Cool analogy on lossless/I-pod and computer driven formats

A good friend of mine [who used to own the only real Hi-Fi shop in Charlotte] and I were talking shop for a couple of hours last week and we came across the topic of lossless formats and I-pod/computer driven music. He gave me a real good analogy of why I have not yet heard a burned copy, a computer driven copy or any other form of lossless audio copies do not sound exactly like the original. Here it is, I thought it was real good and spot on...

Say John had a cup of coffee that smelled real good and I wanted some. He went ahead and made me a fresh pot made up of the same freshly ground coffee beans he was enjoying. Tastes the same as his, looks the same as his and is just as enjoyable because it's the exact same coffee.

Now, let's say that two months later I met up with John again and wanted the same great coffee we had enjoyed before, once again. The only thing is that [in order to preserve the freshness] he had ground them up and freeze-dried the coffee beans. Yes, it's the same coffee with the same measurements and it's just as fresh, right? It may be the same coffee made the same exact way but there is something different. It looks the same, it may smell the same.....but it just doesn't taste the same. There is just "something" different about it.

The original CD is the fresh ground coffee. The freeze-dried coffee is the burnt/lossless/computer driven copy of the original. One sounds good but the other has this element missing and there's just something different about it.

Something about that analogy just doesn't add. There is nothing you can "take away" from a digital copy. Frozen ones sound just the same as freshly ground ones.

Chalk it up to psycho-acoustics. You hear what you want to hear.

Anyway, why must the ground coffee be frozen? Isn't this analogy the same as saying the beans came from the same tree but were ground on different days? Of course you'll lose something by freezing, which is an application of heat (or lack thereof) and is essentially the same thing as cooking. But a bit is a bit.

Fellas, fellas, fellas.....

I heard a 72,000 dollar rig the other day that took a "lossless" copy of a CD I know very well and we played it back on some Wilsons [which if you don't know, are revealing of ANYTHING] and did a direct comparison. What do you know, the center had a hole in it about a foot and a half wide. I was sitting in the same seat and we did nothing else but switch sources. Hmmmm......

Any of you could have heard it, you didn't need to have a golden ear. Just be able to hear is all. The one with the "hole" in it turned out to be the "lossless". Hmmmm........

Every time I have "freeze dried" recordings....whether it be on my rig or another good rig....the # one thing I notice is a smearing, alteration or deterioration of the sound stage. Not once have I heard the same recording. Very, very close, but no cigar.

I'll take my coffee fresh, thank you.

I don't know if "Lossless" is a "bit for bit" copy or not...But if it is the analogy doesn't work.

A "bit for bit" copy is not similar, just like or any other comparison. A "bit for bit" copy is EXACTLY the same.

If it sounds different either it is not a "bit for bit" copy or some other factor is causing the difference.

The real analogy is if you read this post & print it, then have someone else read it. they will read EXACTLY what you read.

Let me say it one more time EXACTLY

Get it??

Frankie, I know, but it just doesn't sink in. Our entire world would collapse if it weren't so, but people just keep saying it ain't. Hard to believe. The only thing I can imagine is that the player was different, or it was not a lossless copy. Some people might think a rip might always be lossless, but it ain't.

I don't know if "Lossless" is a "bit for bit" copy or not...But if it is the analogy doesn't work.

A "bit for bit" copy is not similar, just like or any other comparison. A "bit for bit" copy is EXACTLY the same.

If it sounds different either it is not a "bit for bit" copy or some other factor is causing the difference.

The real analogy is if you read this post & print it, then have someone else read it. they will read EXACTLY what you read.

Let me say it one more time EXACTLY

Get it??

I don't know much about the technology of lossless and such but I can play with analogies and want to play devil's advocate.

1)Someone can print and make numerous copies and still be able to read exactly what is read but is the quality still the same? Eventually the toner runs outs.

2)Pretty much everyone can see the same but can everyone hear the same? If someone takes a cd and makes a copy, can someone hear the subtle nuances between the copy and the original if in fact there are any?

Sounds like lossless is different technology than burning/ripping a cd.

I'm not sure but I think its a matter of perception. It has to be an apple to apple compariosn and not apple to oranges. I've never done an experiment and would like to hear if there any differences. Maybe since Rainman challenged Toymaker, we can find out at CF 10.

Think of it this way. You are on your computer, and you run a program like Excel. Every time you run it, it comes up exactly the same (no user input or upgrading allowed). What is being talked about here is that every time you loaded it, it would come up differently. More precisely, if you loaded it from a CD or a copy of the CD, it would be different. Ridiculous!

Bill, I know you know but as evidenced by the last post most people do not understand digital encoding.

If you print a photo and it doesn't look like the last copy you printed the printer or paper or something other than the encoded photo will be the cause.

I think maybe photos will be easier for people to understand Bill, although your program analogy works for me too.

At this years fest I will try to explain digital encoding. I will try it there because there is usually alcohol available to smooth things out.

Bill, I know you know but as evidenced by the last post most people do not understand digital encoding.

If you print a photo and it doesn't look like the last copy you printed the printer or paper or something other than the encoded photo will be the cause.

I think maybe photos will be easier for people to understand Bill, although your program analogy works for me too.

At this years fest I will try to explain digital encoding. I will try it there because there is usually alcohol available to smooth things out.

Well since we are roomies....you can explain it to me in detail

Bill, I know you know but as evidenced by the last post most people do not understand digital encoding.

If you print a photo and it doesn't look like the last copy you printed the printer or paper or something other than the encoded photo will be the cause.

I think maybe photos will be easier for people to understand Bill, although your program analogy works for me too.

At this years fest I will try to explain digital encoding. I will try it there because there is usually alcohol available to smooth things out.

Well since we are roomies....you can explain it to me in detail

I will be glad to! Will you will provide some liquid refreshment ?

Any red wine will do.

A good friend of mine [who used to own the only real Hi-Fi shop in Charlotte] and I were talking shop for a couple of hours last week and we came across the topic of lossless formats and I-pod/computer driven music. He gave me a real good analogy of why I have not yet heard a burned copy, a computer driven copy or any other form of lossless audio copies do not sound exactly like the original. Here it is, I thought it was real good and spot on...

Say John had a cup of coffee that smelled real good and I wanted some. He went ahead and made me a fresh pot made up of the same freshly ground coffee beans he was enjoying. Tastes the same as his, looks the same as his and is just as enjoyable because it's the exact same coffee.

Now, let's say that two months later I met up with John again and wanted the same great coffee he was enjoying once again. The only thing is that [in order to preserve the freshness] he had ground them up and freeze-dried the coffee beans. Yes, it's the same coffee with the same measurements and it's just as fresh, right? It may be the same coffee made the same exact way but there is something different. It looks the same, it may smell the same.....but it just doesn't taste the same. There is just "something" different about it.

The original CD is the fresh ground coffee. The freeze-dried coffee is the burnt/lossless/computer driven copy of the original. One sounds good but the other has this element missing and there's just something different about it.

Thats why for me, it's analog or nothing.

Well since we are roomies....you can explain it to me in detail [/quote]

I will be glad to! Will you will provide some liquid refreshment ?

Any red wine will do.[/quote]


I suppose I could muster up something

Freeze dried? That is the problem, vacuum sealing is where it's at these days! I can open a vacuum sealed bag of one month old coffee beans and it taste exactly the same as it did before! Man, do I have to explain everything!