Stew,
I'm not on the pro-digital bandwagon, but my argument is, and this is agreed upon by a great number of Industry "insiders", that Vinyl is still the top of the heap. The fact that a number of people within the industry that are concerned with digital music reproduction, do in fact listen to analog, both tape (The Tape Project!) and Vinyl in their own homes because they feel it still has the edge.
Evidently, I'm in a somewhat unique position of knowing people with World Class, SOTA systems and music industry insiders. I have had the opportunity to hear formats that are under development, many of which will probably never make it to the open market as well as a number of the experiments with HI-Rez music and Music Servers. We have a significant number of software engineers in our audio club, that are quite actively working on SOTA servers, for themselves and the club, as well as perhaps a commercial product.
It is my opinion, and that of most of the people working on all this, that the overthrow of the best vinyl is the goal, and it is generally acknowledged that it's getting pretty close, but we ain't there yet.
It is also pretty certain that a lot of the music that I (and others?) enjoy will probably never be released on advanced formats, so I will continue to listen to vinyl or home-grown Hi-Rez digital copies of those LP's (to save wear and tear).
Best Regards,
TerryO
Last edited:
Hi,
The fact of the matter is that the "error correction algorithms" do not correct BLER, as this measurement is affected by physical properties of the disc itself. To quote a part of the info on the site provided earlier (nice site, BTW!):
"Important mechanical properties include center hole and outer rim diameters, thickness, weight, unbalance, eccentricity, deviation, and deflection."
As for the rest, you can read my prior posts on this thread and decide for yourself if I'm part of some grand conspiracy to fleece the unwitting consumer on bogus claims of sonic improvement.
Best Regards,
TerryO
I don't think that is correct. Some stuff about error correction from this site IDDA - BLER:
WHAT ARE ERRORS?
Block errors on a disc are not a physical thing. They are a manifestation of how a disc interacts with a player. So different players can produce different error-rates from the same disc. Although there are rigid specifications that define what a CD should be, there are no such specifications for players. Therfore, to ensure wide compatibility, discs should have low errors. Additionally, a disc that is unreadable on one player, may seem to perform well on another.
The CIRC error correction used in CD players uses two stages of error correction called C1 and C2, with de-interleaving of the data between the stages. The error correction chip can correct two bad symbols per block in the first stage and up to four bad symbols in the second stage.
BLER
BLER, or Block Error Rate, is the number of data blocks per second that contain detectable errors at the input of the C1 decoder[my emphasis]. The "Red Book" specification allows BLER up to 220 per second averaged over 10 seconds. These days, with high speed readers commonplace, the generally accepted maximum is 50.
Block errors on a disc are not a physical thing. They are a manifestation of how a disc interacts with a player. So different players can produce different error-rates from the same disc. Although there are rigid specifications that define what a CD should be, there are no such specifications for players. Therfore, to ensure wide compatibility, discs should have low errors. Additionally, a disc that is unreadable on one player, may seem to perform well on another.
The CIRC error correction used in CD players uses two stages of error correction called C1 and C2, with de-interleaving of the data between the stages. The error correction chip can correct two bad symbols per block in the first stage and up to four bad symbols in the second stage.
BLER
BLER, or Block Error Rate, is the number of data blocks per second that contain detectable errors at the input of the C1 decoder[my emphasis]. The "Red Book" specification allows BLER up to 220 per second averaged over 10 seconds. These days, with high speed readers commonplace, the generally accepted maximum is 50.
So BLER and other errors are before the error correction.
I don't think you are part of some grand conspiracy - we just have a difference of opinion.
Well I did miss-speak when I said:
The fact of the matter is that the "error correction algorithms" do not correct BLER, as this measurement is affected by physical properties of the disc itself.
I should have said:
The fact of the matter is that the "error correction algorithms" do not necessarily correct BLER, as this measurement is greatly affected by the physical properties of the disc itself.
This is evidently the reason that a disc can be tested for BLER (in a number of consecutive tests to arrive at an average BLER). Then, the same disc, after being trued on a lathe, coated with an anti-resonant coating and finally being balanced, it will (with an equal number of consecutive test runs) have a significantly lower BLER average.
Everyone is free to make of it what you will, but I believe that it seems evident that I don't have anything worthwhile to contribute to this discussion and therefore will get out of the way.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Wow, quite a thread!
I have well over 20,000 records (110 year old shellac to the latest Iron Maiden release), over 1,000 CDs, thousands of MP3 files on an IPOD, and a few hundred pre-recorded Reel To Reel tapes.
For sound quality and listening to music at home, I prefer records and tape. I play CDs in the shop, in the Jeep and the IPOD gets used on long road trips.
Despite my preferences, I'm not about to say one format is inherently "better" than the other. I enjoy them all and they each have their pro's and cons.
I think the music industry is pretty much killing itself with the insane LOUDNESS WARS. It's been five years since I bought a new CD. I just got so disgusted with the horrible 'brick-wall-of-sound' crappy quality. So I limit my CD purchases to what I find at yard sales for a buck or less.
One huge advantage with records is simply the staggering amount of music one can buy for little money, if not acquire for free. One of my best scores was 1,200 Classical LPs, free from a radio station. The vast majority of the records in my 33/45/78 collection have never been reissued on CD and likely never will be. For a music lover interested in a wide range of genres, having a turntable is essential.
I have well over 20,000 records (110 year old shellac to the latest Iron Maiden release), over 1,000 CDs, thousands of MP3 files on an IPOD, and a few hundred pre-recorded Reel To Reel tapes.
For sound quality and listening to music at home, I prefer records and tape. I play CDs in the shop, in the Jeep and the IPOD gets used on long road trips.
Despite my preferences, I'm not about to say one format is inherently "better" than the other. I enjoy them all and they each have their pro's and cons.
I think the music industry is pretty much killing itself with the insane LOUDNESS WARS. It's been five years since I bought a new CD. I just got so disgusted with the horrible 'brick-wall-of-sound' crappy quality. So I limit my CD purchases to what I find at yard sales for a buck or less.
One huge advantage with records is simply the staggering amount of music one can buy for little money, if not acquire for free. One of my best scores was 1,200 Classical LPs, free from a radio station. The vast majority of the records in my 33/45/78 collection have never been reissued on CD and likely never will be. For a music lover interested in a wide range of genres, having a turntable is essential.
Even this amended version isn't really correct. Its certainly possible for the BLER to overwhelm the error correction. But before this happens, the BLER is entirely corrected by the algorithms. They are necessarily corrected below a certain BLER, with an important caveat which has been alluded to already. The BLER is a measure of block errors per second - a single block needs only to contain one error to contribute to this figure. If it contains a large number the error correction can be overwhelmed whilst the BLER is apparently still low.
This does not follow from the preceding. Improving the geometry certainly can improve the BLER but won't necessarily have any effect on the output data from the correction algorithms. Improving the BLER below a certain level has no payback in terms of the integrity of the recovered data post-correction.
abraxalito - so you're an expert on BLER now, are you? 😉
cactus cowboy:
20 thousand records, eh? Good thing you live in Wyoming where you've got room to store them!
cactus cowboy:
20 thousand records, eh? Good thing you live in Wyoming where you've got room to store them!
Yes, I've got a 600 square foot 'mancave' with nearly 200 running feet of shelving for LPs, 80 running feet for 78s, and a large cabinet that holds 22 running feet of 7" singles and R2R tapes.
If I wanted to, I could fit up to about 50,000 records in the mancave without getting crowded out. Then there's my 1,500 square foot shop, and ten acres of land..... Plenty of room here! 🙂
If I wanted to, I could fit up to about 50,000 records in the mancave without getting crowded out. Then there's my 1,500 square foot shop, and ten acres of land..... Plenty of room here! 🙂
Everything's relative - compared to my ignorance of the term before, yeah.😀 I found it was more a question of not recognising the nomenclature. Once I'd understood that I was able to relate it to what I'd studied in DAB and DVB at my previous job. So I came up to speed fairly quickly, but no, I'm no expert on this in that I've not designed working communications channels employing FEC (forward error correction).
The question is: Tony BLER or Linda BLER?
Any-who. I have the advantage of knowing Terry-O and he's no slouch at this stuff, and he has very smart friends. So I tend to listen to what he says. Terry's no effete audiophile type either (like me), but more of the double bladed ax lumberjack type - so not listening to him was at my peril. Fortunately we did not have to spend time together in a Canadian jail. 😱 That's another story.
I don't know anything about BLERs but for me the nitty-gritty would be to compare a ripped CD to the actual master file that was sent to the pressing plant. How close are they? Has anyone ever tested this? Would it be a worthwhile test?
Any-who. I have the advantage of knowing Terry-O and he's no slouch at this stuff, and he has very smart friends. So I tend to listen to what he says. Terry's no effete audiophile type either (like me), but more of the double bladed ax lumberjack type - so not listening to him was at my peril. Fortunately we did not have to spend time together in a Canadian jail. 😱 That's another story.
I don't know anything about BLERs but for me the nitty-gritty would be to compare a ripped CD to the actual master file that was sent to the pressing plant. How close are they? Has anyone ever tested this? Would it be a worthwhile test?
As I often say to my students - 'every coin has two sides'. So advantages become disadvantages when viewed from a different perspective. I have the advantage of not knowing TerryO - so I take his words totally at face value and don't interpolate what I think I know of his personality. I do listen to his words on this thread and don't second guess what I think he's saying (not of course implying you necessarily do this just because you've met him).
There you have it - expressing something of what I meant by an advantage of not knowing him 😀
As I said earlier, I consider BLERs to be an irrelevance, so you're doing just fine by not knowing anything at all about them. I would suggest that if there was a difference between a rip and the master, this would indicate something seriously wrong with the whole process. I would guess that if this had been done and a discrepancy was found, the story would have got out and been all over the forums being touted by the 'audiophools' as yet another reason for CD's poor sound quality.😉
This is very much only a guess though. It would indeed be a most worthwhile thing to test.
I wonder how we could test it? Where could we get some master files?
Reading some stuff about CD mastering they are (or used to be) very picky about what you sent to the pressing plant. For awhile they liked (digital) tape best. Don't know what the standard is now, but it does seem to matter.
Reading some stuff about CD mastering they are (or used to be) very picky about what you sent to the pressing plant. For awhile they liked (digital) tape best. Don't know what the standard is now, but it does seem to matter.
I'd suggest the way to get an answer to this is to pose the question on one of the pro forums - like ProSoundWeb. Or even do a search there to see if its already been done.
I would expect them to be identical unless the disc has been used to wipe your feet. The same system with somewhat more error correction is CD-ROM where much software comes from. One (count 'em) bit error yields a useless file. It's not a bad medium when handled reasonably - amazing if you look at the game discs the kids use and how they still work when UGLY.
I have a few discs with errors recorded into the disc. You can tell this by ripping on different drives/computers with identical results. The audio error is clearly a digital failure but the disc itself has no problem.
G²
With a checksum, let's hope!
Got proof?
I'd like to get Mythbusters on that one. As buggy as some software is, I've always wondered just how good the files are. 😉
Well, the audiophools might (just might) be on to something...
Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect -- Oohashi et al. 83 (6): 3548 -- Journal of Neurophysiology
I found that very interesting, hope you do too...
-=|R|=-
Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect -- Oohashi et al. 83 (6): 3548 -- Journal of Neurophysiology
I found that very interesting, hope you do too...
-=|R|=-
Do they know better than PCM audio engineers and the rest,reviewers,experts etc ? Eh?
What fruit is that?
Psychoacoustics?
What ?
They must be wackos..
Feeling instead of hearing?
Sounds meant to be heard . No?
What?
Only analog recordings meet the criteria?
Lets ask the "experts".
B.L.
That study is mentioned often - and argued about. You'll find it here on this forum.
I can't see how it has much to do with digital v analog - but that's just me.
I can't see how it has much to do with digital v analog - but that's just me.
For me too - this would be the acid test (you'd have to rip in the same way a CD player would however - none of the usual PC/Mac rip enhancements).
I bet it hasn't been done - we need to get hold of a data CD of a mastered song we can buy on CD. How?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.