Lossless FLAC, is just simple data compression without any down sampling on frequency and bit rate.
WAV is just an audio format storaging audio data as 1 or 0
CD is just a storage medium and the audio data is still limited to 16bit/44.1kHz.
Different materials can help to make the CD last longer and have less wear and tear on the surfaces.
What makes some CD sounds better than others is the effort of the studio do on audioremastering. The mother tape nowadays is 24bit/96khz, a good sound engineer will decide what should be left out so the audio data may fit into 16bit/44.1 CD
As for physical ripping, the way data layout on CD surfaces are not reading it as simply 1 and 0 for pit/land, it is in a pit/land switch format, so when pits to land or vice versa first happened, it is 1, and no switch means 0. As the CD outer surfaces may not be perfect or even the data surface is damaged by extended play or UV, there may be errors while reading.
回復 11# zori
you are very technical!{:1_329:}
Lossless FLAC, is just simple data compression without any down sampling on frequency and bit rate.
...
zori 發表於 2011-8-19 19:50 http://m.post76.com/discuss/images/common/back.gif
Meant to say something earlier, but am still out and it's too painful to type on my cell.You are the only guy that made sense here, there's just too much bullshit from guys who pretend to know.
More when I get back to a keyboard.
本帖最後由 atsw10 於 2011-8-20 00:26 編輯
回復 13# qwe456
Icannot say more than "totally agreed". {:1_335:}
First, refer to post #11 from zori, it also has some 80-90% of what I wanted to say.But here's what I have to add:
1. CDs
CDs are, in my opinion, because of the pit/land structure, a horrible storage media.If you look at how the 1s and 0s are stored, you can see how they are prone to errors of all sorts.Most importantly, unlike hard drives, CDs don't operate in a closed environment is vulnerable to shocks and dust.There are also quality control issues for replicating CDs -- you have no guarantee that the replicas would be 100% identical to the master.
2. Hard Drives
Hard drives, on the other hand, operate in a closed environment (for magnetic drives, that is, and certainly not a problem for SSDs).You don't have problems with dust (if you do, your drive is dead, end of story) and hard drives are generally more shock resistant than CD readers.For hard drives, you have, for the lack of better words, certainties of 1s and 0s -- you can make exact replicas of digital files to the very bit.
3. Sampling Rates
As zori has pointed out, with CDs, you are capped at 16-bit/44.1kHz.So there's loss of info (or what some of you will refer to as "details") vs. the 24-bit/96kHz or 24-bit/192kHz masters.And here's the funny part that most people forgot: when you are playing a CD and your CD player/DAC claims to upsample to 192kHz, it's essentially interpolation (i.e. an educated guess).On the other hand, digital files can, technically, handle higher bit resolutions and sampling rates, depending on the format.So for practical purposes, don't get obsessed about this 24-bit/192kHz over USB thing.
4. CD vs. Digital File
And some of you are going to say "details" are lost when you rip the CDs into digital files.It's true, but it's also misleading.It's true because whenever you read a CD, there might be dust or vibration or a faulty cable involved and you miss a thing or two here.It's also misleading because you are somewhat susceptible to the same problems/limitations when you play the CD.The ONLY way to get a true lossless file is to get the master digital file from the studios.For practical purposes, ripping a CD at home, with a decent CD/DVD drive and proper software, is as good as you can get.
5. Ripping...
Software: Yes, you need to use the right software -- but bigger doesn't usually mean better, sometimes it's the exact opposite.Some think you should rip multiple times, compare the checksums online, etc.Go play in your sandbox and enjoy yourself.
Drive: Some people think you should use an external USB drive with external power supply to avoid all sorts of interference inside your PC.Yes and no: yes in the sense that you can avoid whatever interference you have in mind, no in the sense that you are susceptible to all sorts of vibration with a standalone drive outside of the case.In my opinion, it's perfectly fine to use a CD/DVD drive that's securely installed inside a heavy case (shield the drive if you really want to).And if you want to be really anal about it, use an external case that's super heavy.
6. Format and Player...
FLAC vs. WAV...Don't give me that bullshit like "WAV sounds better"...FLAC is just a simple compression mechanism.If decoding FLAC becomes a resource problem for your PC, you need a new one.
For the player, first and foremost, I use foobar2000 on Windows.Why?It's freaking free and I am a strong believer that if you use a piece of software that loads hundreds of MBs of drivers/libraries, the drag on the system way overshadows any benefits (if any, that is) from better written software/ algorithms.I would even argue that the sheer size of the software shows that it's either poorly written (in a terribly inefficient way) or it does too many things you probably don't care about.Remember, decoding digital music files is a VERY simple task.For all practical purposes, foobar2000 does a reasonably good job and is highly customizable.
8. Computer...
Use a simple no-bullshit PC.Install plenty of RAM, use a SSD if possible, don't install any unnecessary bullshit software.The machine shouldn't be doing anything other than playing music.You don't need it to be ridiculously fast.In fact, you don't want it to have too much power so that you don't have to worry about heat dissipation.And if you can get away with not installing fans, skip the fans.(Let's leave it at that for my music PC, I can unplug the fan if I want to, and that wouldn't have made much of a difference to the performance of the PC, but that would remove ALL moving parts in the box) Also use an external power supply if possible.And no point in spending $ on a massive media player from one of those big name audio equipment manufacturers -- the bulk of what they put into those boxes aren't that different from what you can get from the computer malls, if you know what you are doing, that is.(You think they will make their own drives/RAM/processors?)
Just my two cents.
回復qwe456
Icannot say more than "totally agreed".
atsw10 發表於 2011-8-19 23:36 http://www.post76.com/discuss/images/common/back.gif
This is, by far, the best when it comes to bs:
http://www.post76.com/discuss/viewthread.php?tid=82148&extra=page%3D1
畫面清到好似高清咁(我電視唔係full HD黎)
回復 11# zori
師兄講得好詳細!{:6_193:}
而我聽我老友講, 理論上wav, flac 都係lossless, 但這是其次, 問題係要幾耐才能達成lossless。
講清楚一點, 由電腦encode訊號到dac, 小極都要時間, 情形就似把一個成30~40m file由c-driver 過到 d-driver一樣, 快極都要幾秒。
d-driver收夠data, 從「最終result」看當然係lossless, 但中間的過程, 傳送101010等data, 因為係斬件, 會一個package一個package傳送到另一個目的地, 只要受外界干擾, 傳送中就未必同步, 會有速度唔同, 或者package 與package之間唔跟先後次序傳送等情況發生。 收電腦data係私人電腦上問題不大, user有時間, 可以等收夠data, 電腦check sum後file就讀到。但audio係即時dreaming, 唔等得, 於是播放器會設計成有容錯的功能, 即是中間傳送期間有任何delay, 照樣有聲出, 好唔好聲係其次, 但係聽者感覺上就等同data loss...音色因為已經不能高度還原了。
我對耳未至於咁靈, 聽唔到wave和flac的分別, 但網上講wave好過flac原因可能就係後者的encode時間較長的原因, 以上有錯請指正, 謝~
回復 15# qwe456
其實我開呢個帖, 係因為我係另一個 Thread 討論緊玻璃 CD 會唔會好聲 D, 但我話理論上係唔會, 我想求教究竟點解會好左, 但係果邊既師兄完全冇正面回應, 所以我想睇下各位學術討論既師比啲意見 On 呢個 Topic..
可參考: http://www.post76.com/discuss/viewthread.php?from=notice&tid=82096
我念如果你地睇左都會有啲火, 但佢地唔明, 我地係呢邊 Technical 討論, 謝謝!
回復qwe456
其實我開呢個帖, 係因為我係另一個 Thread 討論緊玻璃 CD 會唔會好聲 D, 但我話理論上係唔 ...
atsw10 發表於 2011-8-20 01:02 http://www.post76.com/discuss/images/common/back.gif
It's pretty simple...You told that guy who has just spent gawd-knows-how-much on one of those CDs that he's a fvcking idiot, of course he wouldn't agree...The reality is, you are FAR better off getting copies of the original digital files from the studio than buying one of those CDs.It will be way cheaper and you will get far better results, assuming you have proper equipment to play the files.
回復 19# qwe456
咁係我太直啦... 我都好唔直接嫁啦, 我話性價比唔多好姐... 哈哈...
