|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.190.191.49
In Reply to: RE: Please post your experiences with music stored on a hard drive posted by bboroski on May 20, 2015 at 13:51:18
1. I've yet to hear a playback of a file ripped to HDD from a CD that I preferred over either the CD itself or even a CD-R copy. I also prefer a CD-R copied directly from the original CD than one first ripped to the hard drive.
2. The sonic variance of ripping software and different HDDs makes it almost impossible to find a combination that I thought would be reliably satisfying, long-term. (I have no ripping programs to recommend, because what works on one hard drive/OS might work awful on another hard drive/OS. I had favorites when I used Windows XP, but these favorites fell down when I switched to Windows 7.)
2a. I find "anti-jitter" options on ripping software to consistently make the sound worse. I find different CD burning software burning identical CD-Rs to vary sonically more than the same CD burning software burning different brands/types of CD-Rs.
3. The audio files I've ripped to HDD over the years don't get much play time.... I prefer the sonics of CD on a computer's CD-ROM drive over that of the ripped file.... I also prefer the sonics of a dedicated CD player over that of a CD played on a PC.
4. I find ripped files almost always to sound worse after the drive is de-fragmented. I find ripped files to usually sound worse after a major update to the computer's operating system. (I started creating a "library" under Windows XP, only to find out everything sounded awful after upgrading to Windows 7.)
5. I find the only tolerable high-resolution playback of ripped files to be uncompressed WAV or AIFF formats. I believe something strange goes on with "lossless" playback decoded in real time. Most notably, an attenuation of "vibrato" from singers and solo musicians. (I passed an "ABX" test on this.)
6. I do enjoy YouTube videos via PC.... But for music enjoyment, that's about it. High-resolution audio from ripped files gets almost zero play time on my PCs. (I've never purchased music in "computer file" formats.)
7. Barring some unexpected surprises, I think I'll still be playing vinyl and CD on dedicated CD players ten years from now. I have not ripped a CD in over a year. To me, the variables (software, drives, OS, hardware, etc.) are too great, and I've come to the realization that it's a total waste of time.
Follow Ups:
. . . audiophile fetishes, taboos and shibboleths I've ever seen. Congratulations! (Well, except for your singular endorsement of YouTube audio!) ;-)
That should be a topic on AA.... What are your/my most unusual audiophile opinions/traits? .... I think I'm about as strange as you'll encounter....
For example, several days ago, I was getting a pizza delivered.... And blasting out of the driver's car was Beethoven's Leonore Overture #3, of all things.... (The music was loud enough to bounce off the windows of the houses across the street.) I told him to enjoy that Leonore #3, and he acted stunned that someone recognized the music.... (I was shocked that someone would be blasting Beethoven from his car.... Like how most people blast hip-hop.)
Too many variables? C'mon.Transferring bits across wire has been done with great success and integrity for decades now.
It's called backups, archiving, etc. And it's been done on equipment that costs far less than a typical playback system.
I suspect you're choking on gnats while trying to swallow camels.
Edits: 05/21/15
I basically lower my expectation with music from the computer - I have found the CD sounds better played on the CD player through the same DAC.
And you get on forums and they tell you to buy this or that software this or that cable - use a laptop that has no bloatware - never use Wifi etc. It's just easier to stick the CD in if one has to do all that crap and it still can't sound "better" than the original CD.
The computer is purely for convenience and frankly that's fine by me - I'll put all the one hit wonders and mediocre recordings onto the hard drive where sound quality isn't that great and for my favorites and or better recordings it's CD or Vinyl (as soon as I buy a turntable that is acceptable to me).
But the computer playback is fine for me and for casual listening but whatever "gestalt" factor and goosebump factor seems to get lost.
Good turntables/arm/cart/phono stage is just so damn expensive. But at least the money spent is worth it. Seeing $10,000 for puny ass computer audio boxes that sound mediocre at best is irritating. A while back I compared a Nottingham turntable through a moderately priced iFi phono stage against a computer audio DAC through $20,000 Avantegarde speakers - the Turntable ate the computer audio and the hi-res recordings for breakfast - the CA was downright unlistenable. The old beat up Pink Floyd LP was stunning. Actually the whole turntable rig was about $3,000 which is pricey but less than half the price if I remember correctly of the CA DAC. And those hi res downloads are not exactly cheap either.
"I basically lower my expectation with music from the computer - I have found the CD sounds better played on the CD player through the same DAC.
"The computer is purely for convenience and frankly that's fine by me"
That pretty much nails it for me as well. My system is in my living room, so, "good enough" gets played quite often (and with a lot of joy). But if I had a dedicated listening room and only listened to music "seriously," I'm not sure I would use computer audio.
The thing with convenience is that I tend to listen to more music - and that's what all this is supposed to be about. I wouldn't listen to one hit wonders on vinyl (or CD for the matter) but on computer you can listen to the band's one hit and move on.
It has its place and it can sound quite fine enough.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: