[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif Take a copy made from an original, then copy the copy, and then copy the last copy, and then copy the last copy. Now compare the fourth generation copy to the sound of the original.

Guess what? I've done that test too... the day I got my first CD burner. I did 20 generations and compared the original CD to the 20th generation copy- no difference.

I don't know what you're hearing, but I suspect it isn't on the CD.

See ya
Steve

 

[Jigglybootch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells Take a copy made from an original, then copy the copy, and then copy the last copy, and then copy the last copy. Now compare the fourth generation copy to the sound of the original. If the copy were identical to the source CD then the fourth generation copy would be as good as the original. I can easily tell a first generation copy from an original CD. Pick out a vocal section on the original CD that is not too clear, but clear enough to make out. Then listen to this section on a copy - it will be less clear and harder to make out. Now this assumes you use top rate headphone equipment. You need headphones to eliminate phase distortion from reflected room sound with speakers. You need top components since sound quality is reduced to the weakest link in your system chain, and this may mask differences that are really there in the CD and the copy.

Reading this makes me realize, without a shadow of a doubt, that you have no idea what you are talking about. I don't even know why I bother.

 

[jp11801]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's totally wrong. If you patched a bunch of mike feeds directly into a digital recorder without balancing levels, EQing, adding reverb, or any other signal processing, it would sound like a mess. The secret to good sound is BALANCE. It's good to keep the signal clean, but you don't have to be obsessive about it. See ya Steve

I half agree certainly small amounts eq, reverb or dsp is ok but signal purity is something that sould be obessed about. The cleaner the signal the better the sound.
The optimum way to go is to get each instrument sounding right prior to recording. Ever listen to mapleshade records cds, they mix to 2 track no compression nothing added after the fact. The cds sound amazing

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's an article with a few format comparisons.

Thanks, that was very interesting. But sadly this has already been discredited big time
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...to+mono%22+LP&

The measuremeents are highly misleading as they have been chosen selectively adn ignored any that show pro-CD results

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif Originally Posted by drarthurwells I can easily tell a first generation copy from an original CD.

You are imagining it - fullstop. I have done this comparison again and again and again and unless your burner is seriously snafu'ed there is no discernible difference at all. I have tested the copies and they are bit identical and have the exact same error levels i.e zero - oh and they sound the same as well. If yours do not I would get another burner.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jp11801 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I half agree certainly small amounts eq, reverb or dsp is ok but signal purity is something that sould be obessed about. The cleaner the signal the better the sound. The optimum way to go is to get each instrument sounding right prior to recording. Ever listen to mapleshade records cds, they mix to 2 track no compression nothing added after the fact. The cds sound amazing

The reason they sound good is because of the choices made by the sound mixer, not the cleanliness of the signal. Just about all studio equipment sounds "clean". The art is in the balances.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with compression. I'm sure Mapleshade uses compressors in their mixing board like every other studio.

See ya
Steve

 

[jp11801]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The reason they sound good is because of the choices made by the sound mixer, not the cleanliness of the signal. Just about all studio equipment sounds "clean". The art is in the balances. By the way, there is nothing wrong with compression. I'm sure Mapleshade uses compressors in their mixing board like every other studio. See ya Steve

there is nothing wrong with compresion if it is used to nip and tuck stray peaks if it is used to squash the signal than there outa be a law

Quote from Mapleshade web page "Our recording technology is equally radical. We design and build, or custom-modify, all of our electronics from microphones to tape recorders to wires. All must meet standards well beyond commercial state-of-the-art. We record live to two-track analog, transfer to digital at a rate 100 times faster than the CD standard, and use no add-on EQ, reverb or noise reduction electronics. Our recordings are made with only 2 to 4 microphones and no cables longer than 20 feet. "


ps you are missing my point I disagree that the cure for world hunger is an eq and a compressor. No amount of eq or compression is the answer to a crappy rig or a crappy recording.

pps You and I will never see eye to eye and that's cool we appraoch things from different angles,

 

[jp11801]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are imagining it - fullstop. I have done this comparison again and again and again and unless your burner is seriously snafu'ed there is no discernible difference at all. I have tested the copies and they are bit identical and have the exact same error levels i.e zero - oh and they sound the same as well. If yours do not I would get another burner.

X2

 

[Skylab]

Actually, if you burn at an extremely fast rate, it is possible to introduce jitter into the copy, which *might* me audible. That jitter can be introduced is fact - whether the jitter is audible is debateable. This is why super-fast audio CD burns are frowned upon.

 

[drarthurwells]

Art: Take a copy made from an original, then copy the copy, and then copy the last copy, and then copy the last copy. Now compare the fourth generation copy to the sound of the original.

If the copy were identical to the source CD then the fourth generation copy would be as good as the original.

I can easily tell even a first generation copy from an original CD.

Pick out a vocal section on the original CD that is not too clear, but clear enough to make out. Then listen to this section on a copy - it will be less clear and harder to make out.

Now this assumes you use top rate headphone equipment.

You need headphones to eliminate phase distortion from reflected room sound with speakers.

You need top components since sound quality is reduced to the weakest link in your system chain, and this may mask differences that are really there in the CD and the copy.



Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Guess what? I've done that test too... the day I got my first CD burner. I did 20 generations and compared the original CD to the 20th generation copy- no difference. I don't know what you're hearing, but I suspect it isn't on the CD. See ya Steve

Art: I did this with a selection from Bjork's "Telegram" CD - made one copy of the original and compared the two.

At first the copy sounded identical to the original.

Then I picked out one passage (can't remember where) where the vocalization was barely intelligible on the original but I could barely make out what she was singing. Then I listened to this same passage on the copy using the same headphone system (below in my signature). I could not make out the words on the copy even though I knew what they were - there was a slight but definite drop in vocalization clarity on the copy compared to the original (which was low in clarity but you could make out the words).

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif there was a slight but definite drop in vocalization clarity on the copy compared to the original (which was low in clarity but you could make out the words).

Did you do a verification on your burns or a checksum? Odds are, your burner is having problems or the media you used had flaws.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jp11801 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Quote from Mapleshade web page "Our recording technology is equally radical. We design and build, or custom-modify, all of our electronics from microphones to tape recorders to wires. All must meet standards well beyond commercial state-of-the-art. We record live to two-track analog, transfer to digital at a rate 100 times faster than the CD standard, and use no add-on EQ, reverb or noise reduction electronics. Our recordings are made with only 2 to 4 microphones and no cables longer than 20 feet. "

The thing there that is making the difference is the 2 to 4 microphones.

They must not do much recording of vocals. I don't know how you could record most singers without using a compressor. They would have to do a million takes to get the singer to work the mike just right.

See ya
Steve

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif Originally Posted by drarthurwells Art: Take a CD and make a copy of it. Have an assistant cue up two identical CD players and try to pick out the original from the copy, in blind AB switching, by judging which is best. Assuming the copy was well made, it will be very hard to do - most people can't do it. Take a month to listen to both you will be able to tell the difference and learn the sound. Ince you do you will not like the copy and will only want the original.

How is that data can be copied from CD to CD and that the copy can be identical to the original (verifiable by MD5 checksum), and yet audio somehow gets degraded by the copying process? This is quite a paradox, don't you think? Do you have any explanation as to why, in your view, computers are perfectly capable of making bit-perfect copies of data, but not audio?

 

[luidge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif Art: Take a copy made from an original, then copy the copy, and then copy the last copy, and then copy the last copy. Now compare the fourth generation copy to the sound of the original. If the copy were identical to the source CD then the fourth generation copy would be as good as the original. I can easily tell even a first generation copy from an original CD. Pick out a vocal section on the original CD that is not too clear, but clear enough to make out. Then listen to this section on a copy - it will be less clear and harder to make out. Now this assumes you use top rate headphone equipment. You need headphones to eliminate phase distortion from reflected room sound with speakers. You need top components since sound quality is reduced to the weakest link in your system chain, and this may mask differences that are really there in the CD and the copy. Art: I did this with a selection from Bjork's "Telegram" CD - made one copy of the original and compared the two. At first the copy sounded identical to the original. Then I picked out one passage (can't remember where) where the vocalization was barely intelligible on the original but I could barely make out what she was singing. Then I listened to this same passage on the copy using the same headphone system (below in my signature). I could not make out the words on the copy even though I knew what they were - there was a slight but definite drop in vocalization clarity on the copy compared to the original (which was low in clarity but you could make out the words).

Was it a blind test or not? I know for sure that when i want for something to be different i can imagine lot of thing. Like i tested a 320KBPS and Lossless of the same song and each time the Lossless was sounding realy better and fuller than the 320 one. Then my friend AB them for me and it seem like they magicaly became the same

 

[Duggeh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Interesting discussion of the physics of LP playback, fascinating stuff. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Sc...t12/page2.html

HOORAY for my Uni!