I post on other forums-

Apr 17, 2025, 2:58 PM

Just wasted 2 bottles of excellent beer again taking on the topic of audio CDs on an audio forum.
Many kids here never heard of a CD. Thought some here on Tnet might be interested.

=============================================>

I have posted as to this many times.
Many disagree with me, mostly these are people who react without understanding.

CDs are great things.
You can store anything on them. In the days when storage was 1.5MB floppy disk, CDs arrived.
People backed up all their files on CDs as back then computers crashing or dying was more common. It was a huge improvement over floppy disks.

CDs are medium that store digital files, and that is all they are.
Music played from a CD, DVD, hard drive, thumb drive, even a floppy disk is exactly the same file.

If you transfer a music file from a CD to a hard drive or vice versa, nothing changes.

The common audio CD form (called Red Book) is a two-channel 16-bit PCM encoding at a 44.1 kHz sampling rate per channel. There are several other versions such as Super Audio CD (SACD).

Music from a CD can be copied directly to a hard drive, thumb drive, etc. The file will not be better or worse, but identical. This is the part most people cannot seem to under stand.

I believe mostly people believe wrongly there is a drop in quality due to the early use of mp3. In the day a CD could hold 74 minutes of audio. Ripping to a different file type like mp3 or Microsoft's .wma compressed the file by deleting things that they claimed the human ear could not hear. The bitrate could be dropped allowing a ton of music to be put into a computer or on a CD. The compression could be a lot or a little. Most audiophiles believe they can hear a difference in a compressed file. I too believe this, but I think in a blind test, most cannot detect a difference in a bit rate such as 320 which is common now that storage has become cheap.

My first computer was cutting edge with a 13G hard drive. That will not hold many CDs. I upgraded to the new 40G hard drive that came out and the salesman asked why I needed all that space, was I opening up a bank?
Now hard drives are up to over 30TB - and are as cheap as that first 40G I bought.
My tiny porch computer (which I am on right now after my 3 mile slog) has 2TB inside and 20TB hooked to it.
The point being that music compression to things like mp3 are no longer necessary. I have 1.43TB of music on a SSD in my computer consisting of around 4000 of my favorite albums. I don't collect junk. I don't have any of the new music.

In addition to lossy file types like mp3, there are file types that delete nothing, maintaining the original bit rate.
One is .flac (Free Lossless Audio Codec).

FLAC's algorithm can typically be reduced to between 50 and 70 percent of its original size and decompresses to an identical copy of the original audio data. I use this compressing at the high end as like I said, storage is cheap these days.
A FLAC copy of the audio tracks ensures that an exact duplicate of the original data can be recovered at any time.
The technical strength of FLAC compared to other lossless formats lies in its ability to be decoded quickly, and it is free and plays on most all players.

=============================

Back to CDs being better or worse than ?
CD players can cost $10,000 or $10. They are mechanical things spinning and reading a CD at incredible speeds compared to a record (33rpm).
They spin at 500 rpm at the inner edge and 200 rpm at the outer edge of the disc. A CD spins at different speeds depending on the distance of the laser from the center.
There is a lot of high tech (and mechanical) stuff going on.
Basic physics is all things moving seek to come to rest (things break down, wear out, etc.)
It is obvious that less mechanical movement is better due to many things.

My computer music files on a solid state drive -> zero mechanical moving as the "identical file" is transferred to a music player.

===================

All digital files (CD, hard drive, etc) must be converted to analog to be heard. Records and tapes do not require conversion. Whether a digital or analog recording is better is one of the most fun debates for me, --> not going into that on this thread.

This digital conversion is done by a DAC (digital audio conversion). These can cost a couple dollars in a $10 CD player or can cost many thousands. About the best investment one can make in a digital audio system is a better DAC. Great speakers, amps. etc can not improve the original digital conversion.
On the other side of this argument is most people do not have an audio "system" that can make use of a "better DAC" and so... a $10 CD player (or cheap digital music player) and ear buds is good enough to make most folks happy. There is nothing wrong with that.

To discern a "difference" in a digital file played from a CD or a thumb drive would require more than just an audiophile level audio system (also required).
It would also require audiophile level ears from folks who "know how to listen" and detect a slight difference. These folks typically avoid a blind test and come up with a million reasons why these are not valid. I disagree.

Most of us just like to enjoy the music. The music keeps improving for audionuts like me due to other guys always searching to make things a tiny bit better. We all benefit due to "trickle down".
Over decades I have found the search for "better audio" to be very interesting as audiophiles, audio engineers, etc think and post as to it all.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

the tug abides

I bought a bad DAC once, not a cheap one, but bad one. I did not realise until I plugged into a cheap audio interface in a pinch and was stunned at the improvement. Did some research and found out that DAC was a dud, harsh, and piercing with no dynamics. The biggest influence in my chain is Class A Burson Soloist. It dials back the dynamic range in the ear gain region, which makes them very forgiving of poorly recorded tracks, and it can retain micro details that more expensive drivers can discern, so it is a must for an expensive set of cans. I have an RTR DAC that attempts the same, but not quite the same. The RTR does diffuse the imaging a bit, which is sort of like the effect a good Tube amp will have, it widens the soundstage at the expense of making the imaging less focused, so it helps soften the 2-5k region as well, but not like what the Burson is doing. Neither change the frequency response, but draw your attention to different things.

I can not comment on DACS and speakers, mine are self-powered, so despite what source I feed them, they do their own thing. But in Headphones, especially low impedance, the DAC just needs to be solid. You can pay about 500 for something a bit better, but personal taste can factor in. The more expensive one will not sound more detailed or have better dynamic range, but it can "flavor" the sound a bit. I think if you have good synergy with your amp and Drivers, you are good. The owner of Headphones.com sold me on the Burson for my setup due to his immense knowledge of his product line, and I was finally able to stop chasing the dragon, I have the perfect rig for me.

I post on other forums-

Re: I post on other forums-

Re: I post on other forums-

Re: I post on other forums-

fellow audiophile

Re: fellow audiophile

Re: I post on other forums-

Re: I post on other forums-

Re: I post on other forums-

Oh No

Re: I post on other forums-

Now we are getting somewhere!

Re: Now we are getting somewhere!

Re: Now we are getting somewhere!

4 channel... Had their first... It's somewhere on a plateau outside Clovis,CA.***

Re: I post on other forums-

Re: I post on other forums-

Re: I post on other forums-

Have lots of great music

Re: I post on other forums-

TigerBoard POTD