Lossless? Really?
Posted by: madgerald on 29 April 2014
Not sure if this is the right place to ask this Q but pretty sure someone will be able to help...
Following the principle that original is best (I've been brainwashed by vinylheads) and if you mess with something you make it worse then if you are going to listen to digital music then CD must be best format (unless you can get your hands on the original uncompressed file). 
A good friend of mine disagrees (yes he is in IT) and says that ripped "lossless" will be as good as the original CD since its all just 1's and 0's anyway. The only way to settle the argument would be to do a blind test streaming a ripped "lossless" CD against the original played on my CDX2 through the same DAC, amp and speakers to see if we can hear the difference. Trouble is I don't have a separate DAC and am not about to buy one just to prove him wrong.
Has anyone conducted such a test and if so what were the results? Feel free to point me at a previous post if this has been discussed before.
Thanks if you can prove me righteous 
Bill
..
CICS is still alive and kicking today.
And it is still more reliable platform than all those mickey mouse x86 based 'machines'.
Guys I am totally gob smacked, I just assume it died years ago. I stand humbled and corrected.
Not that I remember CICS of course.
..
CICS is still alive and kicking today.
And it is still more reliable platform than all those mickey mouse x86 based 'machines'.
It's not just alive, it's positevly thriving.
Pretty impossible to cheaply replace the mainframe for a lot of large organisations.
Right, very last posting on this tedious (for other people) subject. I worked on the IBM AS/400, which was the first 64 bit machine that had single level storage, which means that it could address every entity in the universe without blowing its stack and because of the single level storage did not have to differentiate between disk and memory, just one big lovely machine. IBM really stuffed that one up in favour of Big Iron i.e. the mainframe. The originator, the S/38, came out about 1980 and none of you will have seen a true 64 bit machine until this century.
Right, very last posting on this tedious (for other people) subject. I worked on the IBM AS/400, which was the first 64 bit machine that had single level storage, which means that it could address every entity in the universe without blowing its stack and because of the single level storage did not have to differentiate between disk and memory, just one big lovely machine. IBM really stuffed that one up in favour of Big Iron i.e. the mainframe. The originator, the S/38, came out about 1980 and none of you will have seen a true 64 bit machine until this century.
I remember the AS/400 and I also remember the System 34, 36, 38, there was a huge difference between the 34 & 38. I never programmed the AS/400 but remember talking to a bunch of guys programming this up in Tunbridge Wells and they all loved it. Was the AS/400 a kind of follow up to the System 38?
Actually thinking about it I have worked on the AS/400. A client of mine was using J.D.Edwards accounting because it was the only one, at the time, that run on the AS/400 and was multi-currency. I had written some software for planning and general Financial accounting support and I was able to link up to the SQL database used by JD Edwards. All coming back now but it was just some SQL programming I did on the beast - not the proper stuff.
I thought that mainframes were now limited to the scientific/engineering sector for ultra serious number crunching. My last years of working were spent in The City they were all PC based with Unix boxes as servers. Obviously a very different environment to the ones you are talking about.
Right, very last posting on this tedious (for other people) subject. I worked on the IBM AS/400, which was the first 64 bit machine that had single level storage, which means that it could address every entity in the universe without blowing its stack and because of the single level storage did not have to differentiate between disk and memory, just one big lovely machine. IBM really stuffed that one up in favour of Big Iron i.e. the mainframe. The originator, the S/38, came out about 1980 and none of you will have seen a true 64 bit machine until this century.
I remember the AS/400 and I also remember the System 34, 36, 38, there was a huge difference between the 34 & 38. I never programmed the AS/400 but remember talking to a bunch of guys programming this up in Tunbridge Wells and they all loved it. Was the AS/400 a kind of follow up to the System 38?
Actually thinking about it I have worked on the AS/400. A client of mine was using J.D.Edwards accounting because it was the only one, at the time, that run on the AS/400 and was multi-currency. I had written some software for planning and general Financial accounting support and I was able to link up to the SQL database used by JD Edwards. All coming back now but it was just some SQL programming I did on the beast - not the proper stuff.
I thought that mainframes were now limited to the scientific/engineering sector for ultra serious number crunching. My last years of working were spent in The City they were all PC based with Unix boxes as servers. Obviously a very different environment to the ones you are talking about.
I worked on all of those machine starting with the S/34 - 96k memory and 96mb disk. Actually I had to write a Sales Ledger system on a S/32 to release the power from an old HP card based ledger to be able to install the 34. SSA's BPCS was the first complete ERP system and I implemented their first full manufacturing, distribution and financial system here in the UK, took me 3 months and a lot of blood on the carpets. All of you who have used Oracle or SAP will probably think I am lying about the timescale, but am not.
I spent a bit of time in Denver with JDE as I was instrumental in defining and selecting it for my company's global strategy. They lost their way in getting suckered on client/server by the Gartner 'gurus' for their One World product, which was hideous to implement because it did not actually use the resident architecture in an attempt to work on Unix, Windows as well as the AS/400.
As I asked the original question just a quick note of thanks for all the info - I have learned a huge amount from all of the people who have taken time to post!
Cheers 
Bill
Hi - Bill you are welcome. You certainly kicked off some debate and interesting views from some - hopefully you read enough to satisfy your original post 
Simon
I was about to say that I even followed most of it until this CICS bit started...!
Way too complicated for my little brain...
An interesting thread, if rather technical..... ;-)
To the OP,
I suspect the key point may have become rather veiled amidst the "controversy", but its probably fair to say most contributors on this forum believe that it IS possible (maybe even probable) that rips can sound better than original CDs (as played on a CDP). There will also be those who disagree, but that is life.
The most likely reason for any improvement is the fact that a CDP must read & play the disc in real time, so if that read is not spot on first time (eg because of a poor "pressing"), the errors will negatively affect the sound quality. The ripper can take many repeated attempts to pull the data correctly, thereby creating more chance of a perfect source.
Another possible but less clear cut argument is that the non-moving parts of, say, a streamer are less vulnerable to vibration, and therefore to skip-type errors by a laser - which are independent of the disc quality itself. But the logic is basically the same as the first reason.
Note that the sort of errors we are talking about here are not necessarily of the magnitude that could crash an airplane, and affect one's decision to fly, but it makes sense they could be audible.
What happens thereafter is debatable but less important imo. Both processes can suffer from jitter between the point of playback and the DAC. And maybe from other spurious effects in the transmission line. Whilst the means of ripping I am inclined to think is a lot less important than some other people believe it to be. But whether it is or isn't, is not the decisive factor in the original question.
Neither is the choice of loss-less file format, though I accept it may be better to convert to wav before playback if one is looking for the very best sound available. If on the other hand you ripped to mp3, then I would expect the CDP to win the day.
K
An interesting thread, if rather technical..... ;-)
To the OP,
I suspect the key point may have become rather veiled amidst the "controversy", but its probably fair to say most contributors on this forum believe that it IS possible (maybe even probable) that rips can sound better than original CDs (as played on a CDP). There will also be those who disagree, but that is life.
The most likely reason for any improvement is the fact that a CDP must read & play the disc in real time, so if that read is not spot on first time (eg because of a poor "pressing"), the errors will negatively affect the sound quality. The ripper can take many repeated attempts to pull the data correctly, thereby creating more chance of a perfect source.
Another possible but less clear cut argument is that the non-moving parts of, say, a streamer are less vulnerable to vibration, and therefore to skip-type errors by a laser - which are independent of the disc quality itself. But the logic is basically the same as the first reason.
Note that the sort of errors we are talking about here are not necessarily of the magnitude that could crash an airplane, and affect one's decision to fly, but it makes sense they could be audible.
What happens thereafter is debatable but less important imo. Both processes can suffer from jitter between the point of playback and the DAC. And maybe from other spurious effects in the transmission line. Whilst the means of ripping I am inclined to think is a lot less important than some other people believe it to be. But whether it is or isn't, is not the decisive factor in the original question.
Neither is the choice of loss-less file format, though I accept it may be better to convert to wav before playback if one is looking for the very best sound available. If on the other hand you ripped to mp3, then I would expect the CDP to win the day.
K
A great summary of what I took from this thread and I have had to admit defeat in the CD vs rip argument...
as we know networks which manage class of service across a layer 3 boundary will some times need to deliberately drop traffic.
"As we know"??? I absolutely promise you, I don't know that and never will :-)
I'm amused by the idea that the proof of the low error rate in 0s and 1s is banking. Seems to me that banking has a pretty high error rate. only some of which is caused by computers.
Anyway, the question, and therefore discussion, is largely moot. There are too many differences in the delivery mechanisms to ever truly compare like with like. You might as well ask which is better, a cow or a camel. It really depends on context.
These threads would be easier to read if the posts were numbered and instead of copying (quoting) many posts just a reference to the post in question would be all that's needed.
Probably not funky enough for hopeless though.
An interesting thread, if rather technical..... ;-)
To the OP,
I suspect the key point may have become rather veiled amidst the "controversy", but its probably fair to say most contributors on this forum believe that it IS possible (maybe even probable) that rips can sound better than original CDs (as played on a CDP). There will also be those who disagree, but that is life. They can and do in my experience, even with the free-ware iTunes.
The most likely reason for any improvement is the fact that a CDP must read & play the disc in real time, so if that read is not spot on first time (eg because of a poor "pressing"), the errors will negatively affect the sound quality. The ripper can take many repeated attempts to pull the data correctly, thereby creating more chance of a perfect source. Quite.
Another possible but less clear cut argument is that the non-moving parts of, say, a streamer are less vulnerable to vibration, and therefore to skip-type errors by a laser - which are independent of the disc quality itself. But the logic is basically the same as the first reason. Possibly.
Note that the sort of errors we are talking about here are not necessarily of the magnitude that could crash an airplane, and affect one's decision to fly, but it makes sense they could be audible. Trust your ears ...
What happens thereafter is debatable but less important imo. Both processes can suffer from jitter between the point of playback and the DAC. And maybe from other spurious effects in the transmission line. Whilst the means of ripping I am inclined to think is a lot less important than some other people believe it to be. But whether it is or isn't, is not the decisive factor in the original question.
Neither is the choice of loss-less file format, though I accept it may be better to convert to wav before playback if one is looking for the very best sound available. If on the other hand you ripped to mp3, then I would expect the CDP to win the day. Or AIFF as a slightly even kinder rendition if you ar MAC based hard drive based ...
K
If hard drive rip replay can exceed in quality the CD as a way of replaying the music, then the point is the quality of the analogue handling in the output stage of the streamer/computer-DAC supply. One must assume that the NDS is better than the DAC V1 for example, but where this leaves the NDS compared to the CD player 555 seems never to have been touched on, though it is a natural comparison.
So far the Statement amplifier set has been demonstrated with the NDS as far as reports go ...
ATB from George
I'm amused by the idea that the proof of the low error rate in 0s and 1s is banking. Seems to me that banking has a pretty high error rate. only some of which is caused by computers.
No, no and no again :-(
When transferring information digitally from one place to another over TCP/IP (what your streamer uses) the information is absolutely guaranteed to be transferred with 100% complete and total accuracy - end of story. Read the links, learn about it, don't just blindly blurt out stuff that isn't true.
Here's a simple experiment. Choose a small FLAC/ALAC/WAV/DSD file on your computer and send it to a friend by email, get them to send it to another friend by email, have the file sent as many times as you want between different friends by email and then get them to send it back to you. The file will be 100% bit by bit identical to the original that is on your hard disk. No matter how many time that file has been sent between your friends and yourself it will never ever change - and thats guaranteed by the TCP/IP stack. It's not just a low error rate, it's actually a zero error rate, guaranteed.
I don't know how many times this has got to be explained :-(
Anyway, the question, and therefore discussion, is largely moot. There are too many differences in the delivery mechanisms to ever truly compare like with like. You might as well ask which is better, a cow or a camel. It really depends on context.
I tend to agree .....
I'm amused by the idea that the proof of the low error rate in 0s and 1s is banking. Seems to me that banking has a pretty high error rate. only some of which is caused by computers.
No, no and no again :-(
When transferring information digitally from one place to another over TCP/IP (what your streamer uses) the information is absolutely guaranteed to be transferred with 100% complete and total accuracy - end of story. Read the links, learn about it, don't just blindly blurt out stuff that isn't true.
Here's a simple experiment. Choose a small FLAC/ALAC/WAV/DSD file on your computer and send it to a friend by email, get them to send it to another friend by email, have the file sent as many times as you want between different friends by email and then get them to send it back to you. The file will be 100% bit by bit identical to the original that is on your hard disk. No matter how many time that file has been sent between your friends and yourself it will never ever change - and thats guaranteed by the TCP/IP stack. It's not just a low error rate, it's actually a zero error rate, guaranteed.
I don't know how many times this has got to be explained :-(
This should not be disputed indeed. The file transfers and streams are bit perect.
but bit-perfect transport is not the only thing from within the digital domain, that determines sound quality.
In the CD versus streamer debate two things are clear. The data arrives at the DAC in the streamer bit perfect every single time no matter how many times you try it, this is not the case for CD players.
Given equal hardware from the DAC onwards, streaming therefore is higher fidelity than any CD player, how much higher depends on a number of things like the state of the CD, how good the transport/laser/error correction is in the CD player.
In the CD versus streamer debate two things are clear. The data arrives at the DAC in the streamer bit perfect every single time no matter how many times you try it, this is not the case for CD players.
Given equal hardware from the DAC onwards, streaming therefore is higher fidelity than any CD player, how much higher depends on a number of things like the state of the CD, how good the transport/laser/error correction is in the CD player.
And yet you will read posts/articles where people state as a fact that the CD will always sound better than a rip. Not my opinion I hasten to add.
At least now most of us agree that data transfer from our Upnp server --> RAM buffer in our streamer buffer is 100%. A good question to the doubters is: explain why it would be the case on our PCs but not our streamers?
Simon said"networks which manage class of service across a layer 3 boundary will some times need to deliberately drop traffic" But as I and others have said countless times: This is part of the protocol and will NOT, I repeat NOT lead to a loss of data on the end-to-end transmission, for example NAS --> PC. Why can you not understand this?
It was a revelation for me to learn on this forum about the infidelity of CD replay on a home CDP. I had always assumed that oversampling was an issue critical to the instable environment of car CDPs, but now I realize that even high quality home CDPs have an inherent level of inaccuracy with replay. According to a post I read here, this level is quite audible between a streamed replay and a CD replay. Interesting stuff, but I still enjoy the physical media despite its reported shortcomings.
The difference in sound between a CD player and streamer will mainly be down to the differing hardware within those players but make the CD player and streamer with identical hardware from the DAC onwards and any difference in sound quality will be from a CD transports inability to match bit perfect streaming.
All these expensive cable for transporting data that is guaranteed to be bit perfect in any case seems a complete waste of money.
In the halcyon days of vinyl analogue was king. By that, I mean that the accuracy of the pressing of the disk, the cartridge and needle, the tone arm, the bearings and rigidity of the record deck all could compromise the signal passed to the amplifier or DAC. Long live the LP12. I think, however, the discussions in this thread has shown that the music can now be passed bit perfect to the various analogue conversion, amplification and speaker outputs.
The criteria now is the conversion to analogue as well as signal distortion on the journey to the speakers. The packages can arrive at the assembly point in the HiFi chain from a very cheap hard disk or SSD, but reassembly, timing (jitter) and presentation is where the (black) art and science of HiFi must be focused. Am no physicist or electrical engineer but there must still be a few challenges there to keep them gainfully employed for a few years yet.
In the halcyon days of vinyl analogue was king. By that, I mean that the accuracy of the pressing of the disk, the cartridge and needle, the tone arm, the bearings and rigidity of the record deck all could compromise the signal passed to the amplifier or DAC. Long live the LP12. I think, however, the discussions in this thread has shown that the music can now be passed bit perfect to the various analogue conversion, amplification and speaker outputs.
The criteria now is the conversion to analogue as well as signal distortion on the journey to the speakers. The packages can arrive at the assembly point in the HiFi chain from a very cheap hard disk or SSD, but reassembly, timing (jitter) and presentation is where the (black) art and science of HiFi must be focused. Am no physicist or electrical engineer but there must still be a few challenges there to keep them gainfully employed for a few years yet.
Yup there has been a lot of work done on the DAC. Oversampling, bit-stream, up-sampling etc and this has paid dividends no doubt. But a poorly mastered CD will always sound rubbish. I love the Jefferson Airplane but some of their early recordings on CD (and analogue too) are truly awful. Even on the best gear.
In the halcyon days of vinyl analogue was king. By that, I mean that the accuracy of the pressing of the disk, the cartridge and needle, the tone arm, the bearings and rigidity of the record deck all could compromise the signal passed to the amplifier or DAC. Long live the LP12. I think, however, the discussions in this thread has shown that the music can now be passed bit perfect to the various analogue conversion, amplification and speaker outputs.
The criteria now is the conversion to analogue as well as signal distortion on the journey to the speakers. The packages can arrive at the assembly point in the HiFi chain from a very cheap hard disk or SSD, but reassembly, timing (jitter) and presentation is where the (black) art and science of HiFi must be focused. Am no physicist or electrical engineer but there must still be a few challenges there to keep them gainfully employed for a few years yet.
Yup there has been a lot of work done on the DAC. Oversampling, bit-stream, up-sampling etc and this has paid dividends no doubt. But a poorly mastered CD will always sound rubbish. I love the Jefferson Airplane but some of their early recordings on CD (and analogue too) are truly awful. Even on the best gear.
I have heard and own some truly dire CD productions. The quality of some of the stuff that has been issued on CDs is nothing other than a disgraceful rip-off. On the other hand, I have some recordings of Nat King Cole and Frank Sinatra that simply shame producers who have had so much more advanced tools. To be fair, am not sure that, during the CD era, the big music companies have not attempted to limit the quality they present to the market place out of fear of legal or illegal copying and reproduction. It must be the easiest thing to doctor the master recording.
For all of you Apple loathers, I have had lousy CD productions of eg the Kinks and The Beatles come back from Apple's iCloud in much better shape than when I originally loaded them into iTunes and no HiFi on Earth could have redeemed my 'originals'. I have even been able to decipher some of Thom Yorke's words from the loudspeaker and not the sleeve lyrics. Presented Production is King!
"I have even been able to decipher some of Thom Yorke's words from the loudspeaker" - well andarkian I am sure we all wish you a quick and complete recovery.
btw I think Apple get sent mixes done 'to their taste' and Amazon downloads do as well. This was claimed on the iTrax forum but it was also claimed on their that 320k mp3 will beat even the very best Vinyl front-ends - so ya pays ya money and .......
"I have even been able to decipher some of Thom Yorke's words from the loudspeaker" - well andarkian I am sure we all wish you a quick and complete recovery.
btw I think Apple get sent mixes done 'to their taste' and Amazon downloads do as well. This was claimed on the iTrax forum but it was also claimed on their that 320k mp3 will beat even the very best Vinyl front-ends - so ya pays ya money and .......
I think I have referred earlier to Apple's dabbling with music mixes. Am far from being an enthusiast and simply see it as part of the journey or game, if you like, we have to go through as the increasing bandwidth of the internet has opened up all sorts of musical possibilities for listeners everywhere. Even with its original very low density offerings, Apple still managed to offer higher quality music to many more people at an affordable price than the vinyl or CD ages. We now have the luxury to analyse and appreciate the actual production values of recorded music. The flavour applied by Naim or Linn or whoever, is and will be as varied as our tastes in food or wine.
Oh, and my taste in music is reasonably broad except for jazz of which I have no appreciation whatsoever. I do, like millions of people, still like the earlier Radiohead, such as OK Computer and The Bends and their grungy production will provide a challenge to your hardware