Can someone please explain what the difference is between the two formats. I understand a bit about CD, i.e. PCM at 44.1Khz or whatever the sample rate is. I assume that lossless files are those that use the same bit rate as the original master (which I assume is higher than CD format?). Thus, if the source was digitally mastered, then strictly speaking they cannot be lossless, as they are still digital pulses and not a continous analogue data stream? So does the term lossless simply mean no compression from the original master, or something else...? The former is my understanding simply when talking about ripping .wav files off a CD into say itunes, WMP or EAC. Ultimately at best they can only give a 100% identical copy of the CD source data, or maybe with some read errors, but never better.
CD vs Lossless
- Thread starter SteveR750
- Start date
Lossless refers to new compression formats that have surfaced that are able to reduce the digital file size in a manner that can be reproduced putting all of the correct bits back into place with no loss in quality over the original digital file. The first Lossless compression format was DVD-Audio's MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) and now we have FLAC, Apple Lossless, and Windows Lossless. The end result is a 3.5 minute song contained in a 25.4 MB file as opposed to a 35.4 MB file in WAV/PCM format. This helps with storage of large collections of music at original quality, but is obviously still quite a bit larger than any of your "lossy" MP3/AAC/WMA formats even at their highest bitrates.
chebby
Well-known member
- Jun 2, 2008
- 1,257
- 34
- 19,220
SteveR750:Ultimately at best they can only give a 100%
identical copy of the CD source data, or maybe with some read errors,
but never better.
One would think so.
Without explaining (sorry) the technical in and outs - because I would get them wrong no doubt - lossless through a decent budget DAC sounds better than many budget and some mid level CD players. I will leave others to explain that if it can be explained.
I had to spend out on a CD player that now costs £895 brand new to significantly improve on a £180 DAC playing lossless from iTunes via a USB cable. This was proved to me via a Naim Nait XS with Rega RS1, Rega RS3 and PMC FB1i speakers and the amp I have now. (Nait 5i)
In my old (pre April) system with the Arcam Solo-Mini, the DAC (iTunes/USB from laptop) comprehensively out-performed the built in CD player to such an embarassing degree that even 256kbps AAC iTunes downloads were noticeably more enjoyable. In fact, even a Fubar USB II DAC comfortably outperformed the Solo-Mini's CD player with lossless files.
I would say (all else being equal in a reasonably revealing system) that the likes of a Beresford TC-7520 and/or CA DacMagic will trounce CD players up to around the level of a Rega Apollo or similarly good CDPs.
This is from my own experience of hearing all the above either at home, during in depth demo sessions or at length on a friend's system.
identical copy of the CD source data, or maybe with some read errors,
but never better.
One would think so.
Without explaining (sorry) the technical in and outs - because I would get them wrong no doubt - lossless through a decent budget DAC sounds better than many budget and some mid level CD players. I will leave others to explain that if it can be explained.
I had to spend out on a CD player that now costs £895 brand new to significantly improve on a £180 DAC playing lossless from iTunes via a USB cable. This was proved to me via a Naim Nait XS with Rega RS1, Rega RS3 and PMC FB1i speakers and the amp I have now. (Nait 5i)
In my old (pre April) system with the Arcam Solo-Mini, the DAC (iTunes/USB from laptop) comprehensively out-performed the built in CD player to such an embarassing degree that even 256kbps AAC iTunes downloads were noticeably more enjoyable. In fact, even a Fubar USB II DAC comfortably outperformed the Solo-Mini's CD player with lossless files.
I would say (all else being equal in a reasonably revealing system) that the likes of a Beresford TC-7520 and/or CA DacMagic will trounce CD players up to around the level of a Rega Apollo or similarly good CDPs.
This is from my own experience of hearing all the above either at home, during in depth demo sessions or at length on a friend's system.
The last bit of the OP is true. Lossless means no change in information between source (e.g. CD) and file (wav, flac, ..). It is then up to the DAC to make a decent analogue signal out of it. Lossless can be uncompressed - by definition - (e.g. wav) or compressed (flac, wma), in the latter case the original data can be retrieved at playback bitperfect by the software codec. Indeed, if a master is 96Hz/24bits then the conversion to normal redbook CD at 44.1Hz/16bits is already a lossy step, that can never be reversed. There are already some download sites that offer music in the higher resolution and SACD of course also has a higher digital quality.
chebby:
SteveR750:Ultimately at best they can only give a 100%
identical copy of the CD source data, or maybe with some read errors,
but never better.
One would think so.
Without explaining (sorry) the technical in and outs - because I would get them wrong no doubt - lossless through a decent budget DAC sounds better than many budget and some mid level CD players. I will leave others to explain that if it can be explained.
I had to spend out on a CD player that now costs £895 brand new to significantly improve on a £180 DAC playing lossless from iTunes via a USB cable. This was proved to me via a Naim Nait XS with Rega RS1, Rega RS3 and PMC FB1i speakers and the amp I have now. (Nait 5i)
In my old (pre April) system with the Arcam Solo-Mini, the DAC (iTunes/USB from laptop) comprehensively out-performed the built in CD player to such an embarassing degree that even 256kbps AAC iTunes downloads were noticeably more enjoyable. In fact, even a Fubar USB II DAC comfortably outperformed the Solo-Mini's CD player with lossless files.
I would say (all else being equal in a reasonably revealing system) that the likes of a Beresford TC-7520 and/or CA DacMagic will trounce CD players up to around the level of a Rega Apollo or similarly good CDPs.
This is from my own experience of hearing all the above either at home, during in depth demo sessions or at length on a friend's system.
OK so the explanation is as I thought, its a low compression or compression free format, based upon the orignal source file. I am familiar with file transfers between CD and compressed and the WMP / itunes lossless file types, but I have always assumed that they are inferior as there is still some opportunity for errors in the ripping / downloading and conversion processes.
@ your highlighted commenst - how can lossless be better than the source? And if the cource is either CD or downloaded files, then how can they be better than a CD, since downlaoded music is normally supplied as compressed files (mp3 etc), unless you ripped from a CD in the first place using a PC, and I simply cant believe that a CD drive in a laptop is as accurate as a half decent CD player. So, if the best availbale source is CD, then how can a PC based system with its $5 servo be as accurate let alone better than a bespoke unit such as that in a Cyrus? Or am I missing something in the available quality of downloadable music files?????
SteveR750:Ultimately at best they can only give a 100%
identical copy of the CD source data, or maybe with some read errors,
but never better.
One would think so.
Without explaining (sorry) the technical in and outs - because I would get them wrong no doubt - lossless through a decent budget DAC sounds better than many budget and some mid level CD players. I will leave others to explain that if it can be explained.
I had to spend out on a CD player that now costs £895 brand new to significantly improve on a £180 DAC playing lossless from iTunes via a USB cable. This was proved to me via a Naim Nait XS with Rega RS1, Rega RS3 and PMC FB1i speakers and the amp I have now. (Nait 5i)
In my old (pre April) system with the Arcam Solo-Mini, the DAC (iTunes/USB from laptop) comprehensively out-performed the built in CD player to such an embarassing degree that even 256kbps AAC iTunes downloads were noticeably more enjoyable. In fact, even a Fubar USB II DAC comfortably outperformed the Solo-Mini's CD player with lossless files.
I would say (all else being equal in a reasonably revealing system) that the likes of a Beresford TC-7520 and/or CA DacMagic will trounce CD players up to around the level of a Rega Apollo or similarly good CDPs.
This is from my own experience of hearing all the above either at home, during in depth demo sessions or at length on a friend's system.
OK so the explanation is as I thought, its a low compression or compression free format, based upon the orignal source file. I am familiar with file transfers between CD and compressed and the WMP / itunes lossless file types, but I have always assumed that they are inferior as there is still some opportunity for errors in the ripping / downloading and conversion processes.
@ your highlighted commenst - how can lossless be better than the source? And if the cource is either CD or downloaded files, then how can they be better than a CD, since downlaoded music is normally supplied as compressed files (mp3 etc), unless you ripped from a CD in the first place using a PC, and I simply cant believe that a CD drive in a laptop is as accurate as a half decent CD player. So, if the best availbale source is CD, then how can a PC based system with its $5 servo be as accurate let alone better than a bespoke unit such as that in a Cyrus? Or am I missing something in the available quality of downloadable music files?????
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
No you're not missing the point on downloaded files, which tend to be (though are not exclusively) 320k at best. However, I've found (and I think chebby has too, though he can speak for himself) that if you take care ripping a CD in a lossless format to your PC, the resultant files (played through a quality DAC) can sound better than even very good CD players, because all the error correction's been done already, rather than having to do it at 500rpm as is the case in a CD player.
JohnDuncan:No you're not missing the point on downloaded files, which tend to be (though are not exclusively) 320k at best. However, I've found (and I think chebby has too, though he can speak for himself) that if you take care ripping a CD in a lossless format to your PC, the resultant files (played through a quality DAC) can sound better than even very good CD players, because all the error correction's been done already, rather than having to do it at 500rpm as is the case in a CD player.
Aha, OK!....but how can WMP, itunes make a better correction of the potentially bigger errors off your PC CR ROM drive whether done "on the fly" or not, surely errors are corrected using the same interpolation algorithm between missed data points. And if its because of the need to do it in real time, then why cant a conventional CDP simply read the data and buffer it, thereby making error correction prior to streaming into the DAC??
Aha, OK!....but how can WMP, itunes make a better correction of the potentially bigger errors off your PC CR ROM drive whether done "on the fly" or not, surely errors are corrected using the same interpolation algorithm between missed data points. And if its because of the need to do it in real time, then why cant a conventional CDP simply read the data and buffer it, thereby making error correction prior to streaming into the DAC??
professorhat
Well-known member
- Dec 28, 2007
- 992
- 22
- 18,895
SteveR750:And if its because of the need to do it in real time
It is...
SteveR750:then why cant a conventional CDP simply read the data and buffer it, thereby making error correction prior to streaming into the DAC??
Good question! It's been touched on before, but looking at the threads that might have had it in, they all seem to quickly descend into the CD player vs Computer Based music argument on both sides and it's too late for me to be dealing with that I'm afraid! In case you're interested though, here's one I've found which touched on it.
It is...
SteveR750:then why cant a conventional CDP simply read the data and buffer it, thereby making error correction prior to streaming into the DAC??
Good question! It's been touched on before, but looking at the threads that might have had it in, they all seem to quickly descend into the CD player vs Computer Based music argument on both sides and it's too late for me to be dealing with that I'm afraid! In case you're interested though, here's one I've found which touched on it.
idc
Well-known member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 1,142
- 117
- 19,370
In itunes select View and then View Options and then check the box Sample Rate, the rate, no matter how the music was imported/downloaded is 44.1kHz.
Having listened over the past year (as I set up a computer based setup) to CDs, imported CDs at different bit rates, downloads at 128kbps and then Plus off itunes along with Amazon's VBR and Spotify's Ogg Vorbis streaming I would say that the rate is not important. I back that up with recently taking a comparison test between lower bit rates and not hearing a difference.
IHMO how well a track is recorded in the first place is the key to good SQ. Second is your ears and how well they work (I have a touch of tinnitus). Third is how good your setup is and its characteristics. Last, but by no means least is the means of encoding the music. For example, I find Spotify is the best sound with its format/my setup/my ears and it is clear what was well recorded in the first place.
I honestly think that discussions about bit rate as an indicator of SQ are missing a whole load of other factors that are more important.
Having listened over the past year (as I set up a computer based setup) to CDs, imported CDs at different bit rates, downloads at 128kbps and then Plus off itunes along with Amazon's VBR and Spotify's Ogg Vorbis streaming I would say that the rate is not important. I back that up with recently taking a comparison test between lower bit rates and not hearing a difference.
IHMO how well a track is recorded in the first place is the key to good SQ. Second is your ears and how well they work (I have a touch of tinnitus). Third is how good your setup is and its characteristics. Last, but by no means least is the means of encoding the music. For example, I find Spotify is the best sound with its format/my setup/my ears and it is clear what was well recorded in the first place.
I honestly think that discussions about bit rate as an indicator of SQ are missing a whole load of other factors that are more important.
idc:
In itunes select View and then View Options and then check the box Sample Rate, the rate, no matter how the music was imported/downloaded is 44.1kHz.
Having listened over the past year (as I set up a computer based setup) to CDs, imported CDs at different bit rates, downloads at 128kbps and then Plus off itunes along with Amazon's VBR and Spotify's Ogg Vorbis streaming I would say that the rate is not important. I back that up with recently taking a comparison test between lower bit rates and not hearing a difference.
IHMO how well a track is recorded in the first place is the key to good SQ. Second is your ears and how well they work (I have a touch of tinnitus). Third is how good your setup is and its characteristics. Last, but by no means least is the means of encoding the music. For example, I find Spotify is the best sound with its format/my setup/my ears and it is clear what was well recorded in the first place.
I honestly think that discussions about bit rate as an indicator of SQ are missing a whole load of other factors that are more important.
Agreed, but this is simply the same point I am making - if it's not there in the first place you can't improve it. Assuming the same recording but in different formats, then unless you can download "better than CD" bit rate, then its impossible for it be improved upon by using inferior processing sources (such as PC hardrives or using compressed file transfer). I don't know if you can download "better than CD" files, if so then I'm all up for looking into PC based music.
In itunes select View and then View Options and then check the box Sample Rate, the rate, no matter how the music was imported/downloaded is 44.1kHz.
Having listened over the past year (as I set up a computer based setup) to CDs, imported CDs at different bit rates, downloads at 128kbps and then Plus off itunes along with Amazon's VBR and Spotify's Ogg Vorbis streaming I would say that the rate is not important. I back that up with recently taking a comparison test between lower bit rates and not hearing a difference.
IHMO how well a track is recorded in the first place is the key to good SQ. Second is your ears and how well they work (I have a touch of tinnitus). Third is how good your setup is and its characteristics. Last, but by no means least is the means of encoding the music. For example, I find Spotify is the best sound with its format/my setup/my ears and it is clear what was well recorded in the first place.
I honestly think that discussions about bit rate as an indicator of SQ are missing a whole load of other factors that are more important.
Agreed, but this is simply the same point I am making - if it's not there in the first place you can't improve it. Assuming the same recording but in different formats, then unless you can download "better than CD" bit rate, then its impossible for it be improved upon by using inferior processing sources (such as PC hardrives or using compressed file transfer). I don't know if you can download "better than CD" files, if so then I'm all up for looking into PC based music.
fatboyslimfast
Well-known member
- Jan 10, 2008
- 158
- 0
- 18,590
The main point again, is that even the best CD players are correcting data errors using guessing algorithms (once the CD player has past that byte of data, it has to move on to the next, else you would hear a gap in the sound), whereas the likes of iTunes etc can re-read the byte until it is happy that it has read it correctly.
This is why when ripping audio from a CD, you will only be able to do it at around 14-speed, instead of the 50-speed that the CDROM is capable of.
This error-free stream provided by the hard disk is the main reason why it can sound better - the DAC or soundcard has a far better stream of data to work with.
And yes, the likes of Naim and Linn are now selling high-definition audio (24bit/96KHz or above) from their website. I think Linn even offer a couple of free sampler tracks.
Hope this helps...
This is why when ripping audio from a CD, you will only be able to do it at around 14-speed, instead of the 50-speed that the CDROM is capable of.
This error-free stream provided by the hard disk is the main reason why it can sound better - the DAC or soundcard has a far better stream of data to work with.
And yes, the likes of Naim and Linn are now selling high-definition audio (24bit/96KHz or above) from their website. I think Linn even offer a couple of free sampler tracks.
Hope this helps...
is there also anything to do with budget? as in the time and money spent on the stand alone DAC will be much greater than that spent on that part of a CDP.
I for one have recently tried both sources on my AVI 9.1s as I couldnt quite believe it either. That a wireless stream to my squeezebox of a FLAC file played though the onboard DAC/AMPs of my speakers (optical input) would match the sound quality of my Arcam Alphas 7se used the same way.
But it did. in fact it seemed a little more clear. I also agree. that the quality of the recording is WAY more important that bitrate.
I for one have recently tried both sources on my AVI 9.1s as I couldnt quite believe it either. That a wireless stream to my squeezebox of a FLAC file played though the onboard DAC/AMPs of my speakers (optical input) would match the sound quality of my Arcam Alphas 7se used the same way.
But it did. in fact it seemed a little more clear. I also agree. that the quality of the recording is WAY more important that bitrate.
SteveR750: Aha, OK!....but how can WMP, itunes make a better correction of the potentially bigger errors off your PC CR ROM drive whether done "on the fly" or not, surely errors are corrected using the same interpolation algorithm between missed data points. And if its because of the need to do it in real time, then why cant a conventional CDP simply read the data and buffer it, thereby making error correction prior to streaming into the DAC??
That's why I bought myself a dedicated Plextor Premium CD-RW (not cheap) to rip my CD's rather than using £15 DVD-RW, plus you don't use WMP or iTunes to rip, you use something like EAC or my preferred option, dBPowerAmp. I rip to WMA Lossless, you'd be surprised how different a music track sounds when ripped with dBPowerAmp or EAC compared to WMP, it shouldn't sound different, but it does to my ears.
That's why I bought myself a dedicated Plextor Premium CD-RW (not cheap) to rip my CD's rather than using £15 DVD-RW, plus you don't use WMP or iTunes to rip, you use something like EAC or my preferred option, dBPowerAmp. I rip to WMA Lossless, you'd be surprised how different a music track sounds when ripped with dBPowerAmp or EAC compared to WMP, it shouldn't sound different, but it does to my ears.
So with a quality lossless file, we've read that it can sound fantastic with a wadia dock connected to the digital output from an ipod then into your DAC/Processor, putting many CD players to shame.
Can this be better than playing from a much cheaper external hard-drive or even drives included in DVDRs or TVs (I have a Pionneer Kuro) connected Optically? Would they be using an external DAC?
I would really like a What Hi-Fi test comparing playback of lossless files from USB sticks, connected Hard Drives, Laptop/PCs, Consumer TV/DVDr drives, NAS, Ipod/Wadia etc, all into the same DAC/Amp. And then compared to Sonos/Logitech wirelessly
Can this be better than playing from a much cheaper external hard-drive or even drives included in DVDRs or TVs (I have a Pionneer Kuro) connected Optically? Would they be using an external DAC?
I would really like a What Hi-Fi test comparing playback of lossless files from USB sticks, connected Hard Drives, Laptop/PCs, Consumer TV/DVDr drives, NAS, Ipod/Wadia etc, all into the same DAC/Amp. And then compared to Sonos/Logitech wirelessly
It's a long time since I've owned a high-end CD player, but I seem to remember it sounding better than my lossless music collection, there's a lot of 'noise' going on inside a PC. But for me, it wasn't relaxing listening to CD's, having to keep getting up and down changing a CD after playing one track. With Windows Media Centre, my whole music collection is at the control of my remote control and and I can go stright from Mot”rhead to Mozart if the mood takes me. The ability to create playlists on the fly is worth sacrificing a bit of music quality IMO.
fatboyslimfast
Well-known member
- Jan 10, 2008
- 158
- 0
- 18,590
fatboyslimfast:The main point again, is that even the best CD players are correcting data errors using guessing algorithms (once the CD player has past that byte of data, it has to move on to the next, else you would hear a gap in the sound), whereas the likes of iTunes etc can re-read the byte until it is happy that it has read it correctly.
This is why when ripping audio from a CD, you will only be able to do it at around 14-speed, instead of the 50-speed that the CDROM is capable of.
This error-free stream provided by the hard disk is the main reason why it can sound better - the DAC or soundcard has a far better stream of data to work with.
And yes, the likes of Naim and Linn are now selling high-definition audio (24bit/96KHz or above) from their website. I think Linn even offer a couple of free sampler tracks.
Hope this helps...
Yes I understand that (see previous post by prof hat), and yor other points make good sense which is why it seems illogical to run a CDP in real time....I gues therefore with more time for error correction, less money eeds to be spent on the transport, and more could be spent on the DAC. Wonder how cheap a CD6SE would be with a 10 dollar servo fitted inside it might have been.
EDIT: I've read most of the "spinnning Disc" thread, except the Mac vs PC parts as thats coke vs pepsi debate and not relevant; and one thing I have noticed is that my cheapo sony walkman CDP of about 6 yrs old spins at varying speeds as it plays, sometimes even stopping. Therefore it must be buffering, therefore it could have mpre time to correct errors to the same ability that EAC or Itunes can. Anyway, its academc, as clearly it is possiible to have an identical digital output from a PC as it is from the servo unit of a CDP. It seems to em therefore it comes down to ease of use and frankly a PC wins hands down, though I do like owning CD's. Rather worryingly, I am going to give some serious thought to selling my Cyrus, ad replacing it with a laptop which I cold use for a multitude of other things too. Right time to go and find and equivalent quality DAC....
This is why when ripping audio from a CD, you will only be able to do it at around 14-speed, instead of the 50-speed that the CDROM is capable of.
This error-free stream provided by the hard disk is the main reason why it can sound better - the DAC or soundcard has a far better stream of data to work with.
And yes, the likes of Naim and Linn are now selling high-definition audio (24bit/96KHz or above) from their website. I think Linn even offer a couple of free sampler tracks.
Hope this helps...
Yes I understand that (see previous post by prof hat), and yor other points make good sense which is why it seems illogical to run a CDP in real time....I gues therefore with more time for error correction, less money eeds to be spent on the transport, and more could be spent on the DAC. Wonder how cheap a CD6SE would be with a 10 dollar servo fitted inside it might have been.
EDIT: I've read most of the "spinnning Disc" thread, except the Mac vs PC parts as thats coke vs pepsi debate and not relevant; and one thing I have noticed is that my cheapo sony walkman CDP of about 6 yrs old spins at varying speeds as it plays, sometimes even stopping. Therefore it must be buffering, therefore it could have mpre time to correct errors to the same ability that EAC or Itunes can. Anyway, its academc, as clearly it is possiible to have an identical digital output from a PC as it is from the servo unit of a CDP. It seems to em therefore it comes down to ease of use and frankly a PC wins hands down, though I do like owning CD's. Rather worryingly, I am going to give some serious thought to selling my Cyrus, ad replacing it with a laptop which I cold use for a multitude of other things too. Right time to go and find and equivalent quality DAC....
fatboyslimfast
Well-known member
- Jan 10, 2008
- 158
- 0
- 18,590
Well, there's the other problem that to build up a buffer (to avoid audible dropouts when re-reading data packets), you either have to read ahead (which would give a delay in playback from pressing the "play" button), or spin the disc faster, which would make the CD player sound like a tumble dryer (a la PC CD-Roms).
Neither of which is really desirable in a consumer audio player.
So I suppose most manufacturers have gone down the line of making their linear transports as accurate as possible, but accepting the limitations.
Neither of which is really desirable in a consumer audio player.
So I suppose most manufacturers have gone down the line of making their linear transports as accurate as possible, but accepting the limitations.
SteveR750:
Rather worryingly, I am going to give some serious thought to selling my Cyrus, ad replacing it with a laptop which I cold use for a multitude of other things too. Right time to go and find and equivalent quality DAC....
To the dark side he comes.
Rather worryingly, I am going to give some serious thought to selling my Cyrus, ad replacing it with a laptop which I cold use for a multitude of other things too. Right time to go and find and equivalent quality DAC....
To the dark side he comes.
method man,
can i ask, do you think your adm's are as good/better than a mid priced system, as i've read in many other places?
and do you find them bass light at all? and is the dac in the adm's one of ok or good quality? and are they fussy about positioning near to walls etc?
seriously considering these but struggling to get to hear a pair near to me...
can i ask, do you think your adm's are as good/better than a mid priced system, as i've read in many other places?
and do you find them bass light at all? and is the dac in the adm's one of ok or good quality? and are they fussy about positioning near to walls etc?
seriously considering these but struggling to get to hear a pair near to me...
micky0179:
method man,
can i ask, do you think your adm's are as good/better than a mid priced system, as i've read in many other places?
and do you find them bass light at all? and is the dac in the adm's one of ok or good quality? and are they fussy about positioning near to walls etc?
seriously considering these but struggling to get to hear a pair near to me...
Can i steer you towards this ? http://community.whathifi.com/forums/t/272669.aspx
method man,
can i ask, do you think your adm's are as good/better than a mid priced system, as i've read in many other places?
and do you find them bass light at all? and is the dac in the adm's one of ok or good quality? and are they fussy about positioning near to walls etc?
seriously considering these but struggling to get to hear a pair near to me...
Can i steer you towards this ? http://community.whathifi.com/forums/t/272669.aspx
Hi,
Lets just clarify something about lossless and CDs. I have only started reading up on this but this is what i thought I understood. Please correct me if I am wrong...
CDs contain digital information (ones and zeroes)
Lossless files on a computer contain the EXACT SAME digital information (ones and zeroes). (This may or may not be compressed)
CD players contain an onboard DAC that converts this digital information into an analogue signal for your amp.
A separate DAC does the same thing (only it cant read CDs)
So therefore, Digital Data (On a CD or Computer) sent digitally (optical cable etc.) to the same DAC will sound exactly the same!!?
Lets just clarify something about lossless and CDs. I have only started reading up on this but this is what i thought I understood. Please correct me if I am wrong...
CDs contain digital information (ones and zeroes)
Lossless files on a computer contain the EXACT SAME digital information (ones and zeroes). (This may or may not be compressed)
CD players contain an onboard DAC that converts this digital information into an analogue signal for your amp.
A separate DAC does the same thing (only it cant read CDs)
So therefore, Digital Data (On a CD or Computer) sent digitally (optical cable etc.) to the same DAC will sound exactly the same!!?
lambconor:
So therefore, Digital Data (On a CD or Computer) sent digitally (optical cable etc.) to the same DAC will sound exactly the same!!?
Well, from what people are saying on here about how CD players have to error correct 'on the fly' and computers dont. maybe not.
So therefore, Digital Data (On a CD or Computer) sent digitally (optical cable etc.) to the same DAC will sound exactly the same!!?
Well, from what people are saying on here about how CD players have to error correct 'on the fly' and computers dont. maybe not.
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
method man:lambconor:
So therefore, Digital Data (On a CD or Computer) sent digitally (optical cable etc.) to the same DAC will sound exactly the same!!?
Well, from what people are saying on here about how CD players have to error correct 'on the fly' and computers dont. maybe not.
Yup, that's the gist - a computer can have a lot of goes at reading the data whilst ripping so have more chance of getting it right than a CD player can, doing it in real time.
So no, I found that my computer sounds better than my CD player when they're both plugged into the same DAC.
So therefore, Digital Data (On a CD or Computer) sent digitally (optical cable etc.) to the same DAC will sound exactly the same!!?
Well, from what people are saying on here about how CD players have to error correct 'on the fly' and computers dont. maybe not.
Yup, that's the gist - a computer can have a lot of goes at reading the data whilst ripping so have more chance of getting it right than a CD player can, doing it in real time.
So no, I found that my computer sounds better than my CD player when they're both plugged into the same DAC.
chebby
Well-known member
- Jun 2, 2008
- 1,257
- 34
- 19,220
For whatever reason, I now have a CD player that I 'click' with and no doubt a significant part of that is the 'same manufacturer synergy' going on with the amp too. For this reason I did a U-turn and decided not to give up on 'traditional' CD replay.
I have also not discarded the DAC either, It has many enjoyable uses apart from just playing lossless CD rips. (iTunes downloads, internet radio, Freeview radio, BBC iPlayer, youtube, sound from DVD etc.)
I could probably find a better/more expensive DAC that would outperform my CD player and then. further down the road. find an even better CD player that will out-perform the even better DAC.. and so on... ad-infinitum.
I would end up (maybe) being able to announce two things here eventually..
(a) Which means of replaying CD files is ultimately superior.
(b) That I had become bankrupt.
This is part of the reason I am looking into getting the naimuniti. CD player and lossless streaming. downloads, internet+freeview radio, sound from DVD/Blu-ray etc etc, (FM + DAB too) all sharing the same box and the same DAC. No 'this vs that' but just whatever takes my fancy. Maybe a bit of vinyl now & then.
I have also not discarded the DAC either, It has many enjoyable uses apart from just playing lossless CD rips. (iTunes downloads, internet radio, Freeview radio, BBC iPlayer, youtube, sound from DVD etc.)
I could probably find a better/more expensive DAC that would outperform my CD player and then. further down the road. find an even better CD player that will out-perform the even better DAC.. and so on... ad-infinitum.
I would end up (maybe) being able to announce two things here eventually..
(a) Which means of replaying CD files is ultimately superior.
(b) That I had become bankrupt.
This is part of the reason I am looking into getting the naimuniti. CD player and lossless streaming. downloads, internet+freeview radio, sound from DVD/Blu-ray etc etc, (FM + DAB too) all sharing the same box and the same DAC. No 'this vs that' but just whatever takes my fancy. Maybe a bit of vinyl now & then.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
How To How do I get my sound working through my DAC? Need some advice!- Started by Yoran
- Replies: 23
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram