|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
83.55.41.19
In Reply to: Now This Is Really Interesting..... posted by Todd Krieger on April 14, 2007 at 05:15:31:
Maybe the decoding software has something to do with it. I would suggest to repeat the test using Foobar, set up to work in kernel mode.
Follow Ups:
you stated that you burned CD-R's with the tracks. Maybe if you burnt the track coming from the FLAC making the conversion "on the fly" it could explain the differences. Otherwise being identical files, it's hard to explain.
I was playing the files with Winamp. I will say that playing the FLAC files decoded back to .wav sounded better than playing the FLAC files directly.
Check this post out, Todd.
.... I'd call the "dirty little secret" of active DSP conversion and lossless compression.I personally wish there was some sort of protocol that transfers data from optical discs to HDD data files with as little processing as possible. Supposedly .aiff files are better than .wav in this regard. There is another conversion process called disc description protocol (DDP), which is supposedly the closest to the .cda format on the CD. The problem is a company called Sonic Studio has rights to the technology, and products that utilize it are super expensive. (Sonic Studio only makes software for Macintosh OS, so one would need a Mac in order to try it.)
> There is another conversion process called disc description protocol
> (DDP), which is supposedly the closest to the .cda format on the CD.
> The problem is a company called Sonic Studio has rights to the
> technology, and products that utilize it are super expensive.
I use Sonic PMCD to master Stereophile recordings. The audio data in
a DDP file set are identical both to those on the CD and in the
original AIF file. The advantage is that the CD data can be sent to
the plant on a CD-R, and are therefore immune to disc reading
problems. They can also be check-summed so that the plant knows if
there is an error or not.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
v
I meant as immune to any other data CD-R, as opposed to an audio CD,
which has significantly less powerful error correction.
CD plants can and do cut glass masters from an audio CD, but any
partially corrected or interpolated errors on playback become part of
the audio data on the master. By contrast, sending the plant a DDP file
set on a CD-R ensures that the audio data on the pressed CD are
identical to those in the master file.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"CD plants can and do cut glass masters from an audio CD, but any partially corrected or interpolated errors on playback become part of the audio data on the master. By contrast, sending the plant a DDP file set on a CD-R ensures that the audio data on the pressed CD are identical to those in the master file."If data files stored on a data CD-R are more-immune to errors than audio tracks on an audio CD-R, what do DDP files have over .wav files, .aiff files, lossless-compressed (FLAC) files, or image files, stored as *data* on CD-R? (The .wav files on the CD seen on a computer in the actual .wav data format, as opposed to audio tracks in their ".cda" representation. Unplayable on a CD player.)
> If data files stored on a data CD-R are more-immune to errors than
> audio tracks on an audio CD-R, what do DDP files have over .wav files,
> .aiff files, lossless-compressed (FLAC) files, or image files, stored
> as *data* on CD-R?
The DDP file set is an image of the audio CD from which the glass master
can be cut directly.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
c
"The audio data in a DDP file set are identical both to those on the CD and in the original AIF file. The advantage is that the CD data can be sent to the plant on a CD-R, and are therefore immune to disc reading problems."This may be very true, but misses the point....
The data I've been dealing with is apparently all identical, be it straight .cda to .wav, straight .cda to .aif, or conversion via FLAC or Monkey's Audio encode/decode. The problem all-along has been the intrinsic jitter associated with both data storage and data conversion. It may be the biggest problem (aside from RFI) in regard to getting decent digital audio playback.
The DDP format is also supposedly the closest to the native .cda format, where the least-strained conversion would likely induce less jitter upon conversion during the burning of CDs.
Thank you for that piece of info, saved me alot of time.
Hi Todd, I will try this out and post my findings as I have a Mac.
"Hi Todd, I will try this out and post my findings as I have a Mac."This would be appreciated. If it indeed produces a CD or playback file of superior sonic quality, I may eventually go that way.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: