Is CD lossless or lossy?

mep said:
I will take that as a big “No.”
Click to expand...
No you don't take me seriously and you trust Wes and John. Got it Herb.
Hows your technical knowledge/literacy of encoding/decoding systems like PSR and WFS, etc. as a "true" audio reviewer?
 
I’m not the one who is endorsing a multichannel surround system that I have never heard nor am interested in.
 
NorthStar said:
○
https://www.macworld.com/article/30...u-need-to-know-about-digital-audio-files.html

Compression: lossy and lossless

When you buy a CD, the audio on the disc is uncompressed. You can rip (or import) CDs with iTunes or other software, turning the CD’s audio into digital audio files to use on a computer or a portable device. In iTunes, you can rip in two uncompressed formats: WAV and AIFF (other software allows for other formats). Both formats simply encapsulate the PCM (pulse-code modulation) data stored on CDs so it can be read as audio files on a computer, and their bit rate (you’ll learn what the bit rate is below) is 1,411 kbps.
_____

● http://www.oregonlive.com/music/index.ssf/2014/11/does_vinyl_really_sound_better.html

"Vinyl is the only consumer playback format we have that's fully analog and fully lossless," Gonsalves said. "You just need a decent turntable with a decent needle on it and you're going to enjoy a full-fidelity listening experience. It's a little bit more idiot-proof and a little bit less technical."

The analog format allows for artists to transport their music from magnetic tape to LP to your speakers or headphones without the complications of digital conversion. This, ideally, is the closest one can get to what the artist intended — if the artist recorded on tape and sent the reels over to an engineer like Gonsalves to cut a lacquer master from. But whether its origins are digital or analog (more on this later), a vinyl disc should have more musical information than an MP3 file — so it should be an improvement on streaming sites such as YouTube or SoundCloud, especially on a good system.
Click to expand...
Someone else's opinion, completely irrelevant and demonstrably false in many ways. Sorry, Bob
 
AJ Soundfield said:
No you don't take me seriously and you trust Wes and John. Got it Herb.
Hows your technical knowledge/literacy of encoding/decoding systems like PSR and WFS, etc. as a "true" audio reviewer?
Click to expand...
Is PSR a real world technology in the sense that one can find recordings to listen to and a way to play them back?
 
mep said:
I’m not the one who is endorsing a multichannel surround system that I have never heard nor am interested in.
Click to expand...
Endorsing? I'm citing it as a less "lossy" technology for encoding/decoding soundfields. It's helpful to have basic understanding of subject discussions.
So do you dismiss the subjective impressions of Wes and JA? Do they qualify as "true" reviewers?
 
rbbert said:
Is PSR a real world technology in the sense that one can find recordings to listen to and a way to play them back?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately no, but similar features are prominent in some near upcoming technology. Hoping by end of year.
 
rbbert said:
Someone else's opinion, completely irrelevant and demonstrably false in many ways. Sorry, Bob
Click to expand...

It's worse than that..

The bad
"All-analog" doesn't always happen: Many modern vinyl records are produced from digital masters, either recordings made natively in software such as Pro Tools or converted from tape before being sent along for mass production. When I visited Gonsalves, he was working on My Brightest Diamond's new album — from his computer.
Click to expand...


:rolleyes:
 
NorthStar said:
I only posted it for . . . knowledge expansion.
Nobody has to be sorry about it, I am not, Rob.
Click to expand...
But there is nothing there with which to expand knowledge; if you read it, what is not opinion is almost all untrue
 
rbbert said:
Some, but not much, I imagine one could count on the fingers of 2 hands the number of such recordings released each year, maybe only one hand LOL
Click to expand...

Thanks! So basically unless one is talking about analog recordings made many years past, almost 99% of LPs issued today are not true analog.
I still have an analog set up. But quite frankly many of my decades-old LPs have been remastered and reissued digitally. Many (but not all) of those remastered and digitally reissued albums sound better than my old analog. I believe that it is due to the remaster.
However, I still have a few special LP albums (45rpm primarily) that sound magnificent.
 
I just read the article in question. By the author's definition, everything we listen to is lossy. He picks on Redbook, (easy to do), but forgets to mention all the other lossy analog formats. Just because it is analog doesn't mean it isn't lossy.

Reel to reel tape - everyone loves it - very lossy with modulation noise and the probabilistic nature of the particulates comprising the tape media itself, prone to losing information close to the noise floor. We all love the '60's jazz recordings, but we are hearing through very lossy analog tape masters with lots of modulation noise and overload.

Vinyl - little stereo info below 80 Hz due to vertical groove modulation limits. High surface noise, limited dynamic range, and 1% distortion due to tracking errors, not withstanding my personal observation that the vast majority of vinyl playback systems are incorrectly setup.

Beside the fact that he's abusing the accepted definition of lossy as it relates to compression algorithms, it's an interesting discussion.
 
rbbert said:
But there is nothing there with which to expand knowledge; if you read it, what is not opinion is almost all untrue
Click to expand...

If I would mention all the useless content on audio forums there wouldn't be much left.
We are free. Everyone has an opinion, no matter what we think of it, no opinion is absolute, we create our world, we form a society, we are part of a collective soul, a bigger entity than just one's opinion, a greater respect of all things living.

The compact disc is a standard that was created in the late seventies and encompassing the audio spectrum of human deficiency in a digital form, uncompressed and extrapolated by algorithms of oversampling and alienasing.

Analog record is also uncompressed, but another standard invented way before digital. It has stood the intemperies of time.

Tape is also uncompressed and standardized, and complex, same as the compact disc and the record album.

Analog is organic, digital is antiseptic, both are musical drugs but one is healthier for the brain and the other for the soul.
___

This is 100% analog me what I've just said, and nobody else.
 
Development of the CD wasn't even started until 1979, most of the work was in the early '80's.
I'm not sure how you can say that analog audio is "not compressed" except in the sense of no digital data compression. Analog audio storage, whether tape or LP, involves many mechanical > electrical > mechanical steps, every one of which is "lossy" in the sense of information lost. So once again, no knowledge imparted.
I'm sorry to seem as if I am picking on you, but your posts here are just not factual (or in other words, they are not "true" or useful information)
 
Sony and Philips were @ it in the late seventies...compact disc. It came in Japan in the early eighties.

Vinyl is uncompressed, but limited in its physical friction; recording and playback.

HD vinyl is next.
⊙ https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/26/hd-vinyl-rebeat-innovations/

Sorry if my opinion doesn't ring true, it's only my opinion; it doesn't have to be exactly perfectly 100% true. There is always room for margin error.
We love what we love for various reasons, no matter what.

I just want to enjoy life and the music playing, analog and digital. I don't want to take stuff too seriously as it can disturb my musical state of trance.

...With a happy smile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top