“Bit errors have been solved, period. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be sitting on this forum now because the internet as we know it wouldn’t even be viable. Its a LOT more data than what’s on any damn CD, and it gets through well enough for programs to run (even a few bits wrong could crash the CPU Or at least that process). Terabyte magnetic media would never have been possible, or even 3,4, or 5G. Even fiber isn’t a perfect transmission medium, especially the longer it is.”
Last edited:
The problems I’m taking about can and do occur in practice. The obvious answer is everyone is used to hearing them so they believe it’s normal. If only you could hear what I’ve heard with my ears.did you guys miss the vibration isolation revolution or something?
Last edited:
One can't argue with people who are convinced a hole is a hole and the rest is a fantasy based belief. Sorry for being a pig but that is "objectivists vs subjectivists debate in a nutshell"
Geoff.
You're just proving the point about subjectivity being so very flawed in my view. Have you heard every CD player/dac combination? Have you heard every cartridge (MM and MC)/record deck/phono amp combination? Yes, you did say "generally speaking", but is this not just another subjective statement?
You seem to take these things as "facts" but in reality they are not, on any objective basis (or even subjective one for that matter!). To me it's exactly this "muddying" or "confusing" of the two terms which make comparison almost impossible.
For example in comparing my Kenwood kp-9010, NOS Sony XL-44L MC cart with any of my better CD players (good mid range ones supposedly, (AMR CD77 Micro Seiki CD-M100, Cambridge Audio CD1 etc, please excuse the name dropping), The pleasure recieved due to the complete lack of pops, no slight hiss (objective) or having to get up and down to change the thing over, (subjective) and the dynamic range, (objective), leads me to have a higher level of pleasure from CD playback. This is not completely subjective. There is no point at this stage though quoting SN, W/F or rumble figures (an objective bit), as I can't be certain that I can hear their effects. (S/N of 80 compared to 100 so who cares?), though channel separation is an area where the CD player could have an audible advantage.
So in summation non of the above can really be used as any form of objective or "safe" view on the "best" form of playback in my opinion because "Best" is a subjective term in this context.
Last edited:
There is no such thing as transparent audio reproduction. It doesn't exist.
Over time it has been shown that the timing of digital is extremely important. Likely more so than the 1s and 0s.
Corllary: The ear/brain is incredibly sensitive to timing
dave
I have lots of LPs that sound like that (or worse). I am quite amazed at how well even modest 16/44 digital can sound.
It comes down to the execution of the recording and the care with which it is reproduced.
dave
Last edited:
The only reason so many brands , models contradicting technologies in audio playback exist is because at least some sizeable part of populace find them appealing even though another sizeable part of populace find them to be a total trash and "effect boxes"
Of course our Western way of life is to delay the satisfaction for a future gains. Some delay for most of their lives and try to get it back taking a cruise trip when they hit their 80's 🙂 Boombox and something resembling life looks like a much better choice when I glance back my own path ..
Of course our Western way of life is to delay the satisfaction for a future gains. Some delay for most of their lives and try to get it back taking a cruise trip when they hit their 80's 🙂 Boombox and something resembling life looks like a much better choice when I glance back my own path ..
So instead of using a low distortion HPA as line amp why don't you try the infamous HPA your pal designed. It sure is not transparent and the tonal richness will far exceed the original recording.
What Hugo said. Once of the CD (or never on iy in the first place), is read it all comes down to timing.
dave
Geoff. I won't argue what you've said about potential problems in error correction and other small? factors, but are you not overlooking the issues with record playback, like muck in the tracks, static charging, relative humidity of record and playing room, vibrations from traffic, wear of both stylus and record, wharped records, scratches etc? Record playback is a contact sport with all that it entails, I would have thought that together those factors would influence sound quality much more than any CD reading errors.
Some examples of jitter artifacts.
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/08/demo-musings-lets-listen-to-some-jitter.html
It's not about comparing technical reproduction of being faithful to recorded material. It's about being closer to the sound of a real instrument and venue not recording of instrument and venue. Call it EQ or effect box recreating reality. Once I heard description "Real Fi " as opposed to "Hi-Fi" This is my understanding of the concept.
In practice there are no CD reading errors whatsoever, they are all corrected.
Jitter and filtering are the actual issues.
They certainly don't occur if using 'Exact Audio Copy' to rip a CD. The reading is over and done with, the CD data is identified from an online database, and a checksum shows that it matches every other copy in the world of the same CD, and with zero bit errors.
There you go again with the gratuitous insults. Leaving out unnecessary adjectives will help your writing be read by others as having a more professional tone.
Depends if you define 'analog' as a valid descriptor of the physical world around us. If so physical pits are analog even when not utilized in analog form. Both lines below remain text even though one is encoded.
Plaintext: This is not a pipe.
ROT13: Guvf vf abg n cvcr.
It's the kind of fun rhetorical hairball that keep this place buzzing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.