Page 3 of 4

Re: "Lossless" duplicating. Is it for real? Seriously....?

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:18 am
by Magnaryder
I found this looking for something else

from Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can write.....YMMV

Hey Tom, these guys have a worse batting average than you do(sorry man)

Audible differences compared to PCM/CD

In the audiophile community, the sound from the SACD format is thought to be significantly better compared to older format Red Book CD recordings.[36] However, In September 2007, the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8% success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50% that would have been expected by chance guessing alone.[37] The authors suggested that different mixes for the two formats might be causing perceived differences, and commented:

Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.[38][39]

This conclusion is contentious among a large segment of audio engineers who work with high resolution material and many within the audiophile community.[40] Some have questioned the basic methodology and the equipment used in the AES study.[41]

Double-blind listening tests in 2004 between DSD and 24-bit, 176.4 kHz PCM recordings reported that among test subjects no significant differences could be heard.[42] DSD advocates and equipment manufacturers continue to assert an improvement in sound quality above PCM 24-bit 176.4 kHz.[43] Despite both formats' extended frequency responses, it has been shown people cannot distinguish audio with information above 21 kHz from audio without such high-frequency content.[44]

FWIW

ray

Re: "Lossless" duplicating. Is it for real? Seriously....?

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:27 am
by radioeng2
Hi Ray,

I think the differences has nothing to do with greater bandwidth, ie...the greater high freq cutoff. It's more the reality of the soundstage in high rez that takes your breath away!

Recently I took my life in my hands and "borrowed" the wife's Oppo and have been playing back hi-rez material in my system. And it's an giant jump in quality to my ear! Of course, I've sat and listened to various forms of high resolution many times in the past, but it wasn't in my system. At least a decade ago, I sat in an all Sony demo of SACD surround and was pretty wowed by the Eagles, Pink Floyd and a few more cuts. So why wasn't I motivated before now? Dunno.

So my systems in a constant state of change experimenting with whatever I've just built, so much so that it hasn't been static for years. I'm kind of used to hearing things change and evolve, some good and some just a change. Changing speakers has of course the biggest change. But listening to 96/24 directly is very much a big leap! One things for sure, it ain't goin' away anytime soon if I can help it!

So to me, the study is just a study with little meaning, when you thow somebody into a all new and different situation and try to judge a change. Sure, gross changes should be audible and even in that study, some heard changes. But in your own system, I think you can hear much smaller changes than in someone elses!

I'd bet even OO setting on his deck would fall off his lawn chair from the first listen to decent hi-rez!

Mark

PS...btw I'm currently running open baffle the Tang Band 1770 driver shown in my avatar above 200hz, powered by a First Watt current source amp. Bass also OB with 3 15's per channel and monoblock FW clones. Pre is a battery powered tube Ultrapath from Welborne.

Re: "Lossless" duplicating. Is it for real? Seriously....?

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:22 pm
by OconeeOrange
radioeng2 wrote:
I'd bet even OO setting on his deck would fall off his lawn chair from the first listen to decent hi-rez!

Mark
Careful guy, you are sounding like a snob -

I may not have the expensive system you do, but to say mine is so inferior that I would be blown off my butt if I heard a good one might not be accurate. I do what I can.
Actually, mine plays 24 bit often.
I don't have it set up for SACD, but it does DVD-A and of course DVD video.
You might be surprised how good it sounds.

Re: "Lossless" duplicating. Is it for real? Seriously....?

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:39 pm
by PDR
Full range in open baffle......nice.
Battery pre....very nice, Ive been considering a Dodd.

Mark.....how do the 15" keep up? are they fast enough for the Tang?

Format, not system....

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:43 pm
by treitz3
Bill, he's not saying that your system needs to be high resolution. He was talking about the format.....like an SACD as opposed to a CD or computer download.

Just so you know, Mark is one of the most down to Earth folks I have run across. Kind of like Bob Carver. Speaking of Mark......are you coming to this year's Carverfest? If you need an "official" invite, here it is.

Re: "Lossless" duplicating. Is it for real? Seriously....?

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:45 pm
by treitz3
PDR wrote:Battery pre....very nice, Ive been considering a Dodd.
Do you know what's going on with Gary Dodd at the moment?

Re: "Lossless" duplicating. Is it for real? Seriously....?

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:25 pm
by radioeng2
Thanks for the kind words Tom!! I'm just another guy that loves playing with audio and even more experiencing the moments in playing music where you're in the room with the band. (Or in your case OO, out in the yard with 'em) Those moments when the hair starts standing up on the back of your neck it's so real!

OO.....not doubting your system. Was just pokin' fun at the outdoor system!! Actually, your system could be more expensive than mine since much of mine is DIY.

PDR...the Hawthorne Augie's do just great at keeping up with the TB's. The three big 15's per side don't have to move hardly at all being high efficient and having the gain of them together like that. Nothing like the bass of a back horn or a typical ported box where the bass lags so far behind you want a stop watch to figure out when the bass line will show up... :-s

Mark

Re: "Lossless" duplicating. Is it for real? Seriously....?

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:54 pm
by PDR
Mark...I didnt realize you were running Augies....I have never heard them but they get great reviews. I have talked to Darrel
a few times....what a nice guy. The designer of my dipoles.....Danny Richie is working with Darrel on servo offering of the Augies last I heard.....dont know where thats at right now. Trietz Danny also has a working relationship with Ty...he designed the drivers and
crossovers on Tys new Deadelus (sp?) series.....I think he may of had a hand in your Linbrooks as well but not sure....

As far as Gary Dodd.....he was in very bad shape...was better and took a turn for the worse. They took blood samples and just yesterday discovered what the problem....besides his heart....was. He is infected with mold spores.....they cultured some and
found out it came from his house. He is barely mobile but a bunch of people have taken a collection up for him and are looking for a
new residence for him to move in....the same county in Texas he lives in now.
Many people are very concerned....Gary is a great guy....I hope he gets better soon.....

Perry

Re: "Lossless" duplicating. Is it for real? Seriously....?

Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:09 am
by engtaz
So sad about Gary. Prayers are sent.

Re: "Lossless" duplicating. Is it for real? Seriously....?

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 9:44 pm
by Rainman
radioeng2 wrote:Gary, try any of the Chesky, anything from Mapleshade, any of the Clarity Records. The Reference Recordings are also well recorded.
I have a Chesky where two gals are singing just a little inside the stereo mic pair image. At about the end of the song, you can hear one of them turn her head while singing.
Mark, can I help throw fuel on the fire here?
Why don't we inform everybody how the superb recordings referenced were recorded......
Can everyone say ANALOG? I know you can.....

As far as this loss less topic goes this is a topic what was covered quite extensively not too long ago and if I remember correctly Mark was kind enough to provide some information from a source which is actually Accredited explaining the process in great detail. At the end of the day it was accepted by pretty much everyone in the thread that it is not possible. This is mostly due to the limitations of the various devices and other factors like error correction which prevents an Exact copy from being possible. If someone really needs to go over this again I am sure I can find a link to the thread where this whole fiasco originally took place, and thank goodness Mark was able to end it for us with a real explanation that many folks could actually understand.
Rainman

Re: "Lossless" duplicating. Is it for real? Seriously....?

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 2:21 pm
by Magnaryder
Rainman wrote:
radioeng2 wrote:Gary, try any of the Chesky, anything from Mapleshade, any of the Clarity Records. The Reference Recordings are also well recorded.
I have a Chesky where two gals are singing just a little inside the stereo mic pair image. At about the end of the song, you can hear one of them turn her head while singing.
Mark, can I help throw fuel on the fire here?
Why don't we inform everybody how the superb recordings referenced were recorded......
Can everyone say ANALOG? I know you can.....

At the end of the day it was accepted by pretty much everyone in the thread that it is not possible. This is mostly due to the limitations of the various devices and other factors like error correction which prevents an Exact copy from being possible. Rainman
Analogue rules!!!

So, what you're saying is since so much data is lost it should be easy to pick out the copy, right?

My understanding of the process is a little different. Each sector(4kbits) of the CD is 'oversampled' several hundred-thousand times. Then they are all compared. During the comparison the sectors that repeat correct the highest percentge of the time will be considered correct and buffered. When enough sectors are complete the disc will begin to be copied. This process is repeated until the entire disc is ripped to the HDD.

It has only been during the last several years CD players could buffer at 44.1k/16bits, sadly before that memory was too expensive. most Cd players operated in the area of 12bits. Now memory is WAAY cheaper and CD players are 'faster'.Newer PCI audio cards have WAAY better resolution than redbook CD (44.1k/16bit vs. 192k/24bit), so all things being equal the PC 'should' sound better. I guess we'll see.....

As Always YMMV

ray

Re: "Lossless" duplicating. Is it for real? Seriously....?

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 2:38 pm
by OconeeOrange
Magnaryder wrote:
Rainman wrote:
radioeng2 wrote:Gary, try any of the Chesky, anything from Mapleshade, any of the Clarity Records. The Reference Recordings are also well recorded.
I have a Chesky where two gals are singing just a little inside the stereo mic pair image. At about the end of the song, you can hear one of them turn her head while singing.
Mark, can I help throw fuel on the fire here?
Why don't we inform everybody how the superb recordings referenced were recorded......
Can everyone say ANALOG? I know you can.....

At the end of the day it was accepted by pretty much everyone in the thread that it is not possible. This is mostly due to the limitations of the various devices and other factors like error correction which prevents an Exact copy from being possible. Rainman
Analogue rules!!!

So, what you're saying is since so much data is lost it should be easy to pick out the copy, right?

My understanding of the process is a little different. Each sector(4kbits) of the CD is 'oversampled' several hundred-thousand times. Then they are all compared. During the comparison the sectors that repeat correct the highest percentge of the time will be considered correct and buffered. When enough sectors are complete the disc will begin to be copied. This process is repeated until the entire disc is ripped to the HDD.

It has only been during the last several years CD players could buffer at 44.1k/16bits, sadly before that memory was too expensive. most Cd players operated in the area of 12bits. Now memory is WAAY cheaper and CD players are 'faster'.Newer PCI audio cards have WAAY better resolution than redbook CD (44.1k/16bit vs. 192k/24bit), so all things being equal the PC 'should' sound better. I guess we'll see.....

As Always YMMV

ray
Yea, and stand alone DACs are better than the PCI cards.

Re: "Lossless" duplicating. Is it for real? Seriously....?

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:24 pm
by Toy Maker
Oooo It's on this year !!!

I just downloaded and installed "Exact Audio Copy" and this program kicks ass !!!
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/

I just ran a couple tests....
I'm running a Dell 630i 3.2 Quad-core with 8gb of memory on Vista 64
Winamp PRO and am listening to the CD and the raw WAV file that EAC just made....
I can't hear single damn difference between the CD and WAV. file.

I'm using $300 Sennheiser headphones too, so the "system" has nothing to do with this test.
The WAV file and CD are all going through the exact same output devices...

I'm pretty sure you are doomed this time around Tom. :-"

Re: "Lossless" duplicating. Is it for real? Seriously....?

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:34 pm
by stevek
I agree, EAC is great. I've been using it for about 6 months.
Steve

Re: "Lossless" duplicating. Is it for real? Seriously....?

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:27 pm
by Mr. M-500t
BillD wrote:But Jesse wants you to prove you can't hear the difference! :D
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: *5*

Sorry guys,
I'm just getting caught up on this thread !
That was a good one BillD !