In article
..com, scribeth thus
On Feb 14, 11:08*am, tony sayer wrote:

So what are you comparing them to then the original signal?..

You can rip a CD perfectly using a PC CD-ROM drive and the right
software, which gives you an error-free wav copy of the signal.

So you reckon you'd be able to reliably tell that apart from the same or
another CD of that material from a CD player in a live A-B comparison?.
--
Tony Sayer

On Feb 15, 2:33*pm, tony sayer wrote:

You can rip a CD perfectly using a PC CD-ROM drive and the right
software, which gives you an error-free wav copy of the signal.

So you reckon you'd be able to reliably tell that apart from the same or
another CD of that material from a CD player in a live A-B comparison?.

With a good sound card in the PC, and against an average CD player,
the difference is surprisingly stark. (but, of course, idiots on this
group will claim otherwise.)

[Trimmed to just posting in one group.]

In article
,
wrote:
On Feb 15, 2:33 pm, tony sayer wrote:

You can rip a CD perfectly using a PC CD-ROM drive and the right
software, which gives you an error-free wav copy of the signal.

So you reckon you'd be able to reliably tell that apart from the same or
another CD of that material from a CD player in a live A-B comparison?.

With a good sound card in the PC, and against an average CD player,
the difference is surprisingly stark. (but, of course, idiots on this
group will claim otherwise.)

Your assertion is rather ambiguous or vague for various reasons.

Firstly, since your posting was in two groups it wasn't clear which group
you were calling "idiots". :-)

Secondly, your carefully preload your response by limiting it to comparing
"good" sound cards with "average" CD players. Since you've not defined here
the meaning of either qualifier you can simply choose to define "good" and
"average" to mean "can be distinguished" - so making your assertion
self-referentially "true" even if one category or the other were actually
void of members. :-)

Thirdly, you can also be self-referentially be defining "idiot" to mean "no
one in reality". So maybe just playing word-games to use rhetoric in place
of you having any actual checkable evidence.

Forthly, you omit to give any assessible evidence of your claim. Making an
assertion that you can do something is one thing. Providing evidence that
others can check that you *can* do what you claim - when you only have the
sound to go on - is something entirely different.

Perhaps you could list the names of some of the "idiots" on the group you
had in mind, and give references to postings where they claimed a "good"
soundcard *couldn't* be distinguished from an "average" one. Note the
inclusion of the qualifiers you used.

BTW Tony, did you xpost this just to expose the sweeping assertion? I can't
see the context for it having much to do with the thread title.... IIRC
'jamie' seems to have a history of making dubious claims on the digital-tv
group... or am I confusing him with some "idiot"?... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

[Trimmed to just posting in one group.]

In article
,
wrote:
On Feb 15, 2:33 pm, tony sayer wrote:

You can rip a CD perfectly using a PC CD-ROM drive and the right
software, which gives you an error-free wav copy of the signal.

So you reckon you'd be able to reliably tell that apart from the
same or
another CD of that material from a CD player in a live A-B
comparison?.

With a good sound card in the PC, and against an average CD player,
the difference is surprisingly stark. (but, of course, idiots on
this
group will claim otherwise.)

Your assertion is rather ambiguous or vague for various reasons.

Firstly, since your posting was in two groups it wasn't clear which
group
you were calling "idiots". :-)

Secondly, your carefully preload your response by limiting it to
comparing
"good" sound cards with "average" CD players. Since you've not
defined
here the meaning of either qualifier you can simply choose to define
"good" and "average" to mean "can be distinguished" - so making your
assertion self-referentially "true" even if one category or the
other
were actually void of members. :-)

Thirdly, you can also be self-referentially be defining "idiot" to
mean
"no one in reality". So maybe just playing word-games to use
rhetoric in
place of you having any actual checkable evidence.

Forthly, you omit to give any assessible evidence of your claim.
Making an
assertion that you can do something is one thing. Providing evidence
that
others can check that you *can* do what you claim - when you only
have the
sound to go on - is something entirely different.

Perhaps you could list the names of some of the "idiots" on the
group you
had in mind, and give references to postings where they claimed a
"good"
soundcard *couldn't* be distinguished from an "average" one. Note
the
inclusion of the qualifiers you used.

BTW Tony, did you xpost this just to expose the sweeping assertion?
I
can't see the context for it having much to do with the thread
title....
IIRC 'jamie' seems to have a history of making dubious claims on the
digital-tv group... or am I confusing him with some "idiot"?... :-)


I'll cross-post this back to alt.radio.digital, because I don't think
Jamie would see your reply otherwise.




--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

On Feb 15, 6:35*pm, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote:

I'll cross-post this back to alt.radio.digital, because I don't think
Jamie would see your reply otherwise.

I didn't miss much, good grief. :-)
It contains such a large pile of unfocused spluttering, I can't really
find anything solid enough to respond to.

To clarify the content of my last post though:
- by "good sound card" I meant one which doesn't use resampling - the
vast majority of them resample everything to 48 or 96KHz (whichever is
their maximum rate)
- by "average CD player" I meant one which doesn't read ahead, cache,
check for errors, and then re-read where necessary (99.9% of them in
other words).

wrote in message


To clarify the content of my last post though:
- by "good sound card" I meant one which doesn't use resampling -
the
vast majority of them resample everything to 48 or 96KHz (whichever
is
their maximum rate)


Which sound card have you got?



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

On Feb 15, 7:51*pm, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote:

Which sound card have you got?

For music playback, an Ensoniq SC600.

and you?

I've always suspected the problem with why some computers playing wavs sound
different is more to do with the analogue parts than the digital ones, but
it would be interesting to compare the actual readable bits on several
players and computers. Lots of error checking etc, and other fiddling about
has and still does go on inside digital to analogue hardware/software, so
one might in fact be able to hear differences even if the analogue bits
were the same.
Its a sobering thought that even with all the amazing technology, there is
no real way to predict whether a cheapo bit of hardware will be good or bad
until you connect it up and listen.

One thing I will say though is that in the main, the quality these days can
be very good for not a huge outlay. Computers though have other problems,
like rubbish getting into the data or noise on supplies and glitching due to
the computer doing other things.
Its amazing also just how unbad MP3s can sound giving the liberties taken in
them!

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
wrote in message
...
On Feb 15, 2:33 pm, tony sayer wrote:

You can rip a CD perfectly using a PC CD-ROM drive and the right
software, which gives you an error-free wav copy of the signal.

So you reckon you'd be able to reliably tell that apart from the same or
another CD of that material from a CD player in a live A-B comparison?.

With a good sound card in the PC, and against an average CD player,
the difference is surprisingly stark. (but, of course, idiots on this
group will claim otherwise.)

Only just caught up with this one, too busy designing a better idiot,
sorry...
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
[Trimmed to just posting in one group.]

In article
,
wrote:
On Feb 15, 2:33 pm, tony sayer wrote:

You can rip a CD perfectly using a PC CD-ROM drive and the right
software, which gives you an error-free wav copy of the signal.

So you reckon you'd be able to reliably tell that apart from the same
or
another CD of that material from a CD player in a live A-B comparison?.

With a good sound card in the PC, and against an average CD player,
the difference is surprisingly stark. (but, of course, idiots on this
group will claim otherwise.)

Your assertion is rather ambiguous or vague for various reasons.

Firstly, since your posting was in two groups it wasn't clear which group
you were calling "idiots". :-)

Secondly, your carefully preload your response by limiting it to comparing
"good" sound cards with "average" CD players. Since you've not defined
here
the meaning of either qualifier you can simply choose to define "good" and
"average" to mean "can be distinguished" - so making your assertion
self-referentially "true" even if one category or the other were actually
void of members. :-)

Thirdly, you can also be self-referentially be defining "idiot" to mean
"no
one in reality". So maybe just playing word-games to use rhetoric in place
of you having any actual checkable evidence.

Forthly, you omit to give any assessible evidence of your claim. Making an
assertion that you can do something is one thing. Providing evidence that
others can check that you *can* do what you claim - when you only have the
sound to go on - is something entirely different.

Perhaps you could list the names of some of the "idiots" on the group you
had in mind, and give references to postings where they claimed a "good"
soundcard *couldn't* be distinguished from an "average" one. Note the
inclusion of the qualifiers you used.

BTW Tony, did you xpost this just to expose the sweeping assertion? I
can't
see the context for it having much to do with the thread title.... IIRC
'jamie' seems to have a history of making dubious claims on the digital-tv
group... or am I confusing him with some "idiot"?... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Brian Gaff wrote:

One thing I will say though is that in the main, the quality these days can
be very good for not a huge outlay. Computers though have other problems,
like rubbish getting into the data or noise on supplies and glitching due to
the computer doing other things.
I've just been converting some music from vinyl, and I always use my old
desktop (which must be about 8 years old by now) rather than using my
laptop (which is about 3-4 years old). The reason is that the audio
input on my laptop it so sensitive that the electronics in the laptop
actually interfere with the audio.

Its amazing also just how unbad MP3s can sound giving the liberties taken in
them!

The other day I heard some 128k mp3 which sounded quite amazing. It
probably depends a great deal on how hard the actual piece of music is
to encode. I generally use higher bit rates than that, just to make sure.

Richard E.