Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2009 9:09:37 GMT
XTRProf What you mean is that is completely illegal worldwide, although some Asian area countries are a bit lax in their copyright protection responsibilities. SandyK P.S. I wonder if there would be any audible differences between .wav files extracted from BluRay and normal burners,with the same disc using EAC ?
|
|
allenf
250+
tangled up in blue
Posts: 287
|
Post by allenf on Feb 28, 2009 10:17:40 GMT
I wonder if there would be any audible differences between .wav files extracted from BluRay and normal burners,with the same disc using EAC ? None have been demonstrated AFAIK. Personally I believe there is no data error introduced when extracting audio data from a reasonable condition red book CD with a CD/CDR/DVD drive. Do a search for transcoding with lossless formats, the results are interesting. Rip CD=>WAV=>FLAC=>Apple Lossless=>burn CD. The burned CD contains "bit perfect" identical music data to the source CD. The most I recall reading about is a 51st generation CD-CD copy of an audio CD which was identical to the master (!!!), but take that claim as unproven as I cannot remember the source...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2009 10:38:22 GMT
I wonder if there would be any audible differences between .wav files extracted from BluRay and normal burners,with the same disc using EAC ? None have been demonstrated AFAIK. Personally I believe there is no data error introduced when extracting audio data from a reasonable condition red book CD with a CD/CDR/DVD drive. Do a search for transcoding with lossless formats, the results are interesting. Rip CD=>WAV=>FLAC=>Apple Lossless=>burn CD. The burned CD contains "bit perfect" identical music data to the source CD. The most I recall reading about is a 51st generation CD-CD copy of an audio CD which was identical to the master (!!!), but take that claim as unproven as I cannot remember the source... Allenf I have been able to demonstrate to others,an audible difference between a CD burned from a .wav file on the HDD, and the same .wav file converted to.flac, then reconverted to .wav, and another copy made using the same type of CD-R at the same speed, and with the same burner. In fact I still have a copy of the disc made via .flac conversion somewhere. They were played via my X-DAC V3 and my Class A preamp and 15W Class A amplifier. This was posted some time back in RG. SandyK P.S. I would expect that discs burned with a normal burner and a BluRay writer could also be both "bit perfect" but sound far better with the BluRay written version. There is far more to it, than just "ones and zeroes"
|
|
tg
100+
YAGOF
Posts: 154
|
Post by tg on Feb 28, 2009 11:35:16 GMT
Just for a little balance WRT copyright "enforcement" - it has been shown that the RIAA are over zealous in the persecution of those they perceive to be potentially harming their imagined potential profits. Particularly in the case of the persecution of an 11 or 12 yr old girl for running a Harry Potter fan site (no copyright material to my knowledge other than the name) and their bullying of the Norwegian Government to persecute the youthful free source code writer who wrote DECSS. Some non-US corporate dominated economies and governments have the cojones to stand up to these latter day pirates (yes it is often them who are the pirates) and their gun-boat diplomacy tactics. I applaud them for their stance. These are the same jerks who in their rapacious greed have stuffed multiple economies with their shell games. They could give a damn about artists receiving fair remuneration for their work - I think not, historically they have screwed the artists and the public both. A bully with a lawyer instead of a thug with a baseball bat is a bully nonetheless. Sorry Alex, I am all for artists and material creators getting fair return for their efforts but that lot just make me see red. I detest BS and they are full of it. Here endeth the rant.
|
|
robertkd
Been here a while!
Electronics Engineer from sunny Queensland
Posts: 111
|
Post by robertkd on Feb 28, 2009 11:59:20 GMT
agreed and well put and so true, I'd give you a Karma point but that's 'pointless"
Robert
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2009 12:19:40 GMT
Tony I didn't say I agreed with it,and I am surprised that you read otherwise into that post, as I have stated opinions similar to yours several times previously. I just stated that is illegal, in virtually every country. I think you will find that the vast majority of countries are signatory to copyright laws, and not just for music. I hope you guys are able to upload AND download anonymously. Alex P.S. If I had agreed with it ,I wouldn't have been talking about extracting .wav files in the next sentence, after all, that is illegal too, in most countries. I use UseNeXt which is a Usenet provider where all downloads are anonymous.
|
|
allenf
250+
tangled up in blue
Posts: 287
|
Post by allenf on Feb 28, 2009 13:10:13 GMT
Allenf I have been able to demonstrate to others,an audible difference between a CD burned from a .wav file on the HDD, and the same .wav file converted to.flac, then reconverted to .wav, and another copy made using the same type of CD-R at the same speed, and with the same burner. In fact I still have a copy of the disc made via .flac conversion somewhere. They were played via my X-DAC V3 and my Class A preamp and 15W Class A amplifier. This was posted some time back in RG. SandyK P.S. I would expect that discs burned with a normal burner and a BluRay writer could also be both "bit perfect" but sound far better with the BluRay written version. There is far more to it, than just "ones and zeroes" Not getting on your case here Alex <g>, but was the demonstration test strictly DBT?
|
|
tg
100+
YAGOF
Posts: 154
|
Post by tg on Feb 28, 2009 13:51:13 GMT
Alex, you know how it goes with a GOF - one word can trigger an outpouring of unexpected emotion all it took was the use of the word "responsibility" rather than "activity" for me to read endorsement, all other indications and previous utterances notwithstanding. To accept a responsibility is to validate the claim being made hence I read "enforcement responsibilities" as an endorsement of the right to pursue those claims. The apology line was in respect of the fact that I disagree with that perceived endorsement. Many countries are signatories to many things, often under financial duress, more bullying. It should be no surprise if they are less than vigilant in the protection of the interests of foreign corporations who are trying to push them around. Apologies to all for taking this thread somewhat off course.
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Mar 1, 2009 7:16:18 GMT
XTRProf What you mean is that is completely illegal worldwide, although some Asian area countries are a bit lax in their copyright protection responsibilities. SandyK P.S. I wonder if there would be any audible differences between .wav files extracted from BluRay and normal burners,with the same disc using EAC ? Yes, because of the copyrigh laws it's illegal. But then, those should apply to those hardcore rippers for profit and not to some people having fun like us which are obviously not hardcore rippers for profit. In fact, we are promoting people within the group to buy more softwares especially those outstanding recording. I would buy those excellent recording when I hear one to have more of the same and can find one. Isn't Mitchelle Nicolle a good example here? Definitely sold more than 4 here after I said it here and people tasted it. Thru word of mouth spread, I would say by now at least sold more than 10 thru chain reaction. Serious, for the Bluray vs normal red book extraction, I have no idea until I try one. I'm more Zen then Tech, as you have known me for so long ....................
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Mar 1, 2009 7:19:17 GMT
P.S. I would expect that discs burned with a normal burner and a BluRay writer could also be both "bit perfect" but sound far better with the BluRay written version. There is far more to it, than just "ones and zeroes" Your last statement sounds like you have switched camp to be ZenTech. More Zen than Tech. A wise move. I will give you 1 Karma more for that if it's still available. Welcome, mate ................
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2009 8:06:09 GMT
Allenf I have been able to demonstrate to others,an audible difference between a CD burned from a .wav file on the HDD, and the same .wav file converted to.flac, then reconverted to .wav, and another copy made using the same type of CD-R at the same speed, and with the same burner. In fact I still have a copy of the disc made via .flac conversion somewhere. They were played via my X-DAC V3 and my Class A preamp and 15W Class A amplifier. This was posted some time back in RG. SandyK P.S. I would expect that discs burned with a normal burner and a BluRay writer could also be both "bit perfect" but sound far better with the BluRay written version. There is far more to it, than just "ones and zeroes" Not getting on your case here Alex <g>, but was the demonstration test strictly DBT? allenf Give me a break ! ;D The difference was so obvious on my gear that my friend picked the difference within 10 seconds. I also posted the results of a comparison program (now removed from my PC) where the differences were amplified and made audible. I also used Sound Forge9 to show the differences, which were at the very bottom end of the dynamic range. As I also posted earlier ,(about a year ago ?) rockgrotto.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=talk&action=display&thread=3340&page=1 I have downloaded previously, several .flac files from alt.binaries.sounds.lossless and they sounded quite mediocre after reconversion to .wav, (and no, they weren't from MP3 files!) On a couple of instances, I then purchased a retail copy which sounded much better. I think that I now have a later version of the FLAC program. Also worth mentioning is that I had no problems when using Monkey's Audio. Alex BTW, the last bit about BluRay burned discs sounding better than even the original, has been confirmed recently by jeffc in a post here.
|
|
allenf
250+
tangled up in blue
Posts: 287
|
Post by allenf on Mar 2, 2009 9:36:17 GMT
Alex,
Firstly, so it wasn't a level-matched DBT then?
Secondly, I hadn't seen the other thread referenced in your post, most interesting. I'm with FauDrei here...
Thirdly , if you are confident in asserting that the FLAC format is in fact not lossless (and assert that transcoding from one lossless format to another is not lossless) then you really should consider posting your findings over on Hydrogen Audio for further peer review.
Regards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2009 10:02:30 GMT
allenf All levels were correct at the time of burning on to CD-Rs from the same container. The day that I have to do a DBT to tell if my equipment modifications are better or worse than previously, I will give the game away. Judging changes of SQ reliably after modifications comes from lots of practice in that area, and no, not all my modifications have ended up positively, and I have on quite a few occasions restored the equipment to it's previous state. Incidentally, several RG members have heard my equipment. I have previously posted these findings in threads in the the somewhat larger membership, DIYAudio. (>100,000 members) Naturally, there were some people like yourself who vehemently disagreed. ;D I find it rather interesting that I did not have similar problems with Monkey's Audio. On a more positive note, I have had several top class FLAC conversions from 24/96 paid downloads. However, I used a more recent version of FLAC for the conversion back to .wav. Alex P.S. The SC HA with JLH appears to be getting quite a reasonable reception, so perhaps my judgement isn't that far out after all ? I don't think I am doing too badly for a 70 years of age "old fart" ?
|
|
allenf
250+
tangled up in blue
Posts: 287
|
Post by allenf on Mar 2, 2009 10:31:57 GMT
The only thing I am vehemently disagreeing with is your assertion that my disagreement is vehement ;D
The thing is...lossless is lossless, not almost lossless. That is mathematical theory. This isn't the same as Microsoft's marketing fluff from the late 1990s that 128K WMA is CD quality, which it clearly isn't. I specifically mentioned Hydrogen Audio because some of the guys who actually authored and/or developed the codecs hang out there on occasion. And those people would be able to work to a reason that you hear differences with transcoded files, which are likely not a product of the codec itself.
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Mar 19, 2012 13:36:29 GMT
I think I might as well revives this after having fun with it the other time for new members. Oh yeah, Fritz, you still haven't sent me your dvd of reference tracks after so some years. Finish compiling already? To keep it low profile, just pm me for those interested to share and we can have this fun offline.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Mar 22, 2012 0:42:24 GMT
My pkzip program can compress and uncompress any number of files for years on end without losing a bit. I check the files with my own binary compare utility. But apparently many or most FLAC converters can't convert to FLAC from WAV or whatever and then back again perfectly. That should be an extremely simple test. Assume for a moment a test: The first conversion to FLAC and then back to WAV may change the file size or contents, but sound identical. Just hypothetical. Then reconvert the new WAV file to FLAC and back again to the 3rd instance of the WAV. Is the 3rd WAV identical to the 2nd WAV, i.e. does the converter "settle down" to some lowest common denominator after the 2nd conversion? If so, then the problem (if there is one) is in the initial conversion only. If not, then the converter is apparently losing data permanently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2012 1:12:07 GMT
Dalethorn You really need to see Jan. and Feb. "The Absolute Sound" for lots of ripping stuff, including sound quality differences due to format conversions, or see HiFi Critic magazine Vol.6 No.1 which is about to go to the printers.
Alex
|
|
xerxes
Been here a while!
Posts: 1,115
|
Post by xerxes on Mar 22, 2012 1:27:51 GMT
Oooh-er missus. Shouldn't we meet in a public place on a first date?
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Mar 22, 2012 2:39:56 GMT
Oooh-er missus. Shouldn't we meet in a public place on a first date? Hey, I'm not gay!
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Mar 22, 2012 3:36:48 GMT
Dalethorn - You really need to see Jan. and Feb. "The Absolute Sound" for lots of ripping stuff, including sound quality differences due to format conversions, or see HiFi Critic magazine Vol.6 No.1 which is about to go to the printers. Alex I did read it, both articles. But what's still needed is exactly what I described - to see how the WAV #2/3/4/5 changes in file size. If it keeps changing then it's a problem. If the file size stabilizes after the 2nd/3rd/4th etc. conversion, then someone should analyze the headers and contents for the first few pages anyway, to see if there's anything interesting to be seen in the data layout.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2012 3:51:07 GMT
Dale PM sent. Regards Alex
P.S. From the TAS article:
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Mar 22, 2012 17:08:47 GMT
After some experiments with perfect FLAC conversions, I'm more curious now about the anomalies that crept into the TAS guys' systems when they were working their tech. I would love to sit in on their experiments and monitor the files.
|
|
|
Post by pcourtney1 on Mar 25, 2012 12:21:45 GMT
I think the world has moved on a bit from posting reference CD's or DVD's to each other, a small circle of my friends now use Museopen site to compare how well the music is played to our ears via the different hi-fi systems we all have, it is mostly classical, but Piano tracks are one of the hardest to re-create properly in the hi-fi chain. I should add that we are all using Logitech products (Logitech bought Slim Devices in Oct 2006), mostly the Squeezebox Transporter and Squeezebox Duet players that are being used in all this testing, some via RCA phono out to headphone amps like my X-Cans v2, and some via DAC's into various amps and speaker combo's musopen.org/musicwe could do the same thing for RG, it would be a start at least, anyone could download what were considered 10 reference pieces (all the tracks on Museopen are royalty free by the way), then when you listen to some new equipment all ten can be compared every time you change things in your audio chain and then results posted on RG, it may take 6 months or so for all interested RG members to agree the best 10 pieces to use on Museopen for this to be an agreed RG Reference CD, but at the very least it would be a lot fun, and a good way to kick things off in a legal way, anyone in World can participate knowing that all the downloads are the same quality, and free as well !
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Mar 25, 2012 14:36:29 GMT
I think the world has moved on a bit from posting reference CD's or DVD's to each other, a small circle of my friends now use Museopen site to compare how well the music is played to our ears via the different hi-fi systems we all have, it is mostly classical, but Piano tracks are one of the hardest to re-create properly in the hi-fi chain. I should add that we are all using Logitech products (Logitech bought Slim Devices in Oct 2006), mostly the Squeezebox Transporter and Squeezebox Duet players that are being used in all this testing, some via RCA phono out to headphone amps like my X-Cans v2, and some via DAC's into various amps and speaker combo's musopen.org/musicwe could do the same thing for RG, it would be a start at least, anyone could download what were considered 10 reference pieces (all the tracks on Museopen are royalty free by the way), then when you listen to some new equipment all ten can be compared every time you change things in your audio chain and then results posted on RG, it may take 6 months or so for all interested RG members to agree the best 10 pieces to use on Museopen for this to be an agreed RG Reference CD, but at the very least it would be a lot fun, and a good way to kick things off in a legal way, anyone in World can participate knowing that all the downloads are the same quality, and free as well ! It's a very good idea there. But using only classical music is not the ideal way to test any hifi to its limit as it only tell the story from a classical standpoint. I can tell you that classical, vocal and traditional jazz will sound very good via a tube amp. But play rock, new wave and any faster music thru the tube amp will make it sound like it cannot catch up with those music. We should test with a myriad of music to have a proper understanding of the capability of a hifi equipment, don't you agree? Last but not least, we can gather a bunch of reference quality tracks of many genres from an international cast of audiophiles to increase our awareness of great test tracks available in this side of the planet known as the Audiofools. Heh, heh, heh ....................... Btw, we are not uploading whole albums for the public to share but only specific test tracks that we consider to be good enough to test equipment privately within a small group for the sake of hifi. We are not music pirates but promoters of good sound. When I showed Michelle Nicolle to RG the last time, I was the only one with her CD. Now, I'm very confident at least 10 or more of that CD are in the hands of RG members or their friends who had heard it. It's just too good not to buy the CD for hifi. So promoters of pirates?
|
|