That’s categorically false. And ultimately, fidelity to what? Modern records are analog pressings of almost always digitally recorded, digitally mixed works. What is the record doing that’s more “faithful” than, say, the original digital master copy?
We can definitely argue this. A .wav (or a .flac) rip of a track is literally a bit for bit copy, indistinguishable. Look up lossless vs. lossy encoding.
As for vinyl, that’s more up to taste. The mastering process can be different for a vinyl pressing as you need to worry about the tracking of the needle. That may be what you like.
You’ve ripped an already degrading file from a cd, it’s already lower quality. You’re arguing that a lossy transfer somehow isn’t lossy…? That’s your argument?
You need to HAVE the original file, or it’s already not lossless. So when burning cds, there’s already an inherent degrading compared to the original master.
How are you getting this already perfect file? This seems to be the part people are ignoring. Sure if you have the master, and burned it yourself, it could be the same fidelity as a vinyl. But this situation is never happening unless you have a contact in the recording industry.
In almost every case, unless you ignore reality, a burnt CD will never the same fidelity…. Since you aren’t dealing with the original file in every case.
That doesn’t really address the point here. People buy modern vinyl, which is generally several steps from original recordings/mixes as well. It’s literally the same issue. You can always say “it needs to be more faithful,” but faithful to what?
People don’t buy records because they’re “objectively better” or “more faithful” or whatever terminology we want to use. There are several possible reasons, usually revolving around the physical format itself/the experience and ritual, as well as the tonal hallmarks of lacquer. If you want “fidelity” outside of “simulates what people were listening to upon release,” [edit] most consumer vinyl records are not a good medium. Which is why people buy them - like CD’s - for various reason.
A burned CD can achieve a lot of different aims, just like a record can. You should actually talk to people in the hobby to inform yourself here.
A BURNT cd isn’t lossless so that’s just plain false mate….
Bloviate about whatever, but dude asked about burning a cd, you made a comment about vinyl which can be lossless, while a BURNT cd never will. A bought cd yes, as I did already clarify.
A CD, burned or pressed, will be a replication of the source as presented in a digital format. If you have to covert true analog sound to digital then the sampling rate will have some technical loss, though not perceivable to most humans.
A digital to digital copy will be a 1 to 1 replication of the data, there’s no expectation of loss other than perhaps physical error of the drive, which even pressed disks can suffer from if the stamper is worn.
Edit Source: literally worked in a optical media replication plant back when DVD was still a fairly new thing. It starts off making a glass master disk in a clean room. From that, a positive metal stamper plate is created for production runs, tested periodically to verify the output still matches the master dataset. Once the metal stamper is worn to the point of causing errors it is replaced.
Burned disks are functionally identical to pressed disks in operation but work by darkening bits in the media layer. They degrade easier because of the photo sensitivity needed to let the laser change their state.
a digital to digital copy will be a 1 to 1 replication of the data, there’s no expectation of loss
You are mostly right, except this line. And I think I understand your meaning but I think it’s a little misleading.
A digital to digital copy can be a 1:1 replication. But just saying “digital to digital” doesn’t mean the copy process is lossless, there are a ton of lossy transfer methods. I don’t believe they are used when burning CDs (honestly not sure, but I googled it real quick) but just because it’s digital doesn’t mean it can’t have losses
Assuming there’s no conversion I might have added in. Yes if you change from wav to mp3 or similar there will be changes. A disk image copy, or even placing a digital file onto a disk doesn’t alter the content regardless of burned or pressed, only the method of storage. A hash of the file should return the same regardless assuming no errors in the writing.
Every file transfer creates some noise and loss to the file. Unless you’re using high quality Flac files, which not everyone burning and downloading files are doing so, or it’s already been converted or transferred and incurred corruption.
If you transfer an mp3 1000 times, it’s gonna degrade. You can’t use hashes to fill in missing audio portions like you can with text or something.
Every time you transfer a file, there is loss, this isn’t unique to audio files. Your entire comment is wrong. Even downloading a file online won’t create a perfect copy of the audio file because of data loss, even with hashes.
Making up “Standards”? It’s a principle of burning discs, it’s not lossless like you are falsely claiming it is.
Vinyl has more fidelity than a BURNT disc, even if you got a hold of the master recording and burnt it your self. It will not be a lossless transfer. Unlike bought cds and vinyl.
Neither is playing a disc. A vinyl has more fidelity than a burnt disc with crappy lossy files. I thought a topic about burning people would understand the basics of file transfers loss, downloading loss, and burning losses. But clearly some people just want to insult people, I thought buddy was asking g a legit question, turned out they wanted to insult someone while not even understanding the basics of the topic at hand.
Because of the fidelity, that’s not a thing with burnt discs…
That’s categorically false. And ultimately, fidelity to what? Modern records are analog pressings of almost always digitally recorded, digitally mixed works. What is the record doing that’s more “faithful” than, say, the original digital master copy?
Yes because your BURNT cd hasn’t had a few steps to degrade the quality… a bought cd would be better than a BURNT cd.
That’s not the case. We can copy a music CD in a lossless way, losing no information.
Burning low bitrate mp3s will obviously be worse.
And the music they ripped is what quality…? When you start off without the master files, you’re already at a loss compared to the originals.
Ripping a bought cd even with”lossless” methods, won’t beat the original printing. That’s just pure fantasy.
Does it matter for on transfer? Unlikely, but how about what someone did before you downloaded the torrent as well?
The fidelity of vinyl, is more than a burnt disc. I didn’t think that was an arguable fact.
We can definitely argue this. A .wav (or a .flac) rip of a track is literally a bit for bit copy, indistinguishable. Look up lossless vs. lossy encoding.
As for vinyl, that’s more up to taste. The mastering process can be different for a vinyl pressing as you need to worry about the tracking of the needle. That may be what you like.
You’ve ripped an already degrading file from a cd, it’s already lower quality. You’re arguing that a lossy transfer somehow isn’t lossy…? That’s your argument?
You need to HAVE the original file, or it’s already not lossless. So when burning cds, there’s already an inherent degrading compared to the original master.
How are you getting this already perfect file? This seems to be the part people are ignoring. Sure if you have the master, and burned it yourself, it could be the same fidelity as a vinyl. But this situation is never happening unless you have a contact in the recording industry.
In almost every case, unless you ignore reality, a burnt CD will never the same fidelity…. Since you aren’t dealing with the original file in every case.
Ignore the burning part for a moment, you’re telling me a .wav file is lower quality than listening on the CD?
It’s a lossless file type.
That doesn’t really address the point here. People buy modern vinyl, which is generally several steps from original recordings/mixes as well. It’s literally the same issue. You can always say “it needs to be more faithful,” but faithful to what?
People don’t buy records because they’re “objectively better” or “more faithful” or whatever terminology we want to use. There are several possible reasons, usually revolving around the physical format itself/the experience and ritual, as well as the tonal hallmarks of lacquer. If you want “fidelity” outside of “simulates what people were listening to upon release,” [edit] most consumer vinyl records are not a good medium. Which is why people buy them - like CD’s - for various reason.
A burned CD can achieve a lot of different aims, just like a record can. You should actually talk to people in the hobby to inform yourself here.
A BURNT cd isn’t lossless so that’s just plain false mate….
Bloviate about whatever, but dude asked about burning a cd, you made a comment about vinyl which can be lossless, while a BURNT cd never will. A bought cd yes, as I did already clarify.
A CD, burned or pressed, will be a replication of the source as presented in a digital format. If you have to covert true analog sound to digital then the sampling rate will have some technical loss, though not perceivable to most humans.
A digital to digital copy will be a 1 to 1 replication of the data, there’s no expectation of loss other than perhaps physical error of the drive, which even pressed disks can suffer from if the stamper is worn.
Edit Source: literally worked in a optical media replication plant back when DVD was still a fairly new thing. It starts off making a glass master disk in a clean room. From that, a positive metal stamper plate is created for production runs, tested periodically to verify the output still matches the master dataset. Once the metal stamper is worn to the point of causing errors it is replaced.
Burned disks are functionally identical to pressed disks in operation but work by darkening bits in the media layer. They degrade easier because of the photo sensitivity needed to let the laser change their state.
You are mostly right, except this line. And I think I understand your meaning but I think it’s a little misleading.
A digital to digital copy can be a 1:1 replication. But just saying “digital to digital” doesn’t mean the copy process is lossless, there are a ton of lossy transfer methods. I don’t believe they are used when burning CDs (honestly not sure, but I googled it real quick) but just because it’s digital doesn’t mean it can’t have losses
Assuming there’s no conversion I might have added in. Yes if you change from wav to mp3 or similar there will be changes. A disk image copy, or even placing a digital file onto a disk doesn’t alter the content regardless of burned or pressed, only the method of storage. A hash of the file should return the same regardless assuming no errors in the writing.
Every file transfer creates some noise and loss to the file. Unless you’re using high quality Flac files, which not everyone burning and downloading files are doing so, or it’s already been converted or transferred and incurred corruption.
If you transfer an mp3 1000 times, it’s gonna degrade. You can’t use hashes to fill in missing audio portions like you can with text or something.
Every time you transfer a file, there is loss, this isn’t unique to audio files. Your entire comment is wrong. Even downloading a file online won’t create a perfect copy of the audio file because of data loss, even with hashes.
you keep making up standards and strawman here to make your point. Do what you want man, I’m out.
Making up “Standards”? It’s a principle of burning discs, it’s not lossless like you are falsely claiming it is.
Vinyl has more fidelity than a BURNT disc, even if you got a hold of the master recording and burnt it your self. It will not be a lossless transfer. Unlike bought cds and vinyl.
*new vinyl.
Since playing vinyls isn’t lossless.
Neither is playing a disc. A vinyl has more fidelity than a burnt disc with crappy lossy files. I thought a topic about burning people would understand the basics of file transfers loss, downloading loss, and burning losses. But clearly some people just want to insult people, I thought buddy was asking g a legit question, turned out they wanted to insult someone while not even understanding the basics of the topic at hand.
👍