|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.190.203.46
In Reply to: RE: Why do my CD rips sound uh, dull? posted by Tympani on July 10, 2014 at 10:49:11
I've almost never heard a PC playing CD-quality wav files that I thought sounded comparable to a good CD player or transport/DAC....
"Since buying the Bryston BDP-2/BDA-2 player/DAC combo last winter, I've ripped almost my entire CD collection in uncompressed wav using DB Poweramp's latest version, using AccurateRip. Though much of my current listening is HiRez downloaded files (which the Bryston combo handles beautifully) I still love to listen to music from my old CD collection."
I personally find CD the most-enjoyable digitized medium.... I think the RFI just gets too overbearing with high-rez.
"I've noticed that these tracks don't have the punch and involvement I recall when previously listening through my Marantz SA7S1 player (now sold)"
Your mistake was presuming it would sound comparable or better.... I've tried it with a handful of recordings over the years, and when I sampled the playback, it became apparent that PCs were not going to displace CD playback for me in the foreseeable future.
"I've tried 2 different optical drives for reading the discs - my internal Blu-Ray writer, and an external LG read/writer. Both yield 'perfect' rips - and produce the same results."
Different PCs, operating systems, clock speeds, hard drives, ripping software, software drivers, etc. vary the performance of the ripping. Even defragging the drive affect how the data is read off the disk. There are so many variables in playing music off the hard drive, it could be a very exasperating endeavor if the resultant sound isn't right.
The fact the PCs are RFI monsters doesn't help matters either. As I've stated elsewhere, I've never heard playback off a computer that I thought was as musically satisfying as playing CDs on a good CD player.
"Did the Marantz player spoil me by somehow enhancing Redbook playback, and I'm now hearing the real deal? Have I been spoiled by hi-rez and so all 44k/16 bit sounds lacking? Well, to test the latter, I downloaded a 44k/16 bit version of a CD rip and compared them. The download sounded better, more space, deeper low end and definitely more involving. A quick 'blinded' AB (with the help of the wife) correctly identified the source each time."
You should also check the data if the files are numerically identical. You could have downloaded a better mastered copy.... Of if the data is identical, the software writing the data to disk wrote the data where it was later read in a more ideal manner.
"So, despite an 'accurate' rip, are there other factors, namely in the source/reader hardware or others, that could audibly impact the quality of a rip?"
Could be a lot of factors. From the latency between data read and write (which can induce jitter), synergy with operating system, synergy with device drivers, etc. ... With a different music player, you might prefer the other file. This is how unpredictable the process is.
This is the reason why I use audio playback with my computer expressly for streaming music or video off websites. I leave purchased music solely for CD playback on a CD player/changer or for vinyl playback.
Follow Ups:
Todd, thanks for your response. I specifically planned to avoid PC playback for all the reasons you listed. The Bryston combo uses a stand alone player (BDP-2) with a dedicated 1TB solid-state drive, connected by e-sata or usb cable to the player. This then provides the data to the 192k/24 DAC via a high quality AES/EBU cable. I am not streaming from my PC. The BDP player can connect to PC either directly or thru Wi-Fi for the purpose of transferring files to its hard drive. Other than that instance, its not connected.
The setup works beautifully for downloaded HiRez and 44k/16 files, it just falls short for ripped CD.
If the "deficiencies" lie somewhere in the playback chain, I can rest easy knowing I have archived my CD collection in the most accurate manner. But if the problems lay in the rips, I would consider re-ripping with the appropriate adjustments. That's all I'm trying to sort out.
Cheers.
I'm a "generation" back of you with the players/DAC: 1's. I can definitely say that playing the CDs on my best CDP *does* sound a tiny bit better, and that is through the same DAC using the same AES/EBU input (wish the DAC had two of them...). [The CDP does *not* sound better than the file player when using the DAC coaxial input for the CDP.]The CDP does sound a tiny bit brighter and more forward, just a tiny but noticeable bit more lively; it's the same data interface. That interface is an analog one though, so clearly something in the way the data is sent over the interface is working its way through it and results in the sound difference. This boggles my mind a bit, and I do tend to lean towards Todd's explanation of more HF noise from the file player "muddying" the analog on the AES/EBU connection. That's all I've got...it's good to have source choices. [Edit: I suppose the CDP might have a less robust AES/EBU output circuitry than the file player, though signal amplitude looks similar.]
Playing the files is a whole other world though, no way I would give up that flexibility and access; my mind jumps to what I want to hear next based on what I last played. That is natural to me, and doing it the "old" way is more due to my laziness than natural desire ("oh man, do I have to get up, might as well listen to a bit more of this album"). Getting up disrupts the groove, man. :)
My CD rips are perfect (!), I've been using EAC for a long time and know how to set it up (lots of options!), so make sure you calibrate it to your disc drives. And those (probably DVD) drives are not all the same in their abilty or speed, price or newness is no indication either. Actually my best one is a "crappy" old drive, but it's really really handy to have multiple ones, some do some things better than others. Now that I think of it, my "best" ones are not also burners. I once replaced them with burner types but I rip a lot more than burn so put a couple reader-only types back in.
Edits: 07/13/14
"My CD rips are perfect (!)..."
The vast majority of CD rips are perfect, in regard to the numeric data represented (as long as "normalization" isn't utilized).... But rips by different programs sound different because of how the data is written to disk.... The differences occur during playback, where one rip induces a different jitter response to another.... And would differ yet again with different playback software, or even after an update to the operating system.
And the jitter responses would change yet again if the hard drive were to be "defragged", or recovered from backup data in the event of a drive crash.
Too many variables, and too little control over them.
I like to think that the SBT kind of isolates me from most of the disc-reading anomalies. Gets the "music" via ethernet cable; has ~15s buffer for the .wav it gets from an original CD source, ~5s for the .wav it gets from a 96/24 DVD-A source. So the SBT has relatively little to do, just assemble the packets (from an otherwise unused network) and get them to the S/PDIF output. I like to think that the SBT's S/PDIF output is the limiting factor for that part of the pre-DAC chain, and I like to think I've done a half-decent job on the linear PS too. Perhaps "I like to think" a little too much... :) It all sounds decent, but I can't say it sounds better than my best CDP (same DAC), and there are much better CDPs than mine.Just wanted to correct something I noticed I said in my previous post. Though I said the CDP sounds a bit better, I also said it may have a *less* robust AES/EBU interface circuitry than the BDP-1. The context in which I said that contradicts my argument as to my speculation as to why the CDP may sound better...so I shouldn't have said it period. I *do* know what the CDP's AES/EBU output circuitry exactly is. But I *don't know* what it is in the BDP-1 as it's not mine so I won't open it, it's on longish-term loan from a military friend who's temporarily stationed in a non-120V/60Hz country. The BDA-1 is mine.
I have not *directly* compared the BDP-1/BDA-1 to the SBT, this is not easy to do here in a relatively quick manner (would be easier with the BDP-2), but listening to both over time, there's not a lot of diff. The diff is more obvious to me when using the CDP.
I am a bit anal about defragging my HDs that I play music from. I even defrag the backup drives...that could be "dangerous".
Edits: 07/14/14
If a rip was made to hard drive, then if there is any question the ripped files can be copied hard drive to hard drive. This will remove any physical effects associated with the original rip, replacing them with the physical effects associated with the file copy. If you are paranoid, you can carry this file copy process multiple generations. Because of the speed and ability to rewrite files on a hard drive this is a quick and easy tweak. How much it affects the sound you hear will depend on your system, etc...
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Hmm. It would be interesting to get hold of a same master download versus CD rip and actually COMPARE the bits! It seems to be there must be some freeware program to allow you to do this, i.e. strip any header information and just give you the bitstream. Then, all you need to do is compare just a handful of bytes at a few random intervals to be certain that it is EXACTLY the same bitstream. At that point, the only difference is the HEADER information and the CPU processing going on.
My guess is that if they sound different, the bitstream must be different, but I wouldn't rule out TOO MUCH processing going on and creating some sort of noise in the system.
I listen mostly to CD from a player, so not much personal experience with any comparison to computer audio. In fact, all my attempts and I was not impressed with my computer audio results.
Exact audio copy allows comparing two WAV files for equality. This will work providing there are no offset errors. If there are offset errors (different number of empty samples at the start of the two files) then EAC won't necessarily give a complete picture of what is going on. In which case, a better approach is to use an audio editor to look at the individual samples and line them up. Then you can mix them together with one of the two out of polarity to get a difference file. This should be all zeros, but if there are errors you will be able to find them. I assume this can be done with free editors such as Audacity. I have been using Soundforge Pro 10 for a number of years and do these comparisons from time to time.
You should be aware that offset errors and changes to headers have been reported as causing audible differences. According to digital theory, if the samples are the same there should be no audible difference due to changes in headers, MP3 tags, file names, etc., but theory is nearly always trumped by practice. Changes in headers but not samples can produce audible differences, at least on some systems that are sensitive to things that, in an ideal world, they should not be sensitive to.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Changes in headers but not samples can produce audible differences, at least on some systems that are sensitive to things that, in an ideal world, they should not be sensitive to."I have wondered about that before, but don't recall seeing anybody discuss it, so just assumed it wasn't important and just one more thing to not be concerned with.
Do you have any more discussion of this, offhand? Don't go to a lot of trouble as I will look for it myself, but if you recall anything (link, etc.)...thanks.
I do my audio-file assembling on a machine that's remote from the actual file player, so all the player sees is the .wav data *plus* the ethernet packaging headers. They're still headers though, in the sense of data that isn't representing audio. I don't think this is the type of thing you were referring to, as the data extraction scenario is different since the player app doesn't even "see" the header.
Edit: I am specifically speaking of my SB Touch setup here, not the BDP1/BDA1 setup which *could* be susceptible to the exact header thing you're speaking of.
Edits: 07/13/14
It seems plausible that what is going on in the computer will have less effect on the sound if the computer is physically and electrically very distant from any of the analog equipment. But then, a more complex playback chain will have more complex failure modes. I suggest somehow capturing the bits that are going to the DAC and verifying that they correspond to the bits on the CD. If you use SPDIF to the DAC you can connect the cable to a digital in of a separate computer and record the stream. There may be various "loop back" tricks available that don't require extra hardware, but these won't catch all the possible places where the bits could get corrupted. IMO it is a complete waste of time to do anything regarding subjective sound quality of computer audio until one has first verified that the correct bits are actually making it to the DAC.
There have been threads regarding the effect of FLAC to WAV conversion and impact on headers. There have also been threads discussing the effect of offset errors on digital sound files. There have also been threads on how two bit-identical files might sound different.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Unfortunately I don't have a computer with a general (audio) digital input, except USB. So I'd have to get some interface gadget and use USB somehow.
I didn't realize those topics you mentioned at the end there were the same thing as the header "problem". FWIW I don't notice a sonic diff between WAVs and FLACs, and the diff would have to be get significant before I'd be willing to give up the tagging flexibility/convenience of FLACs. Compared to the playback limitations of tagged WAVs, not worth it to me.
I really think that just a plain old hex editor with search mode will be sufficient for a basic test. Just search on a pattern given some offset and see if you can locate the similar pattern on the next bitstream at the same location. Trying to CAPTURE SPDIF info would be trickier IMO as the interface may always be transmitting SOMETHING such as some control signal to just wait for the sample to arrive.
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: