Flac vs Wave

Does anyone tried to converting a cd to flac and recording it as audio cd?
I have done it in various cd's and sometimes i have better sonic results using this method than simply copying a cd to cd.
Any thoughts?

My thoughts:

Copy is never better (*) than original.
That's a fact.

When dealing with digital encoded sound it remains a fact.

You can change the character of sound in the copy compared to the original.
This change can occur deliberately or coincidental.

The change can fool you to think that one subjective listening experience is better than another.

(*) Better is meant to be understood like closer to the analog reference (**).
(**) Analog Reference is the music as it was sounding when it was originally performed by the artist(s) in the studio or on the stage.

"dolph"

I'm talking digital here.
Data transfer involves moving a set of digital bytes from one medium to another, it doesn't involve analog, compressing or converting in any manner.
In other words, when you transfer a file from one hard drive to another, the computer does not need to know or care what type of file it is because it understands that its job is to copy bit for bit from source A to destination B.
If the data were changed, applications may not run, files would be missing text, pictures would be missing portions, and music quality would suffer. In the same way that text documents and even email are reliably sent around the world daily, so too with the music files their transfer will not impact their integrity.

Contrary to analog, there is no quality loss in transferring data, and that's one of the beauties of digital data.

Flac is also a lossless format with a different encoding. You can run into lots of arguments about lossless being truly lossless but to my ears there is no difference between lossless and the full WAV file. Only two different ways of encoding a bit-perfect.

i dont have a flac player (other than software on the pc) so i've never gone from cd to flac. in one case i did go from flac to cd and was very pleased with the results, but it is from a live show so i am not able to compare the quality.

I know very well you are talking digital.
So am I.

You really think digital copy is bit perfect?
Make EAC to make a true 1:1 bitperfect copy of a few CD's.
It will be the never ending story.

So also with digital music the fact is that a copy is never better (*) than the original.

Digital encoding is compression by nature.
A digital copy of a piece of analog music will be an encoding/compression trying to emitate the original when converted back to analog.
And I am not talking about the analog dynamic compression here, nor am I talking about any kind of packing compression like when you zip a file.
Compression in the way that the digital encoding in itself is throwing details away from what the original consisted of, to make it possible to make a binaer mathematizing of what used to be an art of music.
This happens no matter what bitrate and no matter what sampling frequency.

Digital music storage will alway be a non-perfect emitation of any kind of original traced back to the analog reference.
(Unless the music was never auditioned but only created on digital instruments to be stored directly)

I know we had this debate before and I know you had a hard time accepting these facts.
Well, they didn't change.

(*) Better is meant to be understood like closer to the analog reference (**).
(**) Analog Reference is the music as it was sounding when it was originally performed by the artist(s) in the studio or on the stage.

"dolph"

to accept this premise one must first accept that analog recordings are better than digital. that is going to be quite a stretch for many people. the facts that you can present favoring analog as a superior format are balanced by facts that digital does the same.

i believe that regardless of what format the original source is, arguing over which reproduces the better copy is futile. both analog and digital have their merits. neither is better, they are just different.

Dolph, I respect your opinion but, mine as you know is a different one. So, let's not turn this topic in an analoge vs digital boring issue again. Both formats have pros and cons.

Back to digital:
A friend of mine made a few cd copies' with a blueray burner with normal cd-r and he'd notice some sonic improvements in the cd-r. The blueray burners are somewhat expensive at this time, but evidently in his opinion have the potential to allow us to turn out even better cds for our audio collection.

I am not trying to turn it into a debate about digital versus analog.

The interesting thing here is you find the term "BEST" equivalent with how the music was sounding when it came over the edge of the stage or how it sounded when the signal was sent from the master recording to the cutting tools/burning tools (LP respectively CD).

If this does not fit on you then maybe your favourite sound characteristic can be considered the "BEST". For your ears only. Almost like in 007.

This significant jump from being honest to the original and how it was supposed to sound into a characteristic favourite sound flavour is also noticable for some people very fond of specific gear carrying this individual favourite sound characteristics.

You can create almost any sound characteristic or flavour desired with digital equipment except the honesty to the original.

But does that makes the sound better?

"dolph"

This post has been edited by niklasthedolphin on March 13, 2009 03:49 am

Whether you can hear the difference, that's another subjective issue...

Whether you can hear the difference, that's another subjective issue...

If I can hear a difference??

To the better or the worse, probably I could?

But do you find it better even though it's worse?

"dolph"

original recordings are singular in nature and are not available for mass distribution. we all use copies whether they be on vinyl, tape or disc, so i dont see the point in stressing the benefits of an original recording. the point that

would hold true regardless of the format used to make the copy. from there its all subjective preference.

Even the original have their own sound signature. Recording on a Studer has a different sound from a recording on an Ampex, and another if we record in a Fostex or a Tascam. The same happens with with brand tapes...and so on...
So what's the original? This is a very subjective issue....

i have a PRO-DAW system i use to attain CD-R recordings from movie soundtracks ( VHS, LASERDISC, DVD, ETC.) and video games. it consists of a ROLAND BOSS BR-1180CD prosumer hard-disk audio recorder/studio connected to one of my stereo receiver's REC. loops, and a copy of the MAGIX audio cleaning lab 2004. i record in linear, uncompressed stereo with the HD-recorder, transfer to CD-RW, and thence on to the PC to pass through the MAGIX, to fine tune the overall maximum output level, and also to occasionally add mild noise reduction when needed. the result is ALWAYS audibly perfect CD copies of favorite video media soundtracks, immediately playable on my PIONEER PD-3000/PD-91. this in mind, i am sure you all can understand why i DO NOT believe Niklas' assertions for an instant. i happen to have personal experience on this to draw upon...

This post has been edited by MacGyver on March 15, 2009 10:10 am

This is so funny MacGyver.
As a matter of fact, I have a big brother to your PRO-DAW.
BR-1200CD.

It's doing 24/96.

Can't follow the quality recordings of my R2R ............... even at slow speed.
My TCD 910 also do a better job the most of the time.

:-)

But again......................I'm the kind of guy who believes "BEST" means closer to the original and NOT coloured smoothed out velvet sounding gear.

By the way, do you remember on TapesHead, when I explained you the term PRO-DAW?

"dolph"

This post has been edited by niklasthedolphin on March 15, 2009 01:16 pm

This is so funny MacGyver.
As a matter of fact, I have a big brother to your PRO-DAW.
BR-1200CD.

It's doing 24/96.

Can't follow the quality recordings of my R2R ............... even at slow speed.
My TCD 910 also do a better job the most of the time.

:-)

But again......................I'm the kind of guy who believes "BEST" means closer to the original and NOT coloured smoothed out velvet sounding gear.

By the way, do you remember on TapesHead, when I explained you the term PRO-DAW?

"dolph"

well, yeah. but the point is is that i have not been able to detect ANY losses in the material i've digitally recorded, and i've done it all; VINYL, CASSETTE, EVERYTHING.