A BURNT cd isnāt lossless so thatās just plain false mateā¦.
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.
Making up āStandardsā? Itās a principle of burning discs, itās 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.
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, thereās 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, thereās no expectation of loss
You are mostly right, except this line. And I think I understand your meaning but I think itās a little misleading.
A digital to digital copy can be a 1:1 replication. But just saying ādigital to digitalā doesnāt mean the copy process is lossless, there are a ton of lossy transfer methods. I donāt believe they are used when burning CDs (honestly not sure, but I googled it real quick) but just because itās digital doesnāt mean it canāt have losses
Assuming thereās 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 doesnāt 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 youāre using high quality Flac files, which not everyone burning and downloading files are doing so, or itās already been converted or transferred and incurred corruption.
If you transfer an mp3 1000 times, itās gonna degrade. You canāt 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 isnāt unique to audio files. Your entire comment is wrong. Even downloading a file online wonāt create a perfect copy of the audio file because of data loss, even with hashes.
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, thatās 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.
Youāve ripped an already degrading file from a cd, itās already lower quality. Youāre arguing that a lossy transfer somehow isnāt lossyā¦? Thatās your argument?
You need to HAVE the original file, or itās already not lossless. So when burning cds, thereās 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 fidelityā¦. Since you arenāt dealing with the original file in every case.
deleted by creator
Because of the fidelity, thatās not a thing with burnt discsā¦
deleted by creator
Yes because your BURNT cd hasnāt had a few steps to degrade the qualityā¦ a bought cd would be better than a BURNT cd.
deleted by creator
A BURNT cd isnāt lossless so thatās just plain false mateā¦.
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.
deleted by creator
Making up āStandardsā? Itās a principle of burning discs, itās 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 isnāt lossless.
deleted by creator
Wouldnāt that statement depends on various factors?
Was the master digital?
Was the CD ripped at 44,1 kHz and 16-bit resolution?
Was the CD burnt according to the same parameters?
If all of those are true, then one could say that the burnt CD is lossless.
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, thereās 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 itās a little misleading.
A digital to digital copy can be a 1:1 replication. But just saying ādigital to digitalā doesnāt mean the copy process is lossless, there are a ton of lossy transfer methods. I donāt believe they are used when burning CDs (honestly not sure, but I googled it real quick) but just because itās digital doesnāt mean it canāt have losses
Assuming thereās 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 doesnāt 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 youāre using high quality Flac files, which not everyone burning and downloading files are doing so, or itās already been converted or transferred and incurred corruption.
If you transfer an mp3 1000 times, itās gonna degrade. You canāt 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 isnāt unique to audio files. Your entire comment is wrong. Even downloading a file online wonāt create a perfect copy of the audio file because of data loss, even with hashes.
Thatās 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 qualityā¦? When you start off without the master files, youāre already at a loss compared to the originals.
Ripping a bought cd even withālosslessā methods, wonāt beat the original printing. Thatās 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 didnāt 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, thatās 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.
Youāve ripped an already degrading file from a cd, itās already lower quality. Youāre arguing that a lossy transfer somehow isnāt lossyā¦? Thatās your argument?
You need to HAVE the original file, or itās already not lossless. So when burning cds, thereās 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 fidelityā¦. Since you arenāt dealing with the original file in every case.
Ignore the burning part for a moment, youāre telling me a .wav file is lower quality than listening on the CD?
Itās a lossless file type.
Edit: if Iām wrong can you explain how?