Words in a word file can definetily be a work of art. But still the digital information is ones and zeroes, just like music stored digitally.
Regards, Trond Kjetil
Nice try Trond but,
as Salas,said in a post above,digits are not producing sound.The problem starts ,when you are trying to reproduce them as music.
B.L.
Don't change the issue.
The discussion was whether .wav would degrade after being copied to HDDs or send over the WiFi. They are not; the contents is EXACTLY the same after the process.
Similarly, a .doc file containing a nicely illustrated poem (for example) is not degraded by being copied to a HDD or over the WiFi.
Of course, the reproduction of that .wav through a DAC and amp and speakers can have all sorts of deficiencies.
Just as printing that illustrated poem can have all sorts of printer shortcomings and color deficiencies.
But that was not the issue; the issue was the copying/distribution of the digital contents. And that, with its redundancy and error correction, is perfect. Just as perfect as the page you are looking to is perfectly downloaded from who knows where through all sorts of sometimes flaky digital links. If it looks different than the original, its a problem of your monitor or your browser, NOT the digital distribution.
jan didden
I am not changing the issue.This thread is about CD,and LP,and which one sounds better.
On to the subject of data,some posts above,there was an issue,of differences between a master cdr and a copy of the cd.The poster wrote that the two were identified as different things.What do you think was the issue there?
If bits are bits,each copy must sound identical to each other, relayed through the same system
Do you really believe,that they do care about the preservation of the content.? No,because the possible errors,will be restored,replaced,by clever digital assumptions.Making a cheap, mass production violin,sound like a Stradivarious. After all who gives a damn about music? They sell videoclips
Not really off topic. Just intermodulation
btw,can you explaine to me,why, an 1khz note,played through a piano,a guitar,a violin, a sax ,etc,etc ,sound so different? They all measure as 1 Khz.Don't they?
B.L
"btw,can you explaine to me,why, an 1khz note,played through a piano,a guitar,a violin, a sax ,etc,etc ,sound so different? They all measure as 1 Khz.Don't they? "
There was no smiley, but I still cannot believe that was a serious question! 😱
There was no smiley, but I still cannot believe that was a serious question! 😱
It is a serious question. Why one (1) Khz notes by various instruments,sound different,but they all measure the same? Don't they?
Instead of a smiley, I 'd like to know why?
Could you please let me know,with technical justification and data.?
B.L
Simple.
Of course they all have he same fundamental frequency of 1Khz.
But the harmonic spectrum above 1Khz is VASTLY different. It is this that characterises the tone.
Otherwise all instruments would sound the same if they played the same note.
Have I missed some hidden meaning in your question?
Of course they all have he same fundamental frequency of 1Khz.
But the harmonic spectrum above 1Khz is VASTLY different. It is this that characterises the tone.
Otherwise all instruments would sound the same if they played the same note.
Have I missed some hidden meaning in your question?
An 1Khz note is an 1Khz note.
How reliable a measurement can be,related to the sound of a system,if an 1Khz burst will be used,to measure the behaviour of a component,while ignoring the VASTLY different harmonic spectrum,of a hypothetical instrument.
B.L
I am afraid I do not understand that, but suspect it is rather OT, so I will bow out.
Cliff
They are the same, and they sound the same. Really.
There's no clever digital assumptions involved. Error correction is just that, correction. After the process, the original and copy are identical.
jan didden
I do not have the tech background to argue to the bits are bits,so I won't.
For the "they sound the same " do you mean that a CD played,through a 16 or 20 or 24 bit and 44,1 or 88,2 or 176,4 or 96 or 192 Khz oversampling ADC,will sound the same? Or the differences are of no significant value?
If it is so why the big noise?
B.L.
No I mean the original and the copy will sound the same *on the same system*.
I was trying to stress that a copy of a digital source (or a downloaded or streamed digital version) is, to all intends and purposes, identical to the original. If they are played on the same system they sound the same.
jan didden
Thanks for the clarification,about the relation between an original,and a copy.
Still,I do not grasp the subject of a 16 bit ,44.1 Khz digital file or CD,played via an ADC of 24 bit and 96 or 192Khz oversampling.Will it sound different (better)?(Assuming that nothing else is changed in the chain) If it is affirmative,why ? Do the bits have information that gets lost in the red book process,and the higher number crunchers,restore?
B.L.
I'm not an expert on those issues, but here's how I understand it.
If you start with 44.1/16, nothing can 'improve' the resolution or information content. BUT. A DAC works by running the staircase output through a reconstruction filter. It's the filter that turns those 2 samples on the 21kHz wave back into a real 21k sinewave. It is a critical part of the process, just as the anti-aliasing filter ahead of the ADC is a critical part of the process.
You'd want that reconstruction filter to be brick wall: let through anything up to 22kHz, cut off anything above. Brick wall filters are non-existing, and the ones that come close have problems with impulse response and phase shift (which are two sides of the same medal really).
Now if you would have a digital stream at say 176kHz, and you want to filter above 22kHz, your filter can be much more shallow, much more benign and les problematic.
Sooo, you take that 44.1 and fill in some samples between each existing sample and presto! you have a 176kHz stream that you can filter signal-friendly. That's what oversampling does, and that's why they do it. There is real merit in it but not that it magically increases resolution or something. But due to the differing filter topology it can sound different. In fact, it better sound different or else all efforts were useless 😉
jan didden
At last.A compact,understandable explanation,that will help the common garden audiophile ( me)🙂
B.L
wjlamp, note that jan's explanation doesn't mean it *will* sound different. It only means that *if* a steep electronic filter is implemented in a way that is audible, or is not implemented properly in cheap players due to the component count meaning costs and design details they want to avoid, then oversampling allows a cheap, simple low-order electronic filter to be used for a similar or perhaps even better (technically, not assuming audibly) solution.
16 bit oversampling chips became cheap in the late 80's, so oversampling has been almost generic in CD replay for 20 years now. Which is not to say it is audibly superior: it is simply preferred by suppliers and buyers alike for reasons sometimes real and sometimes imagined, so in those circumstances suppliers are sure to adopt it.
16 bit oversampling chips became cheap in the late 80's, so oversampling has been almost generic in CD replay for 20 years now. Which is not to say it is audibly superior: it is simply preferred by suppliers and buyers alike for reasons sometimes real and sometimes imagined, so in those circumstances suppliers are sure to adopt it.
Jan,
I'm not sure if the reference was to my post about the glass master and the cd produced by that master. But in that case, they definately did not sound the same played back using the same player. Everyone thought that the glass master was much better sounding although they weren't told what was being loaded, except that there were two recordings to be played with the same music.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Not at all. And even Cliff's reply is not entirely accurate.
The only signal that has a pure spectrum that equals 1kHz is a constant-amplitude sine (or cosine) with a period of 1 ms and extending from the Big Bang to Armageddon.
Everything else has a more complex spectrum.
If you take a 1 kHz sine and key it on and off for one second (i.e. you play the relevant note for one second on a synth set for sinewaves) you create a spectrum with 1 kHz and the spectral components of the note-on, note-off actions (which happen to extend theoretically from DC to light, see Fourier Transform of the step function).
Real musical instruments emit 'notes' through an extremely complex combination of envelope/amplitude development (crudely approximated by Attack Decay Sustain Release timing parameters in old-era synths) imposed on a fundamental and any number of harmonics, that are time-variant in their distribution and relative levels, and that even vary their frequencies somewhat.
The spectrum corresponding to one such a note is extremely complex itself. Given this it is utterly nonsensical to speak of 'the' frequency of a note.
There is no such thing at all!
However, it is convenient to speak of that frequency, but all that is meant is that this is the fundamental the note hovers around for most of the time. That's all. It helps discussing notes and pitches, it helps tuning instruments, but once in the domain of signal theory this notion has no value whatsoever.
So, no, two notes at '1kHz' on different instruments don't 'measure' remotely the same.
According to many engineers and IT people , it is not possible to hear differences between different types of media with identical content.
Hmmm, I wonder why Mobile Fidelity issue their CD releases on "Gold" CDs with their higher reflectivity ?
Yes, I know, it's ONLY so they can charge more !
Many people have also reported that their CD when ripped, then burned to a new quality CD blank, then sounds better than the original.
I burn my ripped compilation CDs to Kodak 24K Gold Archival CD-R
IF Jan is correct, then Sony are liars and cynically exploiting consumers just to sell more older catalogue numbers, and we are all imagining these things.
Japan only compilation featuring low-priced Blu-spec CD music samplers with bonus CDs
to compare the quality of Blu-spec CD to standard CD.
This time around features rock classics.
The high-fidelity Blu-spec CD format is fully compatible with standard CD players.
Check the high-fidelity sound of Blu-spec & HQCD with low-price samplers!
(All product details, including availability, images, language(s), special features, and bonus extras,
are subject to change without prior notice. Actual item weight may be different from the one indicated above.)
Tracklisting
Click here to view Japanese information about this disc (Opens new browser window).
1. LIKE A ROLLING STONE/ BOB DYLAN
2. MR.TAMBOURINE MAN/ BYRDS,THE
3. YOU DON'T LOVE ME WHEN I CRY/ LAURA NYRO
4. SPINNING WHEEL/ BLOOD,SWEAT & TEARS
5. NANTUCKET SLEIGHRIDE(TO OWEN COFFIN)/ MOUNTAIN
6. FAMILY AFFAIR/ SLY AND THE FAMILY STONE
7. JOLIE/ AL KOOPER
8. WE'RE ALL ALONE/ BOZ SCAGGS
9. MORE THAN A FEELING/ BOSTON
10. DUST IN THE WIND/ KANSAS
11. TURN TO STONE/ ELECTRIC LIGHT ORCHESTRA
12. I WANT YOU TO WANT ME(LIVE)/ CHEAP TRICK
13. BOOGIE WONDERLAND(WITH THE EMOTIONS)/ EARTH,WIND & FIRE
14. YOU'RE ONLY LONELY/ J.D.SOUTHER
15. OPEN ARMS/ JOURNEY
16. AFRICA/ TOTO
17. SEXUAL HEALING/ MARVIN GAYE
18. LIKE A ROLLING STONE/ BOB DYLAN
19. MR.TAMBOURINE MAN/ BYRDS,THE
20. YOU DON'T LOVE ME WHEN I CRY/ LAURA NYRO
21. SPINNING WHEEL/ BLOOD,SWEAT & TEARS
22. NANTUCKET SLEIGHRIDE(TO OWEN COFFIN)/ MOUNTAIN
23. FAMILY AFFAIR/ SLY AND THE FAMILY STONE
24. JOLIE/ AL KOOPER
25. WE'RE ALL ALONE/ BOZ SCAGGS
26. MORE THAN A FEELING/ BOSTON
27. DUST IN THE WIND/ KANSAS
28. TURN TO STONE/ ELECTRIC LIGHT ORCHESTRA
29. I WANT YOU TO WANT ME(LIVE)/ CHEAP TRICK
30. BOOGIE WONDERLAND(WITH THE EMOTIONS)/ EARTH,WIND & FIRE
31. YOU'RE ONLY LONELY/ J.D.SOUTHER
32. OPEN ARMS/ JOURNEY
33. AFRICA/ TOTO
34. SEXUAL HEALING/ MARVIN GAYE
Feel The Difference Of The Blu-Spec CD V.A. [CD]
- Status
- Not open for further replies.