• SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    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.

    • can@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      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.

      Edit: if I’m wrong can you explain how?

      • macniel@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        Not the one you are arguing with, but at which sampling rate and resolution did you rip your CD(44,1 kHz and 16 bit)? Just because it’s a WAV files doesn’t mean it’s a one to one copy.

        • can@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          18 minutes ago

          Okay fair point, but if you rip at 44.1 kHz and 16 bit audio is it not the same file?

          Edit: and either way, wouldn’t it still be lossless.