In Reply to: I have no problems with what you say, except for... posted by clarkjohnsen on May 16, 2005 at 09:10:35:
Clark,You're right. Nothing ever sounds exactly the same. Not even the same disc played in the morning or at night. Every playback is 100% unique in terms of the environment and the condition of your ears.
I guess what we are trying to figure out is what tweaks actually work in that they always give consistently better performance with them than without. And what tweaks are system dependent rather than system independent.
My point about the WAV files is that if you make a bit perfect copy and can confirm that the WAV files extracted from a CD-R and CD are _100% identical_ (you can check this - and a lot of people who copy CDs don't realize that of they don't figure out the read and write offsets of their drive and use software which can deal with this you will not be making bit perfect copies of your CDs) then the chances of playing both of them from the WAV on your computer and have them sound exactly the same is the same as the chances of playing either one of them twice in a row and having those two plays sound exactly the same. You will not have one _consistently_ sound better than the other. You have removed uncertainty in the source timing, data offsets causing the digital filter windows to actually see different data, etc. The uncertainties you still have are those of timing on the D/A converter and analog distortions from other sources... but these uncertainties are the same regardless of which file you choose.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: I have no problems with what you say, except for... - macaque 17:10:22 05/16/05 (23)
- "Perfect copy." Hmm... - clarkjohnsen 08:01:38 05/17/05 (22)
- Re: "Perfect copy." Hmm... - macaque 08:22:58 05/17/05 (1)
- I believe you, and not Mr. Austin, are correct. However... - clarkjohnsen 11:56:13 05/17/05 (0)
- 2 disks with identical data MUST sound the same. - Jim Austin 08:14:15 05/17/05 (19)
- Nope. - Jon Risch 17:24:17 05/17/05 (6)
- He has retracted his absolutist stance. And wisely so. nt - clarkjohnsen 08:14:05 05/18/05 (2)
- Right. - Jim Austin 11:59:34 05/18/05 (1)
- That's OK, PhDs don't usually express themselves well anyway. - clarkjohnsen 16:02:54 05/18/05 (0)
- I don't get it... - Jim Austin 03:53:37 05/18/05 (2)
- OK - Jon Risch 21:14:15 05/18/05 (1)
- Yes, I do agree - Jim Austin 04:15:46 05/19/05 (0)
- The fact that they usually don't highlights the importance of.... - Tom Dawson 13:52:17 05/17/05 (5)
- Interesting... - Jim Austin 13:58:31 05/17/05 (4)
- So Jim.... - Commuteman 17:20:08 05/17/05 (2)
- Re: So Jim.... - Jim Austin 03:49:38 05/18/05 (1)
- Sure, but it's a big if........ - Commuteman 15:00:38 05/18/05 (0)
- Re: Interesting... - Tom Dawson 14:23:52 05/17/05 (0)
- The Academy has spoken. The rest of us MUSTcower. nt - clarkjohnsen 11:57:28 05/17/05 (5)
- Very sad Clark - Jim Austin 13:43:59 05/17/05 (1)
- No, actually, you brought your affiliation up first. That's how I knew, fer godssake. Sad, indeed... but not for me. - clarkjohnsen 08:09:33 05/18/05 (0)
- Oooohhh..what a resounding technical comeback...nt - jneutron 12:01:29 05/17/05 (2)
- I see you are cowering. nt - clarkjohnsen 12:17:34 05/17/05 (1)
- quivering....big time...what, run outta technical words to gak up?nt - jneutron 12:57:09 05/17/05 (0)