In Reply to: RE: You see, son, it's like this. . . posted by Tony Lauck on September 19, 2014 at 19:11:51:
I do not disagree with you about a copied file, even though it may be bit for bit identical, sounding different. In fact, that was one of the main points I made in my OP, where the copied files now sound better than they did on the CD's - not because of the files themselves, but because of the different processing chain now involved. What tin was contending is that there must necessarily be a DETERIORATION in the copied file, and I still vigorously deny this. If you want to call that dogmatic, so be it.But then you bring all these other items from out of left field - compression, decompression, FLAC - which do not even apply to the case at hand. I was doing a straight copy from a CD to a hard disc. No compression was involved at any stage. Forget FLAC.
Also, your example of the Microsoft Word document does not involve straight copies (as I was trying to show in my example) if there was editing or other processing going on with possibly different versions of Microsoft Word. Of course changes in the file are possible after that! Duh!
All we should be discussing here is the equivalency of a straight copied file to the original. And I say again, that the computer industry would not exist today if there were a problem with this.
Edits: 09/19/14 09/20/14
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Jeez, Tony - I think you're just adding to tin's confusion - Chris from Lafayette 20:19:45 09/19/14 (3)
- You're arguing that copying redbook and changing it's original digital - tinear 21:23:42 09/19/14 (2)
- RE: You're arguing that copying redbook and changing it's original digital - Tony Lauck 07:19:31 09/20/14 (0)
- Hey, tin - what's so hard to understand about this? - Chris from Lafayette 00:14:33 09/20/14 (0)