almarg
As I and many others have acknowledged many times in past threads here, science and engineering can neither explain nor predict a lot about what we hear or don’t hear from our systems.
>>>Then why are you obsessing over these controversial tweaks? You and many others? Ah, the old strength in numbers strategy. Good move! 😀
almarg
However the science and engineering that is involved in the copying of digital data from one storage medium to another is well understood, well developed, and under reasonable circumstances is robust, reliable, and accurate. Especially, in this case, if the software being used assures bit perfect accuracy.
>>>>Huh? That’s exactly what naysayers and the industry have been saying since the dawn of digital. Perfect Sound Forever! Yada yada yada. You might as well claim the Reed Solomon error correction codes correct all errors, then you wouldn’t even have to use the "read until perfect" argument. Or that the laser servo mechanism ensures 100% foolproof Tracking. Besides if CDs are so perfect how come they sound so bad?
almarg
While I don’t dispute that some of Geoff’s tweaks might be beneficial under some circumstances when a CD is being listened to, they have no relevance whatsoever to the process of copying the data that is on a CD to a hard drive. Assuming, again, that the software is designed to re-read data as necessary to assure bit perfect accuracy, and to indicate an error in the unusual event that it is unable to do so.
>>>>>Some of my tweaks might be beneficial? Uh, which ones, I’m curious? The ones that make "good engineering sense"? The ones like vibration isolation. Which ones do you believe wouldn’t be beneficial? The ones that are too preposterous sounding, right? The ones like the Telephone book tweak or the Super Intelligent Chip or the Morphic Message Labels. And have you actually heard ANY of them anywhere? I get the picture, Al.
Cheerios