|
|
樓主 |
發表於 2014-2-9 10:02
|
顯示全部樓層
lost1024 發表於 2014-2-8 16:45 
外國forum話，如果做哂所有windows既tweak/fine tune,
加埋合適既硬件，佢同高級cd機同一level,
而且音 ...
Copy左篇文章, 大意係話所有既CD, 就算係同一條生產線上出黎既, 既聲都會有唔同,
但係如果copy落電腦再出, 反而有最接近母盤既質數...
當然, 呢個純焠係書者個人意見~
http://www.computeraudiophile.co ... r-19302/#post295639
I find a very interesting story from Barry Diament on Naim forum. I guess his name is recognized by most of the members here, if not just google it. A lot here matches what Gordon is all about with MQn and JLP, "less is better".
"I've always felt that what is "good", "better" or "best" depends entirely on exactly what one seeks.
The goal might truth to the source or it might be what someone may just like. Personally, I think both are equally valid as I'd never argue with whatever brings anyone their listening pleasure.
But if the goal is truth to the source, my experience has been that well ripped files (in raw PCM format such as .aif or .wav) invariably are truer to the CD master than any CD pressing played back via any transport.
Ever since I created my first CD master, early in 1983, and heard the results that came back from the replication facility, I realized that CDs made at different plants (and often on different lines at the same plant) all sound different from each other and *none* sounds indistinguishable from the master used to make it. The differences, in my experience, range from subtle to not-at-all subtle, with focus and fine detail being lost to varying degrees.
I've always found a slow-burned CD-R to get closer to , if still not indistinguishable from, the CD master. But when any decent pressing is properly extracted to hard drive (in raw PCM format such as .aif or .wav), I've found the differences go away. This is what has me so excited about playback from the computer: for the very first time in my experience, the listener can get the sound of the master, unaltered.
I had a related experience not too long ago when comparing an SHM pressing with its plain vanilla counterpart, both created from the same CD master. At first, when listening via my transport, I was certain I was hearing two different masterings, so different did the drums, cymbals and piano sound. I would have bet money I was hearing two different EQs created by two different engineers. I thought it was a trick to make SHM, which I took to be just another way of pressing a CD, sound better than it really was. Much to my surprise, when I extracted both the SHM and CD versions to computer hard drive and played them from there, they were indistinguishable.
What accounts for the differences? I'm can only speculate. Playback from the disc involves several processes. The player must track the spiral of pits, maintain focus on the laser, read the pits, decode the 8:14 modulation by which the binary data is encoded to create the nine different length pits on a CD, perform any necessary error correction, and convert the binary stream to analog audio, all in real time. While playback from hard drive in a computer certainly involves some processes too, it seems to me there is less to do overall and my experience has been when there is less to do, better results are achieved. Again, just speculation on my part. (I'm always open to learning something new.) What I do know is that I've never heard CD playback from any transport/DAC combination, regardless of price that sounds indistinguishable from listening to the CD master, while playback from the computer routinely does sound indistinguishable from the master.
So again, if someone feels playback from the CD is "better", I wouldn't argue. They may simply like the resulting sound. But my ears tell me it doesn't sound the same as the master sent to the replication facility by the mastering house. Me? I'd rather hear the sound of the master.
Just my perspective, of course.
Best regards,
Barry"
|
|
[複製鏈接]
發表於 2014-2-3 17:23
