Burning speeds affect quality???

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

slipperyslope

Banned
Oct 10, 1999
1,622
0
0
Cassettes??? I don't know of any place in my area that sells them. I guess cdnow and online resellers have them. I was seriously pissed off when Tool-Lateralus vinyl was cancelled.

Jim
 

kylef

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2000
1,430
0
0
I'm a little skeptical of the attack on the Nyquist theorem, given that it is a completely mathematical proof that, when sampling, one can absolutely reproduce the original signal if the digital one was sampled above the Nyquist rate. No one has yet debunked Nyquist, not even analog electronics design engineers and professional musicians. I would be open minded to attempts to the contrary, so if you think you have debunked Nyquist, then please show me where the fault lies.

Now, there is definitely a good point to be made about the limiting nature of quantizing all of the samples artificially to 16 bits. Obviously this is the one case where analog recording shines over digital recording, in that analog recordings have headroom limited only by the physical properties of the recording medium (magnetic susceptibility of tape oxides, for instance).

There might also be something to the argument that 22 kHz is too low for the maximum frequency in audio signals (which determines the Nyquist frequency of 44 kHz). I have heard some say that frequency harmonics above 20 kHz DO in fact play a part in shaping noises, even though most human ears cannot directly discriminate between a 20 kHz tone and, say, a 22 kHz tone.
 

LocutusX

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,061
0
0


<< Can't you still buy new releases on cassettes? >>



Just because he posed a good argument for Analog over Audio CD, doesn't make cassettes better than CDs. Don't kid yourself... cassettes are clearly inferior to CD. For many reasons... noise, dynamic range, longevity being chief among them. Vinyl LPs (records) may be superior to audio CD - many audiophiles seem to think so (then again, many don't) - but audio cassettes (tapes) are most certainly NOT better than CD. They are not superior to my LAME-encoded MP3's either.

The best discussion on audiophile-related issues is at the r3mix.net forums. Yes, there are proponents of both schools of audiophilism there (analog &amp; digital).
 

LocutusX

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,061
0
0


<< Now, there is definitely a good point to be made about the limiting nature of quantizing all of the samples artificially to 16 bits. Obviously this is the one case where analog recording shines over digital recording, in that analog recordings have headroom limited only by the physical properties of the recording medium (magnetic susceptibility of tape oxides, for instance).

There might also be something to the argument that 22 kHz is too low for the maximum frequency in audio signals (which determines the Nyquist frequency of 44 kHz). I have heard some say that frequency harmonics above 20 kHz DO in fact play a part in shaping noises, even though most human ears cannot directly discriminate between a 20 kHz tone and, say, a 22 kHz tone.
>>



I agree... it is a combination of the fact they use only 16-bits per sample and a sampling rate of 44kHz which is why CD's can be &quot;distorted&quot; or lose &quot;depth&quot;. Bumping up the sampling rate to 48kHz and 24-bit can make a world of a difference, if your ears are up to it.

I believe those are the specs that DAT uses.
 

Expandable

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
529
0
0

What program u guys use to convert MP3 to Wav?

Explain to me how a cd burned at 12x that has all the correct 1's and 0's is different than one burned at 2x with the same 1's and 0's??? It is either a 1 or 0 there is no in between. If it isn't correct then there is an error on the cd and it will skip. If the drive consistently writes bad data then who cares if it is an 2x or 12x writer.


My theory is same as your Jim.
 

Sugadaddy

Banned
May 12, 2000
6,495
0
0
slipperyslope, I didn't bother reading the book you posted because I already know that CDs aren't the best sound media, but they are however 100 times more convenient, and the sacrifice is worth it IMO. If you can tell the difference by hearing them (not just looking at stats on paper), don't use them. I know I can't hear the difference...
 

Bumboy

Member
Jun 21, 2001
83
0
0


<< What program u guys use to convert MP3 to Wav? >>


For that, I use a program called....

mp32wave converter

Dont be surprised now... LOL
If you want it, ill send it to ya cuz it aint even a meg
 

slipperyslope

Banned
Oct 10, 1999
1,622
0
0
I don't usually exact mp3s to wav so I can burn cds. If I plan to listen to something a lot I usually actually buy the cd(if it is good enough for me to want to listen to it in my truck then I buy it). If I do burn mp3s to cd then I usually just use winamp to exact them. I know winamp isn't the best but it works. BTW i have an Apex dvd player so if I really want to listen to my mp3s away from my computer I just burn 650MB to cd and listen with my dvd player and stereo.

 

MrWhiteUK

Senior member
May 13, 2001
625
0
0


<< CDs are just 1's and 0's if there were some errors you would hear more than just muddy bass. You would hear big errors. >>




<< Explain to me how a cd burned at 12x that has all the correct 1's and 0's is different than one burned at 2x with the same 1's and 0's??? >>


cough*jitter*cough



<< They just plain suck >>



Well that's great for you, you can obviously hear improvements in recording greater than the standard 44,100hz 16bit I presume??

'CD's suck' what a dumb statement.

I'm sure 99.9% (probably you included) of the population wouldn't notice any benefit from higher sampling rates.

Screaming CD's suck and demanding higher sample rates to satisfy your 'Golden' ear won't give you that Audiophile status you obviously crave.


<< (I can tell a difference between a 256Kb MP3 and the original cd). >>


You can tell the difference between an .mp3 and the orignal cd....um great.
CD sample rate is 44,100*16*2 = 1411Kbs

You'll be telling me how inferior Dolby Digital is to DTS next.

CD's do NOT suck, the guy who wrote that article has convinced you they do, but you won't convince anyone else.

Have you ever heard a CD played through a GOOD system? It sucked did it?



<< We may finally be about to come out of the Audio Dark Ages >>




<< I have a portable cd player >>


Getting a proper CD player would be a good step out of the 'Dark Ages'

Please go over to the high end audio forums and tell THEM their CD's suck, see how hard they laugh.
You might wanna pick out all the contradictions in your post first though.


Peace
 

GoSharks

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 1999
3,053
0
76


<< CD's do NOT suck, the guy who wrote that article has convinced you they do, but you won't convince anyone else. >>



sorry, but cds do suck when compared to other sources.

if they were so &quot;great,&quot; then why do we have SACds and DVD-As (and DATs)
 

Pauli

Senior member
Oct 14, 1999
836
0
0


<< Read and LEARN >>




<< ...come out of the Audio Dark Ages >>


Aw c'mon, slipperyslope. This Harvey dude may know what he is talking about, but this diatribe is far removed from the reality of consumer audio. Reading his passage, one is given the impression that CD audio should never even be considered for listening to music recordings. I sure am glad that my ears and brain have crappy audio decyphering abilities - I actually think that CD audio sounds great! Compared what other options we have had in the past, it's unbelievable how good it is.
Review:
Vinyl - give me a break. Getting the friggin' dust pops off of those things is a complete and utter joke. Nevermind having to change needles on turntables or the grooves wearing out after relatively few plays or aligning the needle to get to skip to a different track. If you prefer vinyl over CD audio, then you simply need to be put into a straightjacket.

Cassette audio - you've got to be kidding me. Hiss, terrible dynamic range, short usable life, forget it.

Most of us don't have a recording studio that we can listen to recordings at. We are in our cars, using walkmans, in our living rooms (or computer rooms). We don't have a need for a PERFECT audio recording medium. It would simply be wasted on us. Leave your audio-snobbery out of this discussion so that those of us who are in the real world can solve real-world problems.
 

MrWhiteUK

Senior member
May 13, 2001
625
0
0


<< I sure am glad that my ears and brain have crappy audio decyphering abilities - I actually think that CD audio sounds great! >>



There's nothing wrong with your ears.

Just because there are newer formats coming out that doesn't detract from the quality of CD's atall.



<< CD's suck >>


What a load of nonsense

Hom much of an improvement do you think these new formats hold over CD?
Most people can't tell the difference, even those that can describe it as very subtle at best.

Even those people that praise these new formats still don't think that CD's suck.

I don't know what you're expecting.

Post this in an audio forum instead, I'd like to see the reply.

This has got too OT, it is a comp forum.




 

LocutusX

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,061
0
0


<< Hom much of an improvement do you think these new formats hold over CD? >>



I think the main reason that new formats are coming out to &quot;replace&quot; Audio CD's is so the RIAA's lawyers can put some sort of copy-protection mechanism on them, that they failed to do for CDs - since they initially desiged the Audio CD format back when the most powerful multimedia computer was the Atari 800 with only 64KB RAM and not much in the way of ripping capabilities. Not to mention MP3 or the Internet probably hadn't been concieved as it is in it's current form.

You can bet your pants they'll be trying some sort of encryption / subscription / (etc.) copy protection scheme on these new &quot;better than Audio CD&quot; formats, whether or not they actually sound better than CD.

*And* we have reason to believe some of them may actually be using lossy compression, not unlike what is used for Dolby Digital AC-3. It remains to be seen what benefit they offer to the common consumer.
 

CocaCola5

Golden Member
Jan 5, 2001
1,599
0
0
For someone who have followed High-End Audio and its many debates, I can say that its a accepted fact that vinyl is quite better than CDs. But you must play it on high-end(mega-bucks) turntables and the records must be in fine condition. As to 24bit/192khz, the jury is still out on wether true 24bit sound can be reproduced on &quot;normal&quot; grade players. Theres an elegant paragraph talking about this issue here, http://www.marklevinson.com/No306.htm btw, Mark Levinson is a top maker of cd/dvd signal processor.

edit>here is a excerpt from the article:

[The more things change, the more they stay the same. Mark Levinson designs have always featured over-built power supplies. Transistor and integrated circuit components rely on a quiet, stable and instantaneous supply of power for optimum performance. An amplifier output stage clearly requires a large reservoir of power, but when it comes to the relationship between clean power and clean sound, nothing compares with the demands of digital to analog converters. Higher resolution signals (such as 20- or 24-bit vs.16-bit) require a more quiet and stable power source to accurately resolve the additional bits in the recording.

Despite the fanfare surrounding the issuance of 24-bit recordings, ADCs (analog-to-digital converters) do not fully capture 24-bit signals and DACs do not resolve them. The principal obstacle is noise. The smallest signals in a 24-bit system are so small, they are easily covered by noise. So despite the special algorithms and technical wizardry marketers tout, the lowly power supply usually governs the resolution of the system. The more improvement we see in digital recording standards, the more important the power supply will become in our digital processors.]



 

chuckieland

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2000
3,148
0
0
the quality of blank cd also play a big game here
usually i don't trust the manufactory rating
if it rate 8x, i burn at 6x
rate 12x i burn at 8x
rate 16x i burn at 8x
because.....
my burner top speed is 8x
 

MrWhiteUK

Senior member
May 13, 2001
625
0
0
So let me get this right, for those people that say CD's 'suck'

CD's Suck <---------------------> SACD/DVD-A Wonderful

If that is the case, you obviously think there is a huge difference in quality between the two, am I correct?

Do you think in the future we will see ever increasing sample rates, a bit like processor speeds?

In the future you won't be listening to your new optical disc which is sampled at 15Mbs and think, &quot;How did we ever manage with only 44kHz 16bit?&quot;

Our ears our are the limiting factor, and yes the future will undoubtedly hold superior audio, but not from merely upping the sample rate. More convenient, more durable, smaller will be the priority.

One last question, what sort of equipment are CD's 'sucking' on for you?

Peace.
 

CocaCola5

Golden Member
Jan 5, 2001
1,599
0
0
The people who knows this stuff like musicians and audio engineers have claim that theres a world difference between CD and SACD. The reason is because at 24bit/192khz digital sound starts to sound more &quot;natural&quot; again like analog but without the side effects of those analog formats. The human ear may not be very good at picking up every grain of detail in the music but what it can do extremely well is to detect if the sound is &quot;real&quot; sounding. Many pianists or vocalists report that with 24/192 recording their work sounds much more like them through the audio speakers. Not all music will benefit from SACD, music like heavy metal or arobics type music proabably won't gain much. &quot;Unplugged&quot; type recordings(those that don't use amplified instruments) will gain the most. As to increasing sampling rate, it wouldn't hurt but it probably won't help either because 192khz is felt to be more than enough to capture the hi freq. Going higher than 24bit would be better still but theres a engineering barrier to this as was said in my earlier post.



CD's Suck <---------------------> SACD/DVD-A Wonderful

If that is the case, you obviously think there is a huge difference in quality between the two, am I correct?

Do you think in the future we will see ever increasing sample rates, a bit like processor speeds?

In the future you won't be listening to your new optical disc which is sampled at 15Mbs and think, &quot;How did we ever manage with only 44kHz 16bit?&quot;

Our ears our are the limiting factor, and yes the future will undoubtedly hold superior audio, but not from merely upping the sample rate. More convenient, more durable, smaller will be the priority.

One last question, what sort of equipment are CD's 'sucking' on for you?

Peace.[/i] >>

 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |