Digital equalization/audio degradation

[yggdrasil]

When you decompress lossless data (FLAC) it shall be bit for bit the same as the original. There are enough checksum data in the compressed file to ensure this. Decompression software is able to recognize errors, and hopefully report them to the user instead of ignoring them.....

Regarding the discussion of sound differences between original CD, copied CD and hard-drive (given that you use the same DAC): Any differences in sound will come from differences in the digital material, which means that the copied CD is harder to read and the hard-drive is defect.

This is possible on an audio cd-drive because it has a logical preference to ignore reading errors so that the music can play continously.

However on a computer cd-drive reading errors will lead to retries until it is read error-free or the retry-count has reached it's preprogrammed maximum.

[lofi-ear]

This thread seems to have deviated from my original question to a discussion about digital data reliability, so here's my take on it. No offense to anyone

A well-preserved CD, when played with a decent CD-player, won't make the CD sound "bad" because the bits are "distorted" or badly read or whatever. It's because of bad mastering. Of course there could be occasional read errors, but they won't make the CD sound bad (unless there's a scratch or something of a larger scale damage on the cd that causes an audible pop). The red book error correction mechanism, although quite primitive, is still efficient enough to eliminate most read errors. Even if a few bits couldn't be read among thousands of them, the missing bits will be interpolated so you won't hear anything that would make you suspect something is wrong with the CD.

When a CD is ripped (copied) to a hard drive with exact audio copy, the result is guaranteed to be bitwise accurate if AccuRip feature is on, which checks the CRC checksum of the audio data from a general database somewhere in the Internet, based on other users' rips of the same CD. Even without accurip and C2 error correction on, the rip will most likely be 100% identical. And still, when read using burst mode only, it will be very close to 100% identical to the original (that is, if the CD is in a good condition).

Once the CD is on the hard drive or RAM, you don't practically need to worry about read errors anymore from the computer's viewpoint. The bits are always correct. If they weren't, programs would be crashing all the time, indicating faults in the hardware. What affects the audio data now is jitter, as the signal goes from the soundcard's spdif jack to the dac. If the DAC can resynchronize itself with the soundboard's internal clock, jitter is of no problem. Also the soundboard could introduce clocking problems, so I recommend a good one (such as M-audio's products).

In conclusion, PC is a perfect digital audio source as long as the data on the hard drive is a perfect copy of the CD. That way, you don't have to worry about possible sloppy CD data correction and the condiction of the CDs.

[boputnam]

Here is a basic question. When burning software verifies written data, and the FLAC (or Wavpack or APE or mp3) file has been decoded on the fly during the burn...

I think you mean encoded...?

Great discussion.

...there is always the possibility that I am full of crap.

And as usual, you are certainly not.

[Rolf]

This thread seems to have deviated from my original question to a discussion about digital data reliability, so here's my take on it. No offense to anyone

Sorry about that...But...

A well-preserved CD, when played with a decent CD-player, won't make the CD sound "bad" because the bits are "distorted" or badly read or whatever. It's because of bad mastering.

Yes, that was what I said, "where ever in the line the "bad things" happen."

Of course there could be occasional read errors, but they won't make the CD sound bad (unless there's a scratch or something of a larger scale damage on the cd that causes an audible pop). The red book error correction mechanism, although quite primitive, is still efficient enough to eliminate most read errors. Even if a few bits couldn't be read among thousands of them, the missing bits will be interpolated so you won't hear anything that would make you suspect something is wrong with the CD.

You are wrong here.

When a CD is ripped (copied) to a hard drive with exact audio copy, the result is guaranteed to be bitwise accurate if AccuRip feature is on, which checks the CRC checksum of the audio data from a general database somewhere in the Internet, based on other users' rips of the same CD. Even without accurip and C2 error correction on, the rip will most likely be 100% identical. And still, when read using burst mode only, it will be very close to 100% identical to the original (that is, if the CD is in a good condition).

NO. Give some proof of that.

Once the CD is on the hard drive or RAM, you don't practically need to worry about read errors anymore from the computer's viewpoint. The bits are always correct. If they weren't, programs would be crashing all the time, indicating faults in the hardware. What affects the audio data now is jitter, as the signal goes from the soundcard's spdif jack to the dac. If the DAC can resynchronize itself with the soundboard's internal clock, jitter is of no problem. Also the soundboard could introduce clocking problems, so I recommend a good one (such as M-audio's products).

That is bullshit

In conclusion, PC is a perfect digital audio source as long as the data on the hard drive is a perfect copy of the CD. That way, you don't have to worry about possible sloppy CD data correction and the condiction of the CDs.

The data on the pc can never be the same. Try it, compare, use your ears. Use the same Original CD vs the computer download, and compare the sound playing on a good CD player.

[hjames]

Sorry about that...But...
... That is bullshit ...

The data on the pc can never be the same. Try it, compare, use your ears. Use the same Original CD vs the computer download, and compare the sound playing on a good CD player.

An exact copy of data is an exact copy of data - no snake oil cables or maplewood need apply.

Please define "a good CD player".
Give exact make and model so we know of what you speak.
Otherwise its just another bs argument about esoteric minutiae.

[Ducatista47]

I think you mean encoded...?

I think I mean decoded. When I burn a FLAC file to a CD I either decode it with a stand alone software tool like FLAC frontend, or let the burning software decode it. In both cases, from FLAC to wave, I suppose. Since I am "decompressing" it, I assume I am decoding from FLAC, and the button I click in the tool is indeed marked "decode." But I suppose I could also be encoding the file to wave by doing that. We could both be right! Whether someone is immigrating or emigrating depends on which country you are standing in.

Hey, it is a free country (OK, debatable but I think it still is) and I reserve the right to be full of crap. Since I am never sure any more when I am, I am grateful for the option.

You are too kind as is your usual, Bo. I have been reading up on the 722 and I am officially envious. Do you know anyone using the Sony DSD recording system? I have a CD of Tierney Sutton & her band recorded live with the system and it sounds remarkable.

As for the other recent replies, Go Northern Europe! Which has apparently been declared a realm of scholars and gentlemen. I really, really appreciate your replies even if you do not agree.

If I ever get to visit my ancestrial homeland of Scotland, I will find a way to visit Norway, Sweden and Finland. I will be sure to visit the Sami to check out where Renee Zellweger got her great looks.

Clark

[Ian Mackenzie]

6Moons did a review of FLAC a while back and this is a good explanation of how this whole thing of data works.

They also explain how CDs are made..from a Mother. Quite interesting

To put yet another spin on the topic a CD Player only scans the files once on reading the data and then applies correction using various means.

The Rega Apollo and Saturn pre read the CD and then read and decode .The intent being to have a better Bit perfect read of the files.

FLAC and perhaps some other programs read and scan the CD numerous times and then store the data to the HD. The premise here is the data on the HD will be more likely to be BIT perfect.

Getting the data out of the PC and deciding it is another ball game.

In the above link they refer to AES cards from Lynx that allows sending the data out of the PC to a D/A convertor without the usual issues.

Certain aspects of Windows are worked around to prevent the usual corruption of the data and this is possibly what Rolf is seeing in CD copies.

I prefer not to copy CDs and I find depending on the type of blank CD they dont last very long and tend to have more error correction problems than the original..

I suspect Windows 7 will be a lot better for handling audio data.

My only grip with using a PC is the background noise (assuming its in the playback room) screws with the S/N and ultimate resolution of the system

[yggdrasil]

FLAC and perhaps some other programs read and scan the CD numerous times and then store the data to the HD. The premise here is the data on the HD will be more likely to be BIT perfect.

A computer CD-drive has different logic from audio CD-drive because it needs to read bit-perfect......

[Ducatista47]

The Rega Apollo and Saturn pre read the CD and then read and decode .The intent being to have a better Bit perfect read of the files.

The latest Rega players do have a circuit that analyzes the CD and plays a version that hopefully improves fidelity. My friend that owns one says it does improve crappy CD's a lot, but the output does not allow for an exact burn of the original on some stand alone burners like BurnIt machines. They won't sync up.

My only grip with using a PC is the background noise (assuming its in the playback room) screws with the S/N and ultimate resolution of the system

I can't deal with that either. I turn the thing off when I am listening to music. Judging from all the play cable length and working around its limits gets on the Computer Audiophile site, I think a lot of listeners feel the same way.

Clark

[boputnam]

When I burn a FLAC file to a CD ...

That part is encoding. Reconstructing the file (decompressing it) is decoding. Absolutely correct, Clark - it was me stumbling on your syntax...

[Rolf]

An exact copy of data is an exact copy of data - no snake oil cables or maplewood need apply.

In a computer program, yes. Regarding music signals, no. This is my opinion, judging by my ears. Regarding cables ... well ... I don't use very expensive cables. The most expensive I have is going from the CD to the pre. Monster Sigma. Price is about 12.000,- NKR when the US$ was around 5 NKR a US$. I hear differences, some others claim they don't. I will not go into that discussion again. People, including myself has the right to there opinion and judgement.

Please define "a good CD player".
Give exact make and model so we know of what you speak.
Otherwise its just another bs argument about esoteric minutiae.

There is a lot of good players on the market. I use a Burmeister, I believe the model is "Rondo" or something. Price? about 30 - 35000,- NKR, from the company importing them.

[hjames]

In a computer program, yes. Regarding music signals, no. This is my opinion, judging by my ears.

Okay, so you fall squarely in the "its not measurable but I can hear it" camp.
That's cool, like you, I won't get into that argument here, but other folks might
not spend that kind of money to attain that rarified air for testing.
And like others have said, it may be that data is not different, but the signal path may not be identical.

Regarding cables ... well ... I don't use very expensive cables. The most expensive I have is going from the CD to the pre.
Monster Sigma. Price is about 12.000,- NKR when the US$ was around 5 NKR a US$. I hear differences, some others claim they don't.
I will not go into that discussion again. People, including myself have the right to their opinion and judgement.

Bravo ... why fight that?

There is a lot of good players on the market. I use a Burmeister, I believe the model is "Rondo" or something. Price? about 30 - 35,000 - NKR, from the company importing them.

Ah Bermester - http://www.burmester.de/english/welcome.html
But I would imagine many folks here will don't have that kind of money ($6 - 7,000 us) in their CD player ...
so they'll never hear such sound ... but few have a pair of K2 speakers, right?

No flames meant at all, just putting things into perspective ...

Besides, like Dieter says, the experience of live music is the yardstick its all measured against!
Living music is so much different!

[Rolf]

Okay, so you fall squarely in the "its not measurable but I can hear
it" camp. Thats cool, like you, I won't get into that argument here, but other folks might not have that kind of money to spend to attain that rarified air.

Yes, I know that darling, but I am willing, and for me it is worth it. And from time to time I can afford to buy such things. I must admit I must other things I want come on second place. I am not a million-er you know.

Ah Bermester - http://www.burmester.de/english/welcome.html
But I would imagine many folks here will don't have that kind of money ($6 - 7,000 us) in their CD player ...
so they'll never hear such sound ... but few have a pair of K2 speakers, right?

No flames meant at all, just putting things into perspective ...

Quite all right. But if you want something you know makes a difference, you save until you can get it.

Music, Hi-Fi, reproduction of the sound, to get it as close to the real thing is something I have been having for a "hobby" for over 40 years.

I started with a "Lenco"? player, about US$ 25. Maybe I shall tell my story in a thread. I think I will.

In a few days, look in the "Off Topic" - "Rolf's Hi-Fi Story"

Cheers baby!

[yggdrasil]

If I ever get to visit my ancestrial homeland of Scotland, I will find a way to visit Norway, Sweden and Finland. I will be sure to visit the Sami to check out where Renee Zellweger got her great looks.

You are most welcome here if you do make the trip.

Beware of the distances you have just described.....

[Rolf]

I guess you are welcome to most Norwegian members. Me included.