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 6  

post #76 of 168

omegalau, you keep saying you just came hear to find out the reason these differences exist...

 

You've been given the reason. You're just not willing to accept it.

 

Most of these differences you hear are imagined, which is not only a normal but an extremely common thing. As far as the science behind digital audio goes, that's all there is to it. If you want some bizarre theories that support all of your claims this isn't the place to find them. Maybe try the cables and tweaks section, or just keep asking your friends.


Edited by chewy4 - 3/15/13 at 10:27am
post #77 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by omegalau View Post

Chewy4, I did ask Phd.Lim why playing the same track over and over again will sound better. He said he don't know, but he's guessing maybe when the CD get's warmer, its easier to read by the reader ?

Ok, I actually have been thinking about this.  Yeah, slow day.  Perhaps it's not the CD that's changing.  Perhaps it's the CD player.  Repeated plays warm things up, perhaps there's some sort of temp drift going on.  Particularly if you repeat the track immediately vs stopping to re-load a disc, during which time something may cool off.  There's nothing about the CD that can change, though, it's got to be stable, and anything that did change on the disc would result in higher errors, which would go undetected right up until you reach the point that error correction/concealment becomes overwhelmed, and the result is audible glitches.  It won't be gradual or subtle. 

 

So, my guess, if this is real (big doubt there still, sorry), it's more likely the player than the CD.

post #78 of 168
Pretty sure we are being trolled here guys... just let it die?
post #79 of 168
post #80 of 168

Ken Rockwell is not really a credible author. I would not cite him in an argument dealing with science; his articles are filled with exaggeration and hyperbole, and he often doesn't have his facts straight (for example, the section on bit depth is not quite right; bit depth has more to do with the resolution of volume, not dynamic range).

post #81 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tus-Chan View Post

Ken Rockwell is not really a credible author. I would not cite him in an argument dealing with science; his articles are filled with exaggeration and hyperbole, and he often doesn't have his facts straight (for example, the section on bit depth is not quite right; bit depth has more to do with the resolution of volume, not dynamic range).

Please cite a credible reference for "resolution of volume" re: bit depth. 

 

Thanks.

post #82 of 168
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 #83 of 168
This is easily the best thing I have ever read on head fi!!!
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 #84 of 168

Please cite a credible reference for "resolution of volume" re: bit depth. 

 

I was looking at something I read again and I realized that it meant something different. Adobe's Audition guide says that it provides higher fidelity and cites an exponential increase in possible amplitude, but also mentions an increase in possible volume; I was thinking that the extra bits were not only allocated to increase total dynamic range, but the resolution of the volume level themselves (greater precision).

I still wouldn't cite Ken Rockwell as being terribly credible, though. Have you read some of his articles on vintage electrostats?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/audio/stax/new-sr-3.htm

post #85 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tus-Chan View Post

 

I was looking at something I read again and I realized that it meant something different. Adobe's Audition guide says that it provides higher fidelity and cites an exponential increase in possible amplitude, but also mentions an increase in possible volume; I was thinking that the extra bits were not only allocated to increase total dynamic range, but the resolution of the volume level themselves (greater precision).

I still wouldn't cite Ken Rockwell as being terribly credible, though. Have you read some of his articles on vintage electrostats?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/audio/stax/new-sr-3.htm

I did read it. I don't have a problem with someone expressing their opinion, even strongly.  The review was totally subjective re: performance & impressions.  I don't agree with the conclusions though, as I owned a pair of Stax SR-5 headphones, always thought them a bit colored, but not unpleasant, just not worth keeping.  

 

But I don't see anything wrong with what he wrote, it's his subjective opinion on SR-3s.  No measurements that time, but he does do them, and seems to know how to drive a Rohde & Schwarz UPL.  

 

Where do you see him being non-credible?  

post #86 of 168

spinning doesn't work for sacred music, only secular, demonically inspired music that leads to sin:

 

Quote:

In 1522 Herman Moritz, a Bavarian sorcerer, announced that rifle bullets were more accurate because demons could not control spinning objects. For a while, this was accepted as the truth, and rifles were used against non-Christians and alleged witches. To test Moritz's conclusion, the Archbishop of Mainz, Germany, held a contest between two riflemen in March, 1547. One rifleman used ordinary lead bullets, while the other employed silver bullets which were engraved with crosses and had been manufactured and loaded by priests who had meticulously exorcised each round of ammunition. Since the denser, "holy" silver bullets resisted the rifle's spiraling and since their shape was distorted due to the crucifixes carved into them, none of the silver bullets hit the target, while all the lead bullets found their mark. This demonstration convinced the archbishop that rifles were weapons of the devil. He declared them illegal and had them seized and destroyed. Anyone found manufacturing a rifle was burned at the stake.

 

clearly spin on == sin on


Edited by jcx - 5/15/13 at 5:39pm
post #87 of 168
Real burn in takes time. It can't be speeded up with explosive acceleration. For one thing it cracks the CD and for another how do we even know if they used clockwise or anti-clockwise rifling? Was this peer reviewed? If the burn in spin is in the wrong direction you don't get a polished sound, you get jitter. And being a stressful test those riflemen were probably jittery to start with.
post #88 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by julian67 View Post

Real burn in takes time. It can't be speeded up with explosive acceleration. For one thing it cracks the CD and for another how do we even know if they used clockwise or anti-clockwise rifling? Was this peer reviewed? If the burn in spin is in the wrong direction you don't get a polished sound, you get jitter. And being a stressful test those riflemen were probably jittery to start with.

I really needed the laughs. Thank you! Struggling through revision for exams and you lightened up my day :D.

post #89 of 168
I miss ole Phoebe, she was great for a laugh on slow days.
post #90 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tus-Chan View Post

Ken Rockwell is not really a credible author. I would not cite him in an argument dealing with science; his articles are filled with exaggeration and hyperbole, and he often doesn't have his facts straight (for example, the section on bit depth is not quite right; bit depth has more to do with the resolution of volume, not dynamic range).


Whats the difference between "resolution of volume" and "dynamic range" again?

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?