[G4] Integratng with home stereo

[James Asherman]

On Friday, June 11, 2004, at 08:25  AM, Alex wrote:

>
> On Thursday, Jun 10, 2004, at 15:57 Canada/Eastern, James Asherman 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, June 10, 2004, at 03:25  PM, zhmmy harper wrote:
>>
>>> in the right circumstances, the normal human ear can even tell the 
>>> difference between the original CD and a CD-R copy.
>>
>> I wouldn't bet on that one. I would have to try it and see.
>
> So you would.
>
>>> I'm just talking about the normal frequency range of the human ear 
>>> not being able to hear ultra lows and highs.  [...]
>>
>> No  no no. Digitizing, limits the frequency range to rid us of 
>> surface noise.  [...]
>
> That's not the issue here, since we're talking only digitized music. 
> The issues are, first, lossy compression.
>
> The amount of audio data which goes in prior to compression (input) is 
> the same as the amount of audio data generated for listening (output). 
> Lossy compression means that some of the original data in the input is 
> thrown away during compression and recreated in the output. In other 
> words, the output is an approximation of the original sound data, just 
> like a photocopy is an approximation of the original picture. And, as 
> is the case with a photocopy, how close the copy is to the original 
> depends on many factors.

In this case (excluding MP3 AAC etc,) the only limiting factor is 
sample frequency.

>
> The second issue is CD technology, and the weakness of the Red Book 
> standard, which defines the CD-DA format. Ripping CD-DA can be 
> inaccurate, and how well it's done depends both on the CD drive, and 
> on the software used (and there is no Mac software that comes close to 
> the precision offered by Exact Audio Copy on Windows). A further 
> problem is posed by the technological difference between CD-ROM and 
> CD-R. Because it uses a dye instead of metal, during playback the 
> latter has a considerably higher error rate than the former, hence 
> more frames are mechanical approximations of the original. All this 
> means that a CD-DA/CD-R copy is rarely an exact duplication of the 
> CD-DA/CD-ROM original, and, in the right circumstances -- a rich 
> source, a good audio reproduction system, a trained (but normal) ear 
> -- the difference can be detected.
>
> <0x0192>
>
>
>

That may be true about the dye v. metallic etching processes and some 
errors might creep in. But in my view the idea that my Mac can 
reproduce a complex program, run it and it functions, completely 
negates your contention that windows will make a more exact copy.. 
HooRaw is what that is. 1's and 0's .  There is no reason for a machine 
to perfectly copy the 1' and 0's of a complex program and not of a 
linear audio sequence.
Jim