, it's audible - as a loss of detail at low levels of interpolation,
to out and out distorted nastiness at higher levels.
//Walt
Re: Sound quality question
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>> Interpolation is not as accurate as what one obtains
>> when retries are used to extract exact information.
> That's theory, as I understand it, anyway. But the
> question is: can one really hear the difference or is it
> another one of these examples where a difference that
> makes no difference is no difference at all?
If there are a lot of errors, the audible difference is obvious.
I've taken CDs that were unlistenable on any CD player, processed them on my
PC, and burned a new CD that was audibly identical to a brand new CD.
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>> Interpolation is not as accurate as what one obtains
>> when retries are used to extract exact information.
> That's theory, as I understand it, anyway. But the
> question is: can one really hear the difference or is it
> another one of these examples where a difference that
> makes no difference is no difference at all?
If there are a lot of errors, the audible difference is obvious.
I've taken CDs that were unlistenable on any CD player, processed them on my
PC, and burned a new CD that was audibly identical to a brand new CD.
Re: Sound quality question
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:04:32 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fur3m00268c@news3.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>
>>> Interpolation is not as accurate as what one obtains
>>> when retries are used to extract exact information.
>
>> That's theory, as I understand it, anyway. But the
>> question is: can one really hear the difference or is it
>> another one of these examples where a difference that
>> makes no difference is no difference at all?
>
> If there are a lot of errors, the audible difference is obvious.
>
> I've taken CDs that were unlistenable on any CD player, processed them on my
> PC, and burned a new CD that was audibly identical to a brand new CD.
>
Thanks. That pretty much settles the issue as far as I'm concerned.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:04:32 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fur3m00268c@news3.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>
>>> Interpolation is not as accurate as what one obtains
>>> when retries are used to extract exact information.
>
>> That's theory, as I understand it, anyway. But the
>> question is: can one really hear the difference or is it
>> another one of these examples where a difference that
>> makes no difference is no difference at all?
>
> If there are a lot of errors, the audible difference is obvious.
>
> I've taken CDs that were unlistenable on any CD player, processed them on my
> PC, and burned a new CD that was audibly identical to a brand new CD.
>
Thanks. That pretty much settles the issue as far as I'm concerned.
Re: Sound quality question
Yes, there would be a difference. I believe the computer driven sound would
be limited by the quality and characteristics of the computer's sound card
or, worse yet, onboard audio chip. Your stand alone A3 CD player has higher
quality DAC's, etc. than the computer's.
--
--DaveW
"Iordani" <somewhere@earth,net > wrote in message
news:fudnus0299f@news5.newsguy,com ...
>I have a sound system which I'm very pleased with.
> (System Audio Explorer speakers and Musical Fidelity A300 amp and A3
> CD-player)
>
> If I were to convert my CDs to some lossless file format and store them on
> an (external) hard disk drive and then play them using computer and some
> media player to feed my amp, would there be any theoretical or real
> difference in sound quality compared to using my CD player.
>
> Answers and/or pointers highly appreciated.
Yes, there would be a difference. I believe the computer driven sound would
be limited by the quality and characteristics of the computer's sound card
or, worse yet, onboard audio chip. Your stand alone A3 CD player has higher
quality DAC's, etc. than the computer's.
--
--DaveW
"Iordani" <somewhere@earth,net > wrote in message
news:fudnus0299f@news5.newsguy,com ...
>I have a sound system which I'm very pleased with.
> (System Audio Explorer speakers and Musical Fidelity A300 amp and A3
> CD-player)
>
> If I were to convert my CDs to some lossless file format and store them on
> an (external) hard disk drive and then play them using computer and some
> media player to feed my amp, would there be any theoretical or real
> difference in sound quality compared to using my CD player.
>
> Answers and/or pointers highly appreciated.
Re: Sound quality question
In article <fum03i02k5t@news4.newsguy,com >,
"DaveW" <radiation@nuclear.org> wrote:
> Yes, there would be a difference. I believe the computer driven sound would
> be limited by the quality and characteristics of the computer's sound card
> or, worse yet, onboard audio chip. Your stand alone A3 CD player has higher
> quality DAC's, etc. than the computer's.
You might compare the specs for the audio performance of most
contemporary Macs with stand-alone gear; you might be surprised.
It's likely that the chip specs (you mentioned the DACs) are not the
limiting factor anyhow; it's the way the chips are put together, how
grounds are handled, how crosstalk and leakage are suppressed, etc.,
that makes the difference.
Isaac
In article <fum03i02k5t@news4.newsguy,com >,
"DaveW" <radiation@nuclear.org> wrote:
> Yes, there would be a difference. I believe the computer driven sound would
> be limited by the quality and characteristics of the computer's sound card
> or, worse yet, onboard audio chip. Your stand alone A3 CD player has higher
> quality DAC's, etc. than the computer's.
You might compare the specs for the audio performance of most
contemporary Macs with stand-alone gear; you might be surprised.
It's likely that the chip specs (you mentioned the DACs) are not the
limiting factor anyhow; it's the way the chips are put together, how
grounds are handled, how crosstalk and leakage are suppressed, etc.,
that makes the difference.
Isaac
