CD is rubbish

[pete321]

JohnDuncan:Discussed here Interesting reading - suggesting that the manufacture of a CD can turn modest spinners into better ones. Thoughts?

CD's can sound good, XRCD (plays on any CD player), unfortunatley not much of a mainstream catalogue, but they sound great. it's amazing what can be done with the plain old CD if it's mastered and produced properly.

 

[mushroomgod]

regarding the errors that a CD player could produce when playing a disk - In photography theres a techneque called stacking (I think). The idea is that you can take more that one image of the same view (say 10 images) then the program stacks them, avaraging out any visual noise, and adding dynamic range to the shadpws, it does this by taking the best of every image to produce a super clean image.

Anyway, I could be wrong, but could something similar be done with ripping a cd ----- rip it 10 times and assuming all the errors arnt in the same place, get a program to clean it up correctly?

 

[Anonymous]

mushroomgod:
regarding the errors that a CD player could produce when playing a disk - In photography theres a techneque called stacking (I think). The idea is that you can take more that one image of the same view (say 10 images) then the program stacks them, avaraging out any visual noise, and adding dynamic range to the shadpws, it does this by taking the best of every image to produce a super clean image.

Anyway, I could be wrong, but could something similar be done with ripping a cd ----- rip it 10 times and assuming all the errors arnt in the same place, get a program to clean it up correctly?

This would not generally be necessary, most CD mechanisms, including the cheap PC CD re-writers, are able to produce an error free stream from a pristine CD; even at up to 52X CLV read speed. It is possible to do 10 rips and do a bit for bit comparison and they will all be exactly the same!

 

[SteveR750]

Stumpy21:mushroomgod:
regarding the errors that a CD player could produce when playing a disk - In photography theres a techneque called stacking (I think). The idea is that you can take more that one image of the same view (say 10 images) then the program stacks them, avaraging out any visual noise, and adding dynamic range to the shadpws, it does this by taking the best of every image to produce a super clean image.

Anyway, I could be wrong, but could something similar be done with ripping a cd ----- rip it 10 times and assuming all the errors arnt in the same place, get a program to clean it up correctly?

This would not generally be necessary, most CD mechanisms, including the cheap PC CD re-writers, are able to produce an error free stream from a pristine CD; even at up to 52X CLV read speed. It is possible to do 10 rips and do a bit for bit comparison and they will all be exactly the same!

so are you saying that there is no difference in total errors between a CD player and a PC rip? or have I got the speeds mixed up?

 

[Craig M.]

according to benchmark media, most decent quality cdp's can output a bit perfect stream from an unmarked disc. which is at odds with most peoples comments who have compared the two. it totally slipped my mind to compare a cdp as a transport with my mac, into the beresford the last time i had one here.

 

[Anonymous]

SteveR750:
so are you saying that there is no difference in total errors between a CD player and a PC rip? or have I got the speeds mixed up?

On an unmarked CD there shouldn't be.

All PC CD Re-writers and a lot of new CDP's will cope with CD-RW (Re-writable) discs. Due to the way these work, the lower reflectivity and quality of pits/lands makes them much more difficult to read the data from, (early players cannot read from them at all) so an unmarked pressed CD is, forgive the analogy, a walk in the park.