Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why do CDs sound better than loss less audio files?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do CDs sound better than loss less audio files? - Page 8  

post #106 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

 

I think it's probably better to try to develop separate understandings of images and audio, as some mechanisms and mathematics are similar, but others are not.

 

On a side note, some better image upscaling algorithms are nonlinear (I think there could be some filtering too? I know even less about image processing), so you might say that they're slightly reducing the information by upscaling... not just keeping the same level.  Some type of (ideal...?) sinc-based interpolation may introduce noticeable ringing across pixels—perceptually there are better methods.  I think it's more complicated.

 

 

But anyway, if you want to make an analogy, I'd make it this:

Imagine a system where each pixel can take one of 2^24 colors (8 bits each for R, G, and B).  You are displaying on a system with an infinite number of pixels, each so small that you couldn't possibly distinguish individual ones.  So if you're looking at some area of the display and some pixels are [130 0 0] and some others are [129 0 0], effectively you see a color between [130 0 0] and [129 0 0] (and how close it is to one or the other depends on the likelihood of each).  That's pretty much spatial dithering taken to the extreme.  Temporal dithering would be if the pixels rapidly shifted back and forth between [130 0 0] and [129 0 0], with the time spent in each part determining the resulting color.  Some monitors do that too, especially on 6-bit (18-bit?) displays.

 

But that doesn't quite work, as audio output waveforms don't actually represent the individual sample points but what they represent as a whole, whereas for displays each pixel actually does represent what that sample point is.

 

Yes, upsampling will actually reduce the base signal (except if you go for factors of 4 or multiple of 4 with certain scalers), I oversimplified, but it seemed like a good analogy to me as it is visual, easy to try and understand. Of course "color resolution" (bitdepth) is the closer equivalent, but imo much harder to visualize. Still, I think your example proofs my point, if one source pixel is 130 and the other is 129 the one in between would appear as 129.5 to our eyes, yes, but if the source would have the same high resolution as the display, any value between 0 and 255 would be possible for this pixel as we can't know what would have been sampled in real life for this point (greatly simplified, as the capturing device probably doesn't capture aliased images, so the values 130 and 129 are already the result of interpolation, they are either way, but thats nitpicking...). Perhaps its really just a matter of perspective if you consider the resolution infinite as well as separate from DR or if you consider it finite and actually "defining" the DR (considering that we deal with a function of samples per time, resolution of the waveform results resolution of amplitude and frequency at the same time, depending on POV).


Edited by LordOctron - 5/26/13 at 1:54pm
post #107 of 168

You can't be serious...I'll assume this is an attempt at humor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by julian67 View Post

The CDs sound better because the CD drive is nicely burned in. The silvery discs are also burned in: they have been used many times and the air friction generated as they spin has smoothed off their edges thus making them sound very polished and balanced. This is simple physics and common sense. Flac and Ape files are always the same. Checksum them the minute you create or purchase them. You'll notice that even years later they checksum the same. That's why when you play the flac or ape files they never sound burned in or polished but always edgy and raw and unbalanced. The CD matures to perfection but the file never reaches its potential. Again this is simple empirical method, basic physics and common sense. Any CS undergrad can explain it. A little known aspect of this is that lossy files, not being lossless, are capable of improving with burning in as they change subtly (lossily) with repeated use. Eventually they even become better than the source. Simple proof: after several years listening exclusively to lossy music most people start thinking it's better than lossless. QED.

Proper Audio CD-R blanks are spun in the factory for at least 300 hours before being packaged. This performs the all important initial burn-in. Then there's the real secret to Audio CD-R: the jewel case. A normal jewel case holds the CD-R firmly in place. An Audio CD-R jewel case allows the Audio CD-R to gently rotate in the case. This means that the Audio CD-R is still improving even while being transported in a shipping container or the back of a truck. It's the difference between keeping your fine wine in wine cellar or in the fridge. Most people take the CD-R out of the jewel case and never give it a second thought (or even a first one) but it's crucial to why Audio CD-R sound better than regular data CD-R. But what about the obvious audio differences between good quality and budget CD-R? Cheap CD-R blanks are manufactured of slightly cheaper plastic that is just hard enough to resist the air friction polishing effect. That's why they never sound as good. Simple.
post #108 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellenback View Post

You can't be serious...I'll assume this is an attempt at humor.

You have to ask?

 

As an example, no factory has 300 hours to spin anything.  They are just kicked out the door as fast as possible, or they wouldn't cost just .15 each, or whatever we're down to now. 

post #109 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellenback View Post

You can't be serious...I'll assume this is an attempt at humor.

I don't know why people are holding this up as humour, or an attempt at humour. When I saw it in the "funny stuff from the forums" section I felt really frustrated. Everything I wrote was simple common sense and verifiable by normal scientific method. You can measure the edge texture of your new CDs and then do the same a thousand hours playback later and easily discover the difference. They sound smoother because they are smoother. However if you've treated your CDs with a Green Pen this minutely pits the edges, negating any change, and the sound can never improve. That is one of several "audiophile" tweaks that deserves real derision.

I went to great lengths to determine and verify the reasons behind Audio CD-R superior sound quality over CD-R Data discs. Purchasing a canonical copy of the "Red Book" would cost a lot of money and the savings made in obtaining one by covert means were disappointingly meagre. To then actually insert myself unnoticed into an Audio CD-R manufacturing plant was highly risky but worth it to confirm the nature and existence of the proprietary 300 hour burn-in process which had until then been only a rumour.

The most physically and mentally arduous part of the research was to infitrate a shipping container of the Audio CD-Rs and observe and measure at first hand the gradual rotation of the discs within the special jewel cases as we traversed the globe from country of origin to the retail markets. Interestingly as we crossed the equator the direction of rotation reversed. Further research strongly suggests that this eliminates the possibility of any sawtooth profile distortion forming in any subsequently recorded audio. I'm preparing a White Paper on the subject which will be available at a very special price to any of Head-Fi's "objectivists".
post #110 of 168
^ not sure if troll or really serious
post #111 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by julian67 View Post

The most physically and mentally arduous part of the research was to infitrate a shipping container of the Audio CD-Rs and observe and measure at first hand the gradual rotation of the discs within the special jewel cases as we traversed the globe from country of origin to the retail markets. Interestingly as we crossed the equator the direction of rotation reversed. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenleaf7 View Post

^ not sure if troll or really serious

Ok, this is just scary.  Greeny, is there really any doubt?

post #112 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post

 

Ok, this is just scary.  Greeny, is there really any doubt?

Actually, after a few minutes thought, this precisely illustrates the power of suggestion bias.  We have one person posting that, among other things, a factory that mass produces .10 CD-R blanks actually spins each disc for 300 hours before shipping.  We have another that claims he hopped into a sealed box of CR-Rs and watched them as the carton was transported across the equator, and observed that the spun, in their jewel cases, first one way then the other.  You'd think that every reader would just smile at the intended humor, but no.  We now have two separate posters questioning if this was humor or serious.

 

There is a ratio of people that post to people with the same opinion or question that don't, with far fewer posting, and most just reading. 

 

Is it any wonder that mythology persists?

 

I'm on a team of researchers that discovered that a TOSLINK cable with a green colored low polyolefin jacket sounds better than one with a black vinyl jacket.  It's the same principle as the green CD marker, the jacket prevents laser scatter, and therefore reduces the transverse error count, and presents the DAC with a much lower stress signal which sounds amazingly better.  You can buy that special TOSLINK cable from a company that I just started for $500 for a 3' long with high optical transmissivity fiber, green low polyolefin jacket, precision machined surgical steel end connectors.  Want the link to buy one?  

 

There isn't one, I just made the whole thing up.  It's not true.  Not even one tiny bit of it.  Especially the part about me starting a company to sell them, although I could probably make some money doing so.  

 

If you make anything preposterous enough, people will start to believe it.

post #113 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post

...10 CD-R blanks actually spins each disc for 300 hours before shipping.

When I saw it for myself I wondered if it wasn't uneconomic. Then I thought about it rationally and calmly for a minute: it's an ongoing process so after the factory's first 300 hours (in any case a good time to iron out small unforseen production issues and get a handle on real world QA) the production line never needs to slow or hold. Even if that initial 300 hour buffer is expensive one only has to look at the high wholesale and retail price of Audio CD-R to understand that the expense was recouped a long time ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post

... We have another that claims he hopped into a sealed box of CR-Rs and watched them as the carton was transported across the equator...

To many people this may seem far fetched but for those of us who have learned to control and conserve our prana it is not so remarkable to spend several weeks in such an environment. Even a duration of months is possible. In such a state one's mind is clearer and more analytical than in busy household or work life - you could even say the mind in its ideal state becomes effulgent in its brilliance. Attentive observation leads naturally and effortlessly to deep understanding which completes the circle by increasing the acuity of the observation. This is the virtuous circle, and in forming it rotated in perfect synchronicity with the nearest Audio CD-R blanks. Those are without a doubt the best sounding Audio CD-R blanks ever known. I only have a few left and it would be hard to put a price on them.
Edited by julian67 - 6/11/13 at 9:52am
post #114 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenleaf7 View Post

^ not sure if troll or really serious

Absolutely trolling, just relax. wink.gif
post #115 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by julian67 View Post


 ...  effulgent in its brilliance.

 

I suspect the effulgent would be pretty pungent after a few weeks locked in a shipping container.

...

Never mind, I'll get my coat. It's the one with the Ozric Tentacles CD in the pocket.


Edited by Don Hills - 6/13/13 at 12:59am
post #116 of 168
Quote:
effulgent
adj 1: radiating or as if radiating light; "the beaming sun";
post #117 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by julian67 View Post

Quote:
effulgent
adj 1: radiating or as if radiating light; "the beaming sun";

 

Whoosh.

 

Why wait 300 hours, when you can achieve similar results in a few seconds with an Audiodesk CD Lathe?

(Do a Google search for: audiodesk "cd lathe" )

post #118 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by julian67 View Post

It might be better to offer advance warning before you make a joke. Also make a note to confirm when you're done.

 

You should take your own advice!

 

 

Just for information's sake;  the Audio CD-r was created in order to put a flag and a tax on blanks used in the consumer CD recorders that were common for a few years before computer burning became so popular. It allowed for one legal digital copy of a CD.

 

There are high and low quality brands of both but no difference on the manufacturing end other than the flag/tax.

 

 

Quote:
"Digital Audio" CD-R's contain a stamped code before the lead-in of the disc that "tells" a stand-alone CD-R recorder the flag/taxt you paid the recording industry a royalty. That is the only physical difference between a computer CD-R and audio ones.

Edited by Hellenback - 6/17/13 at 7:20pm
post #119 of 168
Helleback, you quoted me from an entirely unrelated discussion in a different section of the board making a comment to a specific person for a specific reason. Neither is relevant to this thread. Probably you are trying to be mischievious and sow dissent and confusion while making insupportable and ridiculous claims about sound quality and the nature of Audio CD-R, such as:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellenback View Post

...the Audio CD-r was created in order to put a flag and a tax on blanks used in the consumer CD recorders that were common for a few years before computer burning became so popular.

No, you are wrong. It was created to sound better, which it does for all the reasons previously stated. The sound quality of all the various Audio CD-R brands is potentially equal (and intrinsically superior to all other CD media) but those which crossed the equator in transit prior to being used must be considered first amongst equals. Those which changed rotational direction at the crossing point are beyond compare. I still have a few left which I am prepared to sell or exchange and my demands are legal in most jurisdictions outside of the theocratic nations.
post #120 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by julian67 View Post

Helleback, you quoted me from an entirely unrelated discussion in a different section of the board making a comment to a specific person for a specific reason. Neither is relevant to this thread. Probably you are trying to be mischievious and sow dissent and confusion while making insupportable and ridiculous claims about sound quality and the nature of Audio CD-R, such as:
No, you are wrong. It was created to sound better, which it does for all the reasons previously stated. The sound quality of all the various Audio CD-R brands is potentially equal (and intrinsically superior to all other CD media) but those which crossed the equator in transit prior to being used must be considered first amongst equals. Those which changed rotational direction at the crossing point are beyond compare. I still have a few left which I am prepared to sell or exchange and my demands are legal in most jurisdictions outside of the theocratic nations.

I have to say, you are entertaining.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why do CDs sound better than loss less audio files?