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?
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.
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.
Unless I die in the next month, I plan on burning more CDs. Added a bunch of new albums to my MP3 player a few months ago
I think you’re using burn when you mean rip.
Why are you still burning CDs?
Why do people buy vinyl?
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 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.
Wouldn’t 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, 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 keep making up standards and strawman here to make your point. Do what you want man, I’m out.
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.