Computer based audio vs. dedicated CD transport?

[telecat]

Looking at that site I'd say the problem is that the levels haven't been "clipped" to fit the required replay medium. I'd say that the levels have been pushed into "distortion".

[Globulator]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipping_%28signal_pr...

[alock]

CD ROM drives ripping audio CD's are easy to test:

1. Get as many CD ROM drives as you can.
2. Rip a single CD to a WAV file several times on each drive.
3. Use as tool such as COMP (available from a Windows command window) to compare the extracted files at the bit level.

I've tried this before and EVERY drive I've used always returns EXACTLY the same WAV file. Therefore there are two possible conclusions:

1. All CD ROM drives produce a perfect RIP of audio data.
2. All CD ROM drives produce the same errors with every RIP.

I just cannot believe conclusion 2 is realistic.

[paddyhasneeds]

alock said:

CD ROM drives ripping audio CD's are easy to test:

1. Get as many CD ROM drives as you can.
2. Rip a single CD to a WAV file several times on each drive.
3. Use as tool such as COMP (available from a Windows command window) to compare the extracted files at the bit level.

I've tried this before and EVERY drive I've used always returns EXACTLY the same WAV file. Therefore there are two possible conclusions:

1. All CD ROM drives produce a perfect RIP of audio data.
2. All CD ROM drives produce the same errors with every RIP.

I just cannot believe conclusion 2 is realistic.

I tried a similar thing using MAX on my Mac last week. I ripped a track off a CD using it's "Basic Ripper", the "Comparison Ripper" and "CDParanoia" rippers, and for all three did the rip with C2 and error correction on and off.

The resulting file was the same size in bytes every single time. I have to admit I didn't do any sort of content/checksum comparison but the exact same number of bytes was good enough for me.

[Globulator]

I'm sure the waveform (.Wav file usually) was extracted properly

Now have a look at the waveform in a waveform editor

E.g:
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/

Does that look like either a) hi-fi or b) music to you?
Thats our source material nowadays

[JustinP1]

Globulator said:

I'm sure the waveform (.Wav file usually) was extracted properly

Now have a look at the waveform in a waveform editor

E.g:
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/

Does that look like either a) hi-fi or b) music to you?
Thats our source material nowadays

Globulator is right.

Over the last 15 years there has been a serious drop in the 'average' quality of mixing and mastering.

A lot of music that is put out now is on a low or medium budget, and with the cost of equipment to master audio becoming lower and lower 'cheaper options' are often used for the mastering process.

There are certainly CDs such as those engineered by Al Schmitt for example which sound beautiful. They tend to get mastered at great places such as Bernie Grundman's or places like that who really know what they are doing.

The issue has come that louder=better on the radio, adverts and to the 'kids' nowadays. some of the most in demand mixers like the Lord-Alge brothers compress their tracks to hell. It certainly sounds loud on your car stereo but it is not so great to just sit and listen to.

These tracks are pushed so far to the limit, that it only takes it to edge into the red to have hundreds or thousands of clipped samples.