5 ms·

The real question is why you'd ever need a bit-perfect copy of an audio CD when CD players never gave bit-perfect playback in the first place and nobody could t

The real question is why you'd ever need a bit-perfect copy of an audio CD when CD players never gave bit-perfect playback in the first place and nobody could tell the difference. Edit: honestly I don't get it. Do you export all raw images from your camera to PNG too? JPG is good enough, and single-pass CD rips are just fine too.

Niksko 4y ago
I mean, that's literally what RAW files from cameras are, and there are uses for them. I don't know if a multi pass CD rip is quite as useful as a RAW image, but your analogy is not as strong as you think it is.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  So you archive RAWs, not just JPEGs? I get that professional photographers do, but I never would. And I think they do it to preserve byte depth or whatever, but FLAC from a single pass CD rip has all the bit depth of the original, even if it has a few bits wrong you'll never notice it.
  - zamadatix 4y ago
    I mean I do keep the RAWs but the use case there is a bit different anyways, even the JPEGs aren't a simple matter of "the compressed version" it's also "the preprocessed version". OTOH it takes no more storage to back a CD up correctly vs incorrectly so why be keen to add a generation of loss? You can lower the quality whenever you like but you can never add it back.
dusted 4y ago
> Do you export all raw images from your camera to PNG too? JPG is good enough, and single-pass CD rips are just fine too. No, i keep them in RAW and develop a few for albums and print and such.. No, JPGs and PNGs are not good enough, the loss is REAL when you try to actually develop the picture. I must admit I _REALLY_ don't get this "good enough" mentality.. Like.. Here's this way to get a more precise representation of the music you bought, and you'll go "nah, that's not for me, I prefer whatever random data I happen to get on the first go".. for what? why ? If you really want to have a different product on every playback, I guess vinyl is the way to go :P
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  > I must admit I _REALLY_ don't get this "good enough" mentality.. Like.. Here's this way to get a more precise representation of the music you bought, and you'll go "nah, that's not for me, I prefer whatever random data I happen to get on the first go".. for what? why ? The purpose of music is to be perceived. There is no perceptible difference, therefore there is no difference. CD Paranoia/etc are a waste of time, these tools make ripping a CD take several times as long for no tangible benefit.
  - LeoPanthera 4y ago
    > There is no perceptible difference This is often not the case. We're not talking about subtle interpolation differences. Depending on the drive, and the disc, bad rips can be full of music skips, clicks, and pops. It's really annoying to find this out days later after you ripped something. Better to get it right first time.

Niksko 4y ago

I mean, that's literally what RAW files from cameras are, and there are uses for them. I don't know if a multi pass CD rip is quite as useful as a RAW image, but your analogy is not as strong as you think it is.

LarryMullins 4y ago
So you archive RAWs, not just JPEGs? I get that professional photographers do, but I never would. And I think they do it to preserve byte depth or whatever, but FLAC from a single pass CD rip has all the bit depth of the original, even if it has a few bits wrong you'll never notice it.
- zamadatix 4y ago
  I mean I do keep the RAWs but the use case there is a bit different anyways, even the JPEGs aren't a simple matter of "the compressed version" it's also "the preprocessed version". OTOH it takes no more storage to back a CD up correctly vs incorrectly so why be keen to add a generation of loss? You can lower the quality whenever you like but you can never add it back.

dusted 4y ago

> Do you export all raw images from your camera to PNG too? JPG is good enough, and single-pass CD rips are just fine too. No, i keep them in RAW and develop a few for albums and print and such.. No, JPGs and PNGs are not good enough, the loss is REAL when you try to actually develop the picture. I must admit I _REALLY_ don't get this "good enough" mentality.. Like.. Here's this way to get a more precise representation of the music you bought, and you'll go "nah, that's not for me, I prefer whatever random data I happen to get on the first go".. for what? why ? If you really want to have a different product on every playback, I guess vinyl is the way to go :P

LarryMullins 4y ago
> I must admit I _REALLY_ don't get this "good enough" mentality.. Like.. Here's this way to get a more precise representation of the music you bought, and you'll go "nah, that's not for me, I prefer whatever random data I happen to get on the first go".. for what? why ? The purpose of music is to be perceived. There is no perceptible difference, therefore there is no difference. CD Paranoia/etc are a waste of time, these tools make ripping a CD take several times as long for no tangible benefit.
- LeoPanthera 4y ago
  > There is no perceptible difference This is often not the case. We're not talking about subtle interpolation differences. Depending on the drive, and the disc, bad rips can be full of music skips, clicks, and pops. It's really annoying to find this out days later after you ripped something. Better to get it right first time.