Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction? (Read 23849 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Im sure this topic has come up before, but I couldn't find it so here goes.

ASSUMPTIONS: (can be discussed elsewhere)
- Audio card has a perfect digital out that does not resample/tweak the input it receives from the PC
- The path from the 'harddisk WAV file' to this digital out is direct, no volume control/equalisation,anything. 1 to 1 digital transfer.
- On the other end of the output cable, there is an 'amazing' audiophile DA converter, whatever that might mean for you personally.
- More or less perfect CD media, i.e. not scratched.
- No copy protection on the CD that tries to confuse reading mechanisms.

Now can someone answer me the following question:

Is there any reason to assume that a $31209847120347 standalone CD player with digital out would supply a better digital signal to the 'amazing DAC' than a PC could that has ripped the CD to harddisk?

I ask this because I have been led to believe that the two technologies:
- C2 error correction - a very powerful method
- AccurateRip (which compares the CRC of the digital data to internet databases with 'known good' CRC's)

With these technologies, I think it is more-or-less safe to say that the WAV file on my harddisk would be identical to the WAV file the CD maker had when he burned his end-mix to the gold master.

I do of course understand that for real-time reproduction a standalone CD player can probably do a lot more subtle error correction, prevent read errors by top of the line stabilized optics etc, but the PC can simply re-read until it works...

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #1 –
Quote from: puntloos on
Is there any reason to assume that a $31209847120347 standalone CD player with digital out would supply a better digital signal to the 'amazing DAC' than a PC could that has ripped the CD to harddisk?


yes, there are reasons

1) shorter ways for the signal

2) circuit boards optimized for sound

on the other hand, harddisks in general seem to have better sound quality than optical drives, RAM has even better sound. this last info comes from some test runs i've read about that extreme audiophil hardware producers ran

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #2 –
Quote from: hydr0x on
Quote from: puntloos on

Is there any reason to assume that a $31209847120347 standalone CD player with digital out would supply a better digital signal to the 'amazing DAC' than a PC could that has ripped the CD to harddisk?


yes, there are reasons

1) shorter ways for the signal

2) circuit boards optimized for sound

on the other hand, harddisks in general seem to have better sound quality than optical drives, RAM has even better sound. this last info comes from some test runs i've read about that extreme audiophil hardware producers ran



[sarcarsm] RAM has better sound!!!  I'm thoroughly amused now.  Does the type or speed make a difference? [/sarcasm]
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #3 –
Quote from: hydr0x on
on the other hand, harddisks in general seem to have better sound quality than optical drives, RAM has even better sound. this last info comes from some test runs i've read about that extreme audiophil hardware producers ran



Eh?  I'd love to see where you got this from.

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #4 –
Less sarcastically, let me reply:

Quote from: hydr0x on
Quote from: puntloos on

Is there any reason to assume that a $31209847120347 standalone CD player with digital out would supply a better digital signal to the 'amazing DAC' than a PC could that has ripped the CD to harddisk?


yes, there are reasons

1) shorter ways for the signal


Very relevant with analog sound (longer distance means more (potential) inductances, resistances and other interference), but with digital signals, it is either "one" or "zero". Assuming the signal doesn't degrade beyond a point of no return (unlikely), the distance between computer and the inputs of the DAC is irrelevant.

Quote
2) circuit boards optimized for sound

Again, very relevant for analog, but my question was about a pure digital signal line from, which should not alter the digital source signal in any way.
Quote
on the other hand, harddisks in general seem to have better sound quality than optical drives, RAM has even better sound. this last info comes from some test runs i've read about that extreme audiophil hardware producers ran


this is.. a bit out there for me too.

One thing is true: a PC (fans, hdd's) makes a lot of noise sometimes but that is why I have my PC in the other room.. controlling winamp through bluetooth, and indeed a 15M digital signal line..

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #5 –
If a CD is digital data, surely it must be perfect, having the longest signal path in the world wouldn't affect much.

PCs obviously have to have /perfect/ reproduction of the data on the disc (and thats what the audio is, it's just data), so sound boards that are "optimized for audio" means nothing, as it is just data. There is also secure ripping to make sure of this.

The only issues would be the reproduction of audio from the data, and as long as the PC can output the raw audio data to the sound card, and the sound card creates a perfect signal, free from case noise, then it would be fine.
hi

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #6 –
it's a common misconception that digital is either 1 or 0. This is of course true per bit. It is not true for a binary string though. 100001 can be received as 100001 (correct), not at all or (and this is important) messed up, like 111001. The third variant is usually handled with checksums and fixing algorithms, like the one cd drives use to fill up gaps up to ~2.5mm on the disc. Distortion can lead to false digital data and if there's no correction or at least check algorithm in the receiving unit this IS a problem and affects the quality of the data, and thus the sound quality.

about the RAM, the main statement where i take this from came from Manfred Diestertich a quite well known speaker developer currently working for Audio Physic. He's also known as a tuner for various HiFi-equipment.

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: hydr0x on
about the RAM, the main statement where i take this from came from Manfred Diestertich a quite well known speaker developer currently working for Audio Physic. He's also known as a tuner for various HiFi-equipment.


I think you misunderstood him, because what you're saying makes no sense.  What he probably meant was that its less common for data in RAM to be corrupted then data on a CD audio disk, which is debateable, but makes more sense.

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
Quote from: hydr0x on



about the RAM, the main statement where i take this from came from Manfred Diestertich a quite well known speaker developer currently working for Audio Physic. He's also known as a tuner for various HiFi-equipment.


I think you misunderstood him, because what you're saying makes no sense.  What he probably meant was that its less common for data in RAM to be corrupted then data on a CD audio disk, which is debateable, but makes more sense.


no, i did not misunderstand him.

i'll translate the interview

q: How does music sound best: from an optical drive, HDD or RAM?

diestertich: I tried a lot of things and even tuned a pc so he could play the music right from the memory. Clear favorite is RAM, followed by HDD and last the drive with it's individual characteristics.

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #9 –
Quote from: hydr0x on
it's a common misconception that digital is either 1 or 0. This is of course true per bit. It is not true for a binary string though. 100001 can be received as 100001 (correct), not at all or (and this is important) messed up, like 111001. The third variant is usually handled with checksums and fixing algorithms, like the one cd drives use to fill up gaps up to ~2.5mm on the disc. Distortion can lead to false digital data and if there's no correction or at least check algorithm in the receiving unit this IS a problem and affects the quality of the data, and thus the sound quality.


Ah yes but now I have to point back to my original assumptions, which were essentially:

- 'perfect' copy (ripping) off CD by using various tested verifying techniques
- not a badly scratched disk that can only be read completely by using intensive error correction (which as you said does 'guess' and 'interpolate')
and an implicit one, I admit but still:
- no noise on the cable. (i.e. the talking between the digital output on my PC and the input on the DAC introduces no need for error correction. Obviously digital links should normally be completely error-free.

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: puntloos on
Is there any reason to assume that a $31209847120347 standalone CD player with digital out would supply a better digital signal to the 'amazing DAC' than a PC could that has ripped the CD to harddisk?


Yes, if the amazing DAC is so bad that it is sensitive to the jitter of the incoming data. If the DAC works well, no.

Quote from: tool++ on
PCs obviously have to have /perfect/ reproduction of the data on the disc


We are indeed under the assumption that the "Audio card has a perfect digital out that does not resample/tweak the input it receives from the PC". But usually, PC run according to Intel AC97 specifications, that recommend not to perfectly reproduce the data, but rather to resample it.

Quote from: hydr0x on
it's a common misconception that digital is either 1 or 0. This is of course true per bit. It is not true for a binary string though.


Again, the question here is what happens when the data is perfectly transmitted, without a single error, as it is the case 99% of the time.

Quote from: hydr0x on
harddisks in general seem to have better sound quality than optical drives, RAM has even better sound. this last info comes from some test runs i've read about that extreme audiophil hardware producers ran


This kind of information is irrelevant in Hydrogenaudio discussion boards. It have to be backuped by blind listening tests or objective measurments, as specified in the board rule number 8.
See also http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=11442 and http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....opic=16295&

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Pio2001 on
Quote from: hydr0x on
harddisks in general seem to have better sound quality than optical drives, RAM has even better sound. this last info comes from some test runs i've read about that extreme audiophil hardware producers ran


This kind of information is irrelevant in Hydrogenaudio discussion boards. It have to be backuped by blind listening tests or objective measurments, as specified in the board rule number 8.
See also http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=11442 and http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....opic=16295&


you must have missed the word "seem" in my sentence. I never claimed it's a fact and thus i do not have to provide proof in any way.

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: hydr0x on
on the other hand, harddisks in general seem to have better sound quality than optical drives, RAM has even better sound. this last info comes from some test runs i've read about that extreme audiophil hardware producers ran

  best joke ever ... LOL ... very, very good.

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #14 –
Quote
no, i did not misunderstand him.

i'll translate the interview

q: How does music sound best: from an optical drive, HDD or RAM?

diestertich: I tried a lot of things and even tuned a pc so he could play the music right from the memory. Clear favorite is RAM, followed by HDD and last the drive with it's individual characteristics.


OK, the question then is, why do you believe him?  the hi-end is full of 'experts' who make all sots of astonishing claims.

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #15 –
Quote from: hydr0x on
on the other hand, harddisks in general seem to have better sound quality than optical drives, RAM has even better sound.

Ignoring the obvious absurdity of this claim, is it even possible to play audio directly from hard drives/optical media without caching it in RAM?

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #16 –
Quote from: quas on
Ignoring the obvious absurdity of this claim, is it even possible to play audio directly from hard drives/optical media without caching it in RAM?
Yes : in foobar, you can cut the cache to 0 ms : you'll hear the stuttering when you move your mouse, though.. That's why it sounds better in the RAM

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #17 –
Quote from: quas on
Ignoring the obvious absurdity of this claim, is it even possible to play audio directly from hard drives/optical media without caching it in RAM?

Harddrives themselves have a RAM buffer. Though it will probably not be used when "playing music", there is still the systems RAM, the CPUs buffer and also RAM on the soundcard. So, in my opinion, trying to avoid using RAM is probably as difficult as it is pointless.
The question is, who cares?

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #18 –
Quote from: hydr0x on
it's a common misconception that digital is either 1 or 0. This is of course true per bit. It is not true for a binary string though. 100001 can be received as 100001 (correct), not at all or (and this is important) messed up, like 111001. The third variant is usually handled with checksums and fixing algorithms, like the one cd drives use to fill up gaps up to ~2.5mm on the disc.


Your third variant will most likely be caused by extreme signal jitter (that is way off the rigid specs) and a missing input buffer with no re-clock or re-synch ... any constant behaviour like this would lead to extremely audible artifacts.

I suggest you perform the test that I once performed (which opened my eyes on digital audio and the myth about digital interconnects) ...

1. Use a non-resampling (e.g. Envy-24-based) soundcard with optical input and output ... i used a Terratec EWX 24/96
2. Connect the soundcard's output to a digital device of your choice (I used a Sony DAT deck in record monitor because it can feed the signal back) via a 5m standard optical interconnect
3. Connect the digital output of your device to the digital input of your soundcard (again, I used 5m of standard optical interconnect)
4. play back a wav file of your choice ... use a sound layer that does not alter the sound ... e.g. Foobar's Kernel Streaming (I used standard MS DirectSound with WinXP) will do fine.
5. record the digital input signal to a new wav file while it is played back (full duplex mode)
6. chop off the digital silence (at start and end) on both files
7. do a binary comparison

What I found was that both files (~ 5 minutes of music) were absolutely identical after running through 10 metres of so-called 'inferior' (= optical) digital interconnects and the DAT's internal circuitry ... all these sources of possible signal jitter could not alter the sound (or the file's bits) in any way.
The name was Plex The Ripper, not Jack The Ripper

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #19 –
Quote from: filR on
Harddrives themselves have a RAM buffer. Though it will probably not be used when "playing music", there is still the systems RAM, the CPUs buffer and also RAM on the soundcard.

Aha! So it is true after all that playing from RAM yields the best audio quality! (Vacuously true, at least.)

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #20 –
Quote
- C2 error correction - a very powerful method
- AccurateRip (which compares the CRC of the digital data to internet databases with 'known good' CRC's)


Remember what Spoon the dBPowerAMP developer has stated before though. You can't become reliant solely on C2 error correction. 

Quote
OK, the question then is, why do you believe him? the hi-end is full of 'experts' who make all sots of astonishing claims.


Yes sometimes too many. You always manage to get a good laugh out of them though 
budding I.T professional

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #21 –
In a french forum, the break-in of the coating of the mains plug was discussed.
A user (not salemen or manufacturers, an end-user) said that palladium coated mains plugs were longer to break-in than rhodium coated mains plugs.

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #22 –
Pio, I hope you are trying to present a joke here

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #23 –
What is this concept 'Joke' you speak of?

Hah, over the last 7 days the price Ive paid for completing my new Stereo has consistently up.

Last improvement was going from "RCA" (with eichmann bullet plugs) to balanced XLR interconnects between my DAC and my passive pre, and between my passive pre and my power amp.

And this for a guy who used to think that lamp wire was probably indistinguishable from 'k-rad-eleet' cable.

But yes, as a microelectronics university graduate I really can't conceive of anything going wrong 'between the harddisk and the digital in of the DAC' if it does, that means your system is so crap that 'digital jitter' is probably the least of your troubles.

My question also mainly focussed on ripping quality of a 'cheapo' computer disk drive.

Audiophile CD Ripping and reproduction?

Reply #24 –
Quote from: JeanLuc on
What I found was that both files (~ 5 minutes of music) were absolutely identical after running through 10 metres of so-called 'inferior' (= optical) digital interconnects and the DAT's internal circuitry ... all these sources of possible signal jitter could not alter the sound (or the file's bits) in any way.


Although I agree with the point you're making, the test you are proposing only proves that it is possible to recover a perfect digital file after putting it through lengths of cable. This is something nobody will dispute...

Your test includes recording the file to disk (or in any case to some practically infinite size buffer), which means the data can be re-clocked completely to do the binary comparison.

Sending the data to a DAC on the other hand requires real-time recovery of the clock from the signal - if you're using SPDIF. This is what's not being tested in this way.

Ofcourse we know that good outboard DACs are very good at doing this, and the conclusion is therefore the same... I just felt like writing some in this thread too

(A few years ago I planned to save up for a DAC that could send a clock signal over spdif to my soundcard, so that it would use it's own clock as the master clock. I bought a sound card that could send out over spdif using the spdif input as the master signal (it's a Terratec DMX 6fire 2496) ... and then was so happy with its quality that I never bought an outboard DAC in the end... )

edit:
Quote from: puntloos on
My question also mainly focussed on ripping quality of a 'cheapo' computer disk drive.

Since this doesn't have to happen in real-time, you've got forever to get it to correct all the read errors...

I think the only thing a stand-alone player really does better is masking non-recoverable read errors; they typically have sweet interpolation circuitry built in