[WmAx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Sorry, you're standing completely beside your shoes! Of course the raw analog signal before filtering contains lots of ultrasonics! That doesn't mean the sampled frequencies are above the Nyquist frequency. Oh my...

In order to get on the same 'page', per say. My point is that the 44.1kHz sample rate will capture the <22kHz components of the theoretical signal in the image, leaving the amplitude modulations intact if these modulations were composed of frequencies below the Nyquist point.

Here is an actual signal(18,000 kHz triangle wave base with amplitude modulations applied to points in the wave to approximate the condition you set in the graph example) at 192kHz and the resultant waveform when resampled to 44.1kHz, simulating the effect of a conventional-type ADC recontruction:

The signal components are smoothed of course(removing the >22kHz spectral content) and the modulations of amplitude are preserved. I even included a chopped-off wave so that the 44.1 kHz tendency to resonance could be observed. I also added a 44.1kHz connect-the-dots misrepresentation that the graph provided earlier would have advertised of this sampled waveform.

-Chris

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WmAx The signal components are smoothed of course (removing the >22kHz spectral content) and the modulations of amplitude are preserved. I even included a chopped-off wave so that the 44.1 kHz tendency to resonance could be observed. I also added a 44.1kHz connect-the-dots misrepresentation that the graph provided earlier would have advertised of this sampled waveform.

Of course it's smoothed from removing the >22-kHz content, no problem with that. And of course the modulations aren't turned into continuous sine waves. You have to consider that the «reconstruction filter's» smoothing function has a decreasing effect with decreasing frequency -- correspondingly the amplitude modulation (see my graph) has decreasing intensity with decreasing frequency. That's why a certain degree of transients is preserved. You can calculate (or estimate) yourself the degree of filter-resonance effect necessary for compensating for the amplitude-modulation causing the drop-off with the raw analog signal, amounting of ~3.5 dB at 20 kHz, ~1.5 dB at 15 kHz and ~0.5 dB at 10 kHz (from memory). I had no success with finding corresponding graphs so far, but maybe later.

BTW, Jan Meier has designed an Analoguer circuit with the function of a reversed reconstruction filter, so to speak, for restoring the crippled transients, at the expense of the drop-off at 20 kHz.

I'm not saying the time-optimizing approach is better. But it would just as little be correct to say the frequency-optimized approach is better. Both have to deal with compromizes. That's something the high-rez formats apparently don't suffer from.

 

[Tomcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeteeth You're Right! It is true. I did four CDRs and they all consistently displayed the same differences from the original CDs, and obviously so. Greater warmth and fullness was the big obvious, things were a little more three dimensional and a little more information was also apparent, more detail. Switching back to the original CD and they were brighter and flatter sounding. There is no mistaking the two.

eyeteeth,

I agree that there is no mistaking a CD-R copy for the original. But I have always found the copies to sound dull, lifeless, distant, with less dynamic range and less low-level information. They sound warmer but they sound filtered as well. In my experience, this effect of dulling the transients is even more pronounced with black CD-R media.

I'd say generational loss is alive and well in the digital formats, and I believe there is no theoretical reason why it shouldn't. Once information is lost, it's lost. You may be able to add some artificial smoothness and warmth, just as we can oversample as much as we want, but in the end, all we achieve is a signal with more artefacts from additional processing and less information.

 

[eyeteeth]

Tomcat,
My listening isn't over yet. When I get home I'm going to concentrate on well recorded music which I have both the CD and vinyl. From a technical standpoint, which is a weakness on my part BTW, I do understand how cheap CDs, mass stamped not too well, will result in more jitter upon playback.
Either way I will keep your observation well in mind as I listen.

 

[markl]

Quote:

I agree that there is no mistaking a CD-R copy for the original. But I have always found the copies to sound dull, lifeless, distant, with less dynamic range and less low-level information. They sound warmer but they sound filtered as well. In my experience, this effect of dulling the transients is even more pronounced with black CD-R media.

What ripping software are you using, and what burning software? I had this same problem until I switched to EAC to rip my CDs to hard drive. Since then, I would defy anyone to say that the copies I make are of lesser quality than the originals, I no longer hear the muffling, and distant sound I used to get.

 

[Tomcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl What ripping software are you using, and what burning software? I had this same problem until I switched to EAC to rip my CDs to hard drive. Since then, I would defy anyone to say that the copies I make are of lesser quality than the originals, I no longer hear the muffling, and distant sound I used to get.

Mark,

You're right, I couldn't tell how much of this dulling comes from my inferior software and hardware. But my main point is that generational loss very likely exists in digital audio media. And yes, I believe that the effect might be reduced if I used a proper audio burning software like EAC or Feurio instead of Adaptec Easy CD Creator. And my HP burner isn't state of the art either. However: improving a CD by copying it? I don't believe in it. And thus: I rarely copy anything, I try to get original CDs. Which isn't a guarantee either. In my experience, no two original CDs sound exactly alike. I had one case where a "first" original CD was so much better than a recently purchased "second" original CD of the same recording, that even the copy of the first original was better than the second original. I just wanted to get up and dance while listening to it. But when I listened to the "second" original CD (bought a year later, same recording, same label, same design, tonally identical, no hint of re-mastering), the music was dead. Not all pressing factories are created equal, it seems, nor are all glass masters.

 

[Glassman]

come and make some blind tests, all this talk about inferior digital copy is a great BS to me and it really irritates me when I hear such opinions.. either your ripping and burning sucks or more likely your player sucks hard if you can tell difference between two original CDs..

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glassman come and make some blind tests, all this talk about inferior digital copy is a great BS to me and it really irritates me when I hear such opinions.. either your ripping and burning sucks or more likely your player sucks hard if you can tell difference between two original CDs..

Just FYI, my original german-pressed Gold CDs of "Substance" sound superior to the BMG crap original copies of the same album. But both do NOT sound better than the copy Lan ripped me on a high quality blank CD. Honestly, It's not a placebo, it's true! I mean, if there was a placebo anywhere, it would be towards my bias thinking the gold originals should sound better. But they didn't, and that's that.

 

[WmAx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn I mean, if there was a placebo anywhere, it would be towards my bias thinking the gold originals should sound better. But they didn't, and that's that.

ONe of the interesting things is that you can not 'will' or 'control' your bias to an absolute. It's a subconscious factor.

-Chris

 

[Glassman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn Just FYI, my original german-pressed Gold CDs of "Substance" sound superior to the BMG crap original copies of the same album. But both do NOT sound better than the copy Lan ripped me on a high quality blank CD. Honestly, It's not a placebo, it's true! I mean, if there was a placebo anywhere, it would be towards my bias thinking the gold originals should sound better. But they didn't, and that's that.

do you experience it with other than just your CD player? are you willing to do some tests?

 

[eyeteeth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeteeth My listening isn't over yet. When I get home I'm going to concentrate on well recorded music which I have both the CD and vinyl.

I'm behind schedule.
But I did manage to rip some well recorded material. But not yet burned except Cash. I will have the free time on Wednesday to do proper listening/comparison. And maybe recruit some extra ears. I get the feeling I'm going to have to devote as much time to considering what IS superior, as in what values heard amount to a superior listening experience. I'll have to consider what my priorities actually are. The first 50 seconds of 'The Man Comes Around' are clearly different from eachother. I thought the copy sounded subdued through it's opening in terms of volume, until it kicked in and no longer was subdued at all but the equal of the original. They were both fine just different. I have the vinyl LP and I guess I'll use that as the reference and see if one CD sounds closer to it than the other. I really wish I had a top notch external reader/burner to ensure the burn would be as good as it could be. And I also sort of wish the original CDs will win so I don't have to buy a pile of blanks.

I ripped these so far tonight:
Johnny Cash-Man Comes Around
Flaming Lips-Yoshimi Battles
Keiko Matsui-Deep Blue
Elton John GH 1970-2002 Disc 1
Massive Attack-100TH Window

Radiohead's HTTT is apparently copy protected and I couldn't rip it!
I have the vinyl LP and wanted to compare them.
I like the word "rip", it is so appropriate.

 

[Sentral Dogma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glassman if I were to change anything I'd have to act in the recording studio, because there's the place these filters are applied, your home playback equipment cannot do anything with it.. and I wasn't talking about analog filters either..

Sorry Glassman, I'm an ass.

 

[Tomcat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeteeth I get the feeling I'm going to have to devote as much time to considering what IS superior, as in what values heard amount to a superior listening experience. I'll have to consider what my priorities actually are.

eyeteeth,

That's exactly my experience. Generally, I find it not too difficult to perceive sonic changes when I try a new tweak. But determining which sonic version is closer to the musical truth, which sound increases my musical enjoyment, causes less listening fatigue, is more engaging and satisfying in the long run: that's the hard part. Quite often, that isn't easy at all. And in some cases, only time can tell.

This isn't exactly on topic, but a tweak that had a similar dulling effect as copying to black CD-Rs was Herbie's Grungebuster CD Mat. Usually, I am a sucker for smooth and warm components. My biggest beef with many components is that they sound thin, etched, and artifically analytical. But to my ears, what was advertised as a more analog sound with the CD Mat and black CD-Rs turned out to be just the opposite. There was less low-level resolution, less dynamic range, less emotional engagement, and increased listening fatigue.

The moral of the story: only trust your own ears!

 

[jpr703]

I've found that when a CD is burned to a cheap blank, there is a difference in sound quality between the copy and the original.

However, when using good quality blanks (Mitsui Gold and Taiyo Yuden) and recording at a slower speed (16x) on a good quality burner (Plextor, NEC, Pioneer), the results are completely different. When a copy is made in this fashion, I simply can not hear the difference.

Additionally, I will note that cheaper CD-Rs can lose sound quality over time. All CD-Rs contain a dye that turns black when "burned" by the drive's laser. These black marks represent the 1s and 0s that comprise all the digital information on the disc. If the dye is cheap, it will fade over time, especially if exposed to direct sunlight. As this happens, information starts to disappear and a lot more "error correcting" has to be done by the player. This "error correction" is simply the hardware guessing at what information is missing from the disc. Sometimes it gets it right, sometimes it doesn't. Eventually, as the dye fades more and more, the disc will become unreadable. I have personally owned CD-Rs that have become unreadable after just 2 years.

However, the problems I've had have been mainly with Imation and other cheap discs. Since I switched to Mitsui discs, I have not had a single problem. Both Mitsui and Taiyo Yuden use special dyes that resist fading for quite some time. Their discs are more expensive and you usually can't find them in stores. They are, however, easy to find online and they aren't too much more costly if you buy 50 or 100 at a time.

Mitsui Gold are my personal favorite. Good dye, plus they claim that the gold helps provide and additional measure of corrosion resistance. I can't vouche for the corrosion resistance, but the theory does make sense to me and the discs definitely sound great.

If you absolutely refuse to shop online check out Verbatim discs. They're not quite as good as the others, IMHO, but you can usually find them at the large chain stores.

Hope this helps!

 

[eyeteeth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomcat But determining which sonic version is closer to the musical truth, which sound increases my musical enjoyment, causes less listening fatigue, is more engaging and satisfying in the long run: that's the hard part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpr703 However, when using good quality blanks (Mitsui Gold and Taiyo Yuden) and recording at a slower speed (16x) on a good quality burner (Plextor, NEC, Pioneer), the results are completely different. When a copy is made in this fashion, I simply can not hear the difference.

As I spent the majority of last night going over relevant threads using the search function, I won't belabour the issue as it has been well discussed in the recent past. I'll be as brief as I can.

Wouldn't you know it the Cash LP was right in between the original CD and copy. I also came to substitute the word "warmer" with "softer" to describe the copies made. Very specifically the leading edges of high frequencies are shaved off. Ts and Ss when spoken/sung are less sharp on the copies.

This is where personal preference came in as I greatly prefered this presentation with the aggressive metal CDs. I had no preference on the Cash CD, they were both different but fine. I prefered the original Massive Attack CD to the copy. The additional energy in the high frequencies served the music better. That this is a well balanced recording anyway and it wasn't improved by being softened, it's impact was diminished. I fully expected to prefer the copy of the Flaming Lips due to it's brightness and was suprised that I prefered the brightness intact for the same reasons of impact.

Anyway the difference between original and copy are instantly noticeable. Certainly more noticeable than swapping good cables or using some lotion like Auric Illuminator.
Which is more enjoyable is a personal thing.
The only thing that gives me pause is how the first batch have a similarity within their group that differs from the similarity the second batch had within their group. I wondered about an inconsistency in the rip/burn process between one day and the next. Rather than spending much time on that I've decided to get a better writer and media. I'm quite impressed by the amount of control with the Plextor products being able to fine tune pit lengths and taking into account which dye is used on the blank selected.
And I shop this week.