We have a PC-based machine that tests CD media for quality.  I'm sure some of you have seen these.  Well, when I first saw this thing, I flipped out!  I'd never heard of such a thing!  Here was a machine that could GUARANTEE that I'd created a flawless digital master that could be sent to the plant to create commercial CDs.

That was, until I had a plant call me on the phone and tell me that a CD-R that I'd sent them had uncorrectable errors on it.  WHAT?  BUT I TESTED IT IN MY CD ANALYZER AND IT TOLD ME IT WAS PERFECT!  I went back and forth with the engineer at the plant about the possibilities here...who's machine was wrong, his or mine?  Either way, I re-ran the PMCD.  My CD analyzer is no longer something I look to as gospel.

What I'm getting at here, is that it's dangerous to just ASSUME anything...to put all of your eggs in one belief-system-basket, so to speak.

For the person that said something like "anyone with half a brain cell wouldn't bother to compare lossless codecs", well you sure don't sound like someone that's about to revolutionize audio technology as we know it.  Think about it.  It sounds like a 17th-century physician saying that there's no way that something could be isolated from mold to create something to kill bacteria.

For the person that said something like "anyone with half a brain cell wouldn't bother to compare lossless codecs", well you sure don't sound like someone that's about to revolutionize audio technology as we know it. Think about it. It sounds like a 17th-century physician saying that there's no way that something could be isolated from mold to create something to kill bacteria.

You are right on that point ... that's why HA.org members are e.g. encouraged to perform double blind ABX testing for sound quality assessment.

It's no coincidence that audio quality in general on the mass market is in the toilet. Only a more inquisitive mindset and closer attention being paid to actually listening will have a positive effect on this current state.

I really hope that it is everyone's intent here on this web site to REACH THE POSSIBILITIES OF AUDIO TECHNOLOGY

Quick story for those who care:  I work for a mastering studio and regularly create PMCD masters for replication plants.

What I'm getting at here, is that it's dangerous to just ASSUME anything...to put all of your eggs in one belief-system-basket, so to speak.

I think we tend to turn our back on digital too much and too often.  And that, my friends, is when it tries to kill you.

No, but seriously...you know what I mean.

As soon as we shut our ears off and our minds off and just go by what a computer printout tells us, we are negating progress.

I mean, WE created these machines.  And if WE'RE not perfect, how could THEY be?

For the person that said something like "anyone with half a brain cell wouldn't bother to compare lossless codecs", well you sure don't sound like someone that's about to revolutionize audio technology as we know it.

Think about it.  It sounds like a 17th-century physician saying that there's no way that something could be isolated from mold to create something to kill bacteria.  Or, worse yet, a blind man telling me that there's no such thing as a rainbow.  See what I'm getting at?

If you haven't tried something, you have no real business making a judgement.

At least Zen-Infinity is willing to investigate.  Doesn't sound like a lazy person to me.  Sitting back in your armchair and invalidating someone else's findings with nothing to back it up sounds not only lazy, but closed-minded.

At any (bit) rate I promised not to preach.  But, at the end of the day, I really hope that it is everyone's intent here on this web site to REACH THE POSSIBILITIES OF AUDIO TECHNOLOGY.  That means asking questions.  That means questioning the supposedly infallible.  And that means listening.  It's not about the argument (who's right or who's wrong), it's about the experimentation that leads to the truth.

It's no coincidence that audio quality in general on the mass market is in the toilet.  Only a more inquisitive mindset and closer attention being paid to actually listening will have a positive effect on this current state.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353440"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For the person that said something like "anyone with half a brain cell wouldn't bother to compare lossless codecs", well you sure don't sound like someone that's about to revolutionize audio technology as we know it.

Ugh. We're basing this discussion on replication plants?

Those guys are bona fide nuts, although they have their reasons. I think they have nothing to do with sound quality. They have more to do with the replication gear they're using (which could be 1-2 decades old) and whatever spec checks they have in place to guarantee against any remotely theoretical compromise in output quality, jitter being among the bigger issues. True story: it's not unheard of for an 8x-burned data CD master to get rejected but a 1x from the same burner to be accepted, even though said 8x master works on virtually every CD-ROM in existence (and the final pressing will be reclocked anyway!).

I have an inquiry about cd duplication plants -

wouldn't it make much more sense (from a technical pov) to burn a master cd as a data  track, with the audio cd stored as an image with an MD5 checksum?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353491"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]