All posts with more than 3000 Hits, prior to 2008

Wed May 21, 2003 11:26 pm

<The worst? That doesn't make sense! How is a sample from a Higher quality sample gonna look worse!

You are totally, completely missing the point. I was talking about the difference between a 16/44.1k sample of a master and a higher rate sample downsampled to 16/44.1k. How can you say the downsampled version is from a higher quality sample, when its source is an already degraded, sampled source, and the other is sourced from the absolute zero generation master? The master is a better source than a high rate transfer.

<Greg in your example I was looking and you forgot one cruicial step. YOU DID NOT SAMPLE THE 44.1khz from the 44.1 khz transfer. This is what happens with any RED BOOK CD. You cannot skip this step!!!

Bull. They don't resample a redbook transfer to put on a redbook CD. If it is at redbook standard in the original transfer NO RESAMPLING IS RQUIRED. The bits on the CD are digital clones of the dtransfer, unless they have mucked around with them for some reason. Even if they trimmed it or added digital effects, this would still not require resampling. Again, you are in over your head here my friend. If I transfer a song at redbook standard and stick it on CD with no alterations, the CD will contain the exact same info as what is on the original transfer. There is no resampling. After the transfer, the transfer is cut on a glass disc bit for bit by a lazer and impressed upon production CD blanks in a press. Each CD will have EXACTLY the same bits as the transfer. You are misunderstanding many steps in the process. There is absolutely no resampling necessary if the original was transferred at redbook standard, but if it was transferred at any format other than redbook, downsampling must occur, which will provide a second corruption of data that was corrupted the first time it was digitally transferred. I would prefer the version that was only corrupted once because it is truer to the original.

<This is the point you are missing all along.

This is the part of making CDs you don't understand, all along. No resampling is required if the original transfer was done at redbook standard. I don't have a clue where you got this idea.

<Whatever, your real world experiment "proved" me wrong. Though I highly doubt the software is a perfect example.

I can't believe I can take the time to do something like that to help you understand and you just dismiss it. You are in no position to argue these points because you are in way over your head at understanding this stuff. I am not saying that to be mean, but you need to become more familiar with all this before you dismiss many people are trying to tell you.

For your benefit, here is how a CD is made, at least in the case of an analog master:

First the analog master must be converted to digital. In the old days, the CD manufacturers would only accept one format of digital transfer, a special digital magnetic tape. So the music and mastering houses that were doing conversions had to have an A/D machine whose output was the special tape. This machine took an analog source, digitized it, and spit out redbook standard data onto the magnetic tape. They would send this tape to the CD factory, where the exact bits on the magnetic tape would get etched on a glass CD master, then impressed on millions of plastic CD blanks. After pressing, a protective plastic coating was put on the pressed side of the discs to allow for protection and providing a place to print labels and stuff. Therefore, as I stated, there is no resampling from redbook to redbook. The original bits that were transferred in the first place exist unchanged on the CD you bought at Best Buy or whatever.

Nowadays, CD factories can accept 3 types of media: A Redbook CDR, A DAT (digital audio tape) provided it is redbook standard, or the aforementioned magnetic tape. Again, the CD you buy has EXACTLY the same data as what was provided to the CD factory.

Greg

Wed May 21, 2003 11:28 pm

DEL
Last edited by vinyljunkie on Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed May 21, 2003 11:40 pm

DEL
Last edited by vinyljunkie on Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed May 21, 2003 11:51 pm

"The extra bits isn't needed as you can describe any given curve limited by 96dB".

Can and DOES are 2 different things!! When cutting up a soundwave you cannot represent every minute detail of the sound curve. There are sow many factors that change a sound curve and actually add to sound and the ambience of sound, yes in a sense it is infinite. Comes down to presence,...etc.


In theory if a soundwave is to be represented correctly then the numbers have to go on for infinite. What stops this from happening. The actual cd itself. The medium which it is stored. Even at 16 bit 46khz the actual sound wave representation at first sample compared to next...DATA is lost. The actual first PCM master lost data as well. The DSD tansfer has less loss because of more samples. etc. etc. I am not repeating again.

A BIT by very definition is a aproximation. It is a reproduction of a sound curve. With every bit, there is loss once you go to next bit. ANytime you have data interpretation then there is data lost. How important is the data? Well that is another arguement. NO true soundwave expert would dispute this. Theorems (Like Fourier Analysis) is a theory. True that after time a Sigma Funciton will converge, but notice most of the time you are dealing with INFINITE!!

Yes you are still way off Vinyl Junkie. Until you acknowledge my point, then this makes no sense. You keep talking about extending and raising, which compared to my arguement doesn't make sense. I again have not implied any of that.

The copier example is not a fair example made by Greg. In order for it to be remotely close(which it still isn't ) You would have to compare a New Copier making a copy then having a old Copier copy it again AND THEN COMPARE a Old Copier copy that is copied by a old copier again(that would be the equivalent of data read).

His computer example follows along the same idea with his ommisisions!

OK GUYS! YOU'VE HAD YOUR FIELD!

Thu May 22, 2003 12:02 am

My simple input was: Does it really sound better, with the ears we've got!
You may make a loudspeaker as "up to date" you like!
Still, it's the ears that hear! It's the overall feel of "sound" that matters!
In the end: What is the sound that comes out of the loudspeakers?

But, I must admit it's nice to see "audio" people calling on each other on here! For a change this was "something else"!

Thu May 22, 2003 12:09 am

<The copier example is not a fair example made by Greg. In order for it to be remotely close(which it still isn't ) You would have to compare a New Copier making a copy then having a old Copier copy it again AND THEN COMPARE a Old Copier copy that is copied by a old copier again(that would be the equivalent of data read).

<His computer example follows along the same idea with his ommisisions!

You are so far off base I don't think you are even in the ball park. You are completely wrong about this. There is no need to resample a redbook transfer, yet you are still insisting there is. Please reread my post about CD manufacturing.

Greg

Thu May 22, 2003 12:14 am

You know what is funny BAJO. I really don't give a F*ck. My main reason is to support DSD and I hope they do all master of Elvis this way. Whether it really sounds better on CDDA...not that much if at all. I like to play devil's advocate, and I have been having a blast.

The truth is that I prefer SACD. I don't mind arguing over trivial things like Red Book CD tranfers and I still think there is merit to what I say. Truth be known most of this arguement is a moot point because of the "heads" that are involved at RCA. I find it hard to believe they would actually take the time to adjust the bit encoding to benefit the DSD master. I like the way that Heart And Soul sounds and I really don't care how it REALLY got that way. The fact they are tranferrring anything using DSD technology is a big plus in my book.

Now understand I am not conceding and I will argue 50 more posts if I have to. Look at my number of posts. I don't take it lightly. I am right about this, and I challenge anybody to prove me wrong. You know why you can't because of reasons that BAJO said. It comes down to the persons perception. The rest is just theory. So keep em comin'. I love it!!

Thu May 22, 2003 12:14 am

In theory if a soundwave is to be represented correctly then the numbers have to go on for infinite. What stops this from happening. The actual cd itself. The medium which it is stored. Even at 16 bit 46khz the actual sound wave representation at first sample compared to next...DATA is lost. The actual first PCM master lost data as well. The DSD tansfer has less loss because of more samples. etc. etc. I am not repeating again.

Some of this is correct, but not the requierment about infinite lenght of a dataword to reproduce a soundwave. But what you has claimed all the way is that a DSD transfer will sound better converted to CD-DA than a PCM transfer directly to CD-DA.

That is what Greg and I disagree with you about. Now you say that a DSD transfer sounds better than a CD-DA standard transfer and that is correct. That's a mathematical fact.

Thu May 22, 2003 12:18 am

DEL
Last edited by vinyljunkie on Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thu May 22, 2003 12:18 am

Oh really greg. So what the hell do you call the actual 16 bit reading? You yourself said that it doesn't read in the same place every time. What exactly is that? You yourself said that dropouts and other fun stuff occur. The bit itself is a sample.
Last edited by genesim on Thu May 22, 2003 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thu May 22, 2003 12:23 am

Vinyl man you lost me. My story hasn't changed from post 1. A PCM TRANSFER IS A PCM TRANSFER!! What the hell you think a CDDA is. A LOWER QUALITY PCM TRANSFER!!! If you know of another tranfer method, then be my guest.

Again the infinite lenght is in reference to a 100% soundwave not a representation!!! Please people quote me right!!

P.S. you agree with me..well good nice to know you read my posts and have finally understood.

Thu May 22, 2003 12:26 am

DEL
Last edited by vinyljunkie on Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thu May 22, 2003 12:32 am

Ok you got me there. I can admit I said one wrong false statement!

Thu May 22, 2003 12:42 am

<Oh really greg. So what the hell do you call the actual 16 bit reading? You yourself said that it doesn't read in the same place every time.

No, I certainly not. I said that if you made multiple transfers of the same analog soure you couldn't possibly start at exactly the same point each time, therefore several transfers of the same material might yield slightly different, but totally insignificant results. That has nothing at all to do with this.

<WHen it goes from the master to the glass master then that is a sample. It doesn't magically appear there.

??? The glass master isn't a resampled version of the digital transfer, IT IS A CLONE OF THE DIGITAL TRANSFER. If you take a digital transfer of a song at 16/44.1k redbook standard and put it on a CDR and send it to the CD house and they cut a glass master and press 10,000,000 CDs, each CD will be a digital clone of the transfer. Each CD will be exactly what you transferred in the first place. There's no magic there. When two digital devices talk to each other, data integrity is maintained. In addition to the 16 bit data words that come in every 1/44100 seconds in a 16/44.1k redbook standard transfer, there is also error correction information put in there to maintain data integrity. I don't know if it is CRCC, check sum, parity, or other type of scheme, but it ensures that data integrity is maintained. That's why the better CD players have a big buffer, so if your car goes over a bump and gets crappy data out of the CD, it can go back and get the data again without you noticing it, because it plays music from the buffer, whose contents can be overwritten in times of trouble. The equipment that cuts the glass master works in the same way. On top of misunderstanding much about digital audio technology, I think you need a primer on basic data communication as well. With your way of thinking, any digital transfer is resampled, but that's not the case. In any case, you have completely and totally misunderstood much of what I have wrote, and thrown it back at me when it is not even remotely related to what we are talking about at the present. I will say this one more time. If you encode an analog source at redbook standard, you NEVER again have to resample it. But, if you encode an analog source at some other rate, you have to resample it to put on CD, and in this case, you are resampling a sample, which mathematically corrupts the data more than just doing the lower rate transfer in the first place. This is exactly like my copy machine example, and it is a 100% good analogy to downsampling a high rate transfer to put on a redbook CD so that it can be played in a typical CD player.

I have tried and tried to help you understand, but I am starting to see the futility of it. I am not a teacher of digital audio theory, but I must think that you have some kind of bias or tunnelvision prohibiting you from accepting the factual information that I and the vinyl brothers have tried to supply you with. You are treating misconceptions as fact no matter how many times and how many different ways we try to explain.

Greg

Thu May 22, 2003 12:52 am

Why do you people get so hung up on words. My story hasn't changed.

The glass master, I admit was a mistake. I am sorry. I got a little anxious and I didn't mean that.

As far as it sampling in different places. DUH not every time. The FIRST TRANFER THAT IS ENCODED ON THE CD!!!!!! IT is true it only really has to be sampled once. We are getting into symatacs as usual. When it plays back to you, is that not a sample? Whatever.


Look I am arguing the bit rate it chooses. It does not make sense that quality would go DOWN.

This is my point and I will say it again:
DSD TRANFERED FROM A ANALOG SOURCE THEN CONVERTED TO CDDA is SUPERIOR TO A LOW QUALITY 44.1khz TRANSFER that is then encoded onto a cd at 16 bit/44.1khz of the original transfer.

16 bit of 100khz is going to be superior to 16 bit of 44.1 khz
Last edited by genesim on Thu May 22, 2003 1:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thu May 22, 2003 1:01 am

I meant 44.1 not 46khz on that last post.

Thu May 22, 2003 1:06 am

So in closing DSD techonology has NO benefit to a CDDA representation. According to Greg, Vinyman, and Vinyl Junkie

genesim and RCA believes it does.

I say lets leave it at that.

Thu May 22, 2003 1:06 am

Genesim -

If you make a typo - simply correct it using the edit facility.

No need to post again.

Colin B

Thu May 22, 2003 1:14 am

<When it plays back to you, is that not a sample?Whatever.

No, it's not resampled when played back. All that happens at playback is that those those 16 bit data words come every 1/44100 get converted into an analog voltage. There is no sampling at playback. Why are we discussing playback anyway, the issue is what format has superior dynamic range and frequency response, and the answer is that the source originally encoded at 16/44.1k has superior frequency response and dynamic range to a source originally encoded at 14/96k and downsampled to be produced on a red book CD.

<DSD TRANFERED FROM A ANALOG SOURCE THEN CONVERTED TO CDDA is SUPERIOR TO A LOW QUALITY 46khz TRANSFER that is then encoded onto a cd at 16 bit/46khz of the original transfer.

Why do you say "encoded onto a cd at 16 bit/46khz of the original transfer". You are still acting like the original CD transfer is resampled again for CD, which is not true.

This is futile. I do not know why I keep trying.

Thu May 22, 2003 1:26 am

Colin, If I edit, then it gets posted again anyway, and I don't want to get called out for being not honest.

Greg, more symantacs. NO IT IS NOT RESAMPLED, it is playing back a sampled part of the curve.

<Oh really greg. So what the hell do you call the actual 16 bit reading? You yourself said that it doesn't read in the same place every time.

"No, I certainly not. I said that if you made multiple transfers of the same analog soure you couldn't possibly start at exactly the same point each time, therefore several transfers of the same material might yield slightly different, but totally insignificant results. That has nothing at all to do with this. "

Um funny how this is the whole basis of my arguement you seem to ignore. Is the results insiginicant if only CDDA masters are involved yes. But each bit that deviates(read, downsampled) from the original point on a DSD master is superior. Something is gained. How much is subjective.

<DSD TRANFERED FROM A ANALOG SOURCE THEN CONVERTED TO CDDA is SUPERIOR TO A LOW QUALITY 46khz TRANSFER that is then encoded onto a cd at 16 bit/46khz of the original transfer.

"Why do you say "encoded onto a cd at 16 bit/46khz of the original transfer". You are still acting like the original CD transfer is resampled again for CD, which is not true."

Um you are putting words in my mouth again, and arguing symantacs. Is it not encoded? What does it mean, what does mouth mean? That is annoying greg. Um original tranfer was referring to the original master tape. You know where both tranfers came from to begin with!!

Thu May 22, 2003 1:36 am

Hey greg was 14/96khz a typo? Actually I am not arguing that one(dsd not high quality PCM), but anyway same problem. The real issue is they are both being downsampled to 16 bit/44.1khz.

It comes down to you don' t think so, I do.

I proved it theoretically. You did a half assed experiment. The truth is that this is not easy to prove. I will say again, every deviation from a sampled point on a superior master will give superior results(discounting bits in a beyond 96db range and so forth.) If the dsd transfer is kept to a minimum frequency and proper filtering is done, the results can be outstanding. There are many out there that argue my very point. Just not on this board. That is fine.

Thu May 22, 2003 4:26 am

<I proved it theoretically. You did a half assed experiment

You proved nothing, because your logic is flawed to begin with. I and others have time and again tried to tell you where your analysis is flawed, but you ignore everything. To call my experiment half assed indicates you are just trying to be jerk, and trivializes all of the time and effort I have spent trying to train you on things in a couple days that took me around 10 years of engineering schooling to learn.

<There are many out there that argue my very point. Just not on this board.

Well, if they are out there, why not quote them, or get them to post, or something? Just saying they are out there is meaningless, it doesn't support your flawed analysis one bit.

You have a completely flawed understanding of audio. You have demonstrated misconceptions about the fundamentals of audio engineering and about digital communications, two disciplines crucial to understanding this complex issue. With these problems, your alleged proof is absolutely meaningless. Crap in = crap out, scientifically speaking, no matter how the crap was sampled, it will still be crap.

That's cool, I've tried to help you understand, but when you say that I did a half-assed experiment, that's going too far. Go jump in a lake or whatever else floats your boat. There's no call to be a jerk just because you don't know what you are talking about and I've pointed it out.

You have said you love to argue and like to play the devil's advocate or whatever you said, but doing so when you don't know what you are even talking about is a pointless exercise that does nothing but waste other peoples' time. Unless of course you are just a troll that likes to start mischeif on an anomymous messageboard. I don't think that is the case, I think you are a real Elvis fan and have every right to post here, but your behavior of late is not what this messageboard is about. I think treating people with respect is a requirement, one which you seem to have forgotten, again.

Greg

Thu May 22, 2003 6:16 am

Ok Greg first of all, my apologies. Half Assed was bad wording. I am sure you did put the time in. Maybe the better word would be Amateur. No disrespect meant by that. It is just without the proper equipment and comparing a sample that is say 2 times bigger and also using software that is basically just sampling the wave with no programming is just that. That is my first observation. THIS IS NOT COURT. I can be wrong, and if you want to challenge it then by all means do. Just don't take it so seriously.

I stick by most everything I say. I admit I was off on the glass master. It was the heat of the moment and I didn't think it through. I am sure that won't be my last mistake. I can admit when I am wrong.

I have thought the numbers through, and lets just say we will agree to disagree. I don't want to bring in sound experts on this board or whatever. Though this little arguement will never leave my mind. Rest asssured when I figure out a better way, I will illustrate my point. I believe firmly I am right and I will have better guns next time. Truthfully I am lazy.

Now about this me being a troll. Well I do take offense to you even IMPLYING that I could be one. I have posting on this board for about 2 years(actually a little more than that). I used to post as MD on the old message board and I posted anonymous before that. I don't care if you ever believe me, but I have been in more than my share of debates on this board. I started visiting this website when Paul Downing had a link to it about 4 years ago. Then I also had to find it, when it magically got shut down for a while. So in closing you are WAY off base, and if you call me these names because I say something is "half assed", I got some advice. Think through what you say before you start criticizing my character.

I too have taken offense that you said I have not thought things through or I have no knowledge or that I don't know what I am talking about or I have not one shred of knowledge about sound...etc. My attitude will not change, and though I may seem flighty about the subject matter, I believe I am not wrong about this. Just because a few people disagree with me(might I add some people aren't even making sense with their own arguements!), doesn't mean I am wrong. You got your views that is fine. I didn't dream up my view one day, and I argue under my own merits. I don't stand behind anybody.

I thought the point of a discussion board was to discuss. I can't believe how some peoples intent is to "flush out the NON EXPERTS" Please. Most of the time, I say things to see where it goes. I try to learn about people, and to tell you the truth, the subject matter is often secondary. If you get bent out of shape cause I challenge your experiment, then maybe you to go to another board. Now I am not implying that you should go, I am just saying you may need to reexamine your anger. Was I really out of line, considering the crap that was said to me?

My proof is there, and with all your years of experience you have not even adressed my simple observations. I have actually been saying the same thing over and over and I have not seen one post disproving it. Oh you can try to catch me with one statement or another, but my fundamental idea is sound. Rest assured this subject is not at rest and I will post a better representation.

That said, I never attacked your character or implied you didn't know anything. Believe me I have known a few engineers and was actually going to be one at one time, till I fell in love with Chemistry. Just because you have experience doesn't mean others have no ideas. You are not as guilty as the vinyl brothers, but some of your statements have been questionable toward me. This last post of yours is way out of place.

Again if my "half assed" statement offended you then my apologies. Again I should have picked the words better. That is not treating you with disrespect. It is just bad manners, though considering my treatment, it is actually right up you guys alley. Now some of the statements that all three of you have used is disrespectful. Guess what...I can take it!!!

Thu May 22, 2003 6:21 am

Greg, one more thing. I don't need you to "train" me on anything. I am not in college(I got my degree, thank you very much), and I don't need a teacher or a drill sergeant. If I ask for advice or some knowledge fine. But don't come to me about your "expert" attitude and think I am going to jump like a frog. I have known a few "experts" and they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. Though I am not implying you are this way.

Thu May 22, 2003 6:50 am

genesim, You love everyone on this board and Noodle Salad.
Time to kiss and make up. :D
Or should that be hug and make up? :lol:



:D