Totally agree! I have no idea why some of audiophiles insist ripping CDs by expensive rippers. I only use a 70 USD BD combo with AccuratrRip database to make sure every single bit was perfectly ripped, and it sounds great. Thank you, Paul.
But that IS a high-end CD ripper - anything that will make a bit-perfect copy is. Isn't that the whole purpose of not ripping one's CDs with e.g. iTunes, because there, instead of reading sections multiple times to achieve bit-perfection, it lazily relies on error-correction? Playback is a different matter altogether (there, jitter, i.e. timing errors, noise etc., come into play), but as far as the ripping process is concerned, what more than a bit-perfect copy could one want?
expensive rippers??? what in hell is a expensive ripper? I never see a dedicated machine to only rip CDs, any CD Drive under $50 can rip a CD, of course there's so better CD drives than others, but!! again an expensive ripper??? I rip with XLD on mac and that's enough.
@@paulstubbs7678 I will re use it some day for some sort of Hannibal Lecter hamster. Will just need to make provision for the sliding steel food tray. I will omit the LED lighting for such a creature - very very bad idea.
Super nicely explained Paul. Thanks for that. If I understand you correctely, it means I need a good DAC, Streamer, a fine cable, etc. when using the ripped data later.
Good Q&A to a really complicated question. A CDP has the disadvantage of no FIFO buffer as Paul outlined. But it has the advantage of very simple circuits. Playing a ripped file has the disadvantage of a general-purpose computer with a noisy interrupt base OS. Everything matters in audio. You can use the CDP as a transport, so the DAC is the same in both use cases. You can even have a FIFO reclock between the transport and the DAC so they both 'should' be the same. Generally, there are so many variables that there can be no answer as to which will be better. It depends on the two setups.
If you have an inferior internal sound card. Buy an external USB sound card for your computer. It bypasses the internal sound card in your computer/laptop. Most all of them will need an update right away. There is typically additional software and firmware updates available. Future updates/versions might also be available. Prices vary on these depending on features. You have to do your research on these from numerous vendors that sell them.
@@davidfromamerica1871 No doubt good advice for people using commercial computers. I'm down a different path using small single board computers running linux. We discovered back in the winxp days you do much better with dedicated minimalist OS on a minimalist hdw platform. That led to an Alex, then the BBB followed by the Rpi. The real magic happens after that in what Paul calls the digital lens. Basically a FIFO buffer that reclocks and isolates all the upstream process. Then I2S into the DAC.
Great explanation. You implied a future followup...I'd love to see something about the best way to burn a CD from a HD file for friends who need an actual CD. (I'm referring to copies of original live recordings, not illicit copies of commercial recordings.)
I tried doing A/B comparison with cd + dac vs qobuz + dac vs rip + dac with same songs and where the dac remained the same and.. I honestly couldn’t hear a difference with my hifi setup. Not saying there isn’t any, but if there is, it’s not worth going back to cd or ripping them, also means qobuz sounds wonderful.
EAC is Windows only, the equivalent Mac app is dbPowerAmp's CD Ripper, which I use to rip my CDs, and which checks the rip for accuracy against AccurateRip. I have a SuperDrive and also an LG CD drive to ensure best copying. Once ripped they get stored on my NAS drive, and then connected via Ethernet to my streamer. There is no loss of data, no less of quality, and - to remind everyone! - Ethernet connection is galvanically shielded by design - no need to introduce a further layer of galvanic shielding. Choose a good audio ripper, a decent CD drive, and chill.
Aha AccurateRip is the name of the tech I couldn't remember. I answered someone's question about iTunes saying they should find ripping software with that.
A CD player is just a general name for what is a "transport" and "DAC" in a single box. Ripping a CD has zero affect on the quality of the data, as our host explained. When a computer copies a file, it makes exact copies. "Ripping" is simply a term for copying the data off of a CD to some other storage medium (like a hard drive). You could Rip a song to a floppy disk, and it will be done perfectly. What matters is the playback. And that is where the "transport" comes in. A crummy transport will have noise and jitter. A quality transport will have virtually no noise or jitter -- and that makes a huge difference. With a CD player, the CD is the storage medium, and the player uses its built-in transport to send the data to its built-in DAC. So between the quality of the CD player's transport, DAC, and power supply, you get wildly varying differences in sound quality from CD players from different manufacturers, as well as varying sound quality within a single manufacturer's model line. For the best possible digital sound quality you must: 1) Find releases of songs that sound the best. It might be from an original release, or greatest hits, or one-hit-wonders compilation, etc. 2) Use a state-of-the-art transport. 3) Use a state-of-the-art DAC. #2 and #3, when taken to the extreme, will cost $30,000+.
@@paulstubbs7678 "or replace the state of the art transport with a state of the art re-clocker, this will then de-jitter all sources, like your streamer etc." A state of the art transport performs re-clocking. If you have a state-of-the-art re-clocker, then you have a state-of-the-art transport. The point of a quality transport is to send your DAC re-clocked samples, such that they arrive in unison / perfect timing, virtually eliminating jitter (assuming your DAC perfectly syncs to the timing of the transport). A quality transport also sends the samples to the DAC, noise free.
Excellent points. Although I think you can get fairly close to state-of-the-art with Auralic Aries G1.1 fitted with SSD (and including reclocker and quality power supply) as transport into Musician Aquarius Dac, combined under $7,000.
Never noticed any difference in sound using many different rippers over the years. The only thing that would happen, is errors reading the disc when trying to copy one with lots of scratches.
I prefer the sound when it is ripped on a usb key. It can deliver the pure, unadulterated reality of a live performance to transcend sonic boundaries and redefine sound reproduction.
I hadn't really considered this until now. Listening to a FLAC rip on the small Marantz AV amp in my office via USB is as least as good as listening to the source CD on my trusty old Arcam A3 CD player via the same amp. Thanks for mentioning it.
I have around 3000 CDs ripped to FLAC and wav files on an external SSD drive. The internal DAC on my CD player (Rotel CD11 Tribute) sounds a little different than the internal DAC on the media player (Cambridge Azure 851N). Not better just a little different. If I connect the CD player or media player using digital outs to the internal DAC in my receiver (Outlaw RR2160 MkII) they sound pretty much the same. So for convenience I play the FLAC files. The CDs are on a rack and I play them on occasion when I want to feel a little nostalgic. I can't beat the convenience of having those CDs ripped. I also download Hi Res FLAC files from Qobuz or Presto Jazz, I do not stream.
You and I are doing the same thing as far as the digital out to bypass the player DAC and run straight to the receiver's. I can also detect very slight differences between the two, but both sound good. Most of the difference seems to be in vocals, my rcvr DAC produces slightly less sibilance in an A/B comparison.
I have about ⅓ the CDs you have. I'm just curious... Where do you find them? What percentage do you think you like well enough to buy again to listen to, rather than completing a collection? Edit: Do you collect album art too?
EAC is still the king of rippers. But there are caveats regarding how well it's set up to ensure the perfect rip, like c2 error correction should be off, etc. I've never seen EAC rip at 24x or even 4x on any system if using optimal quality settings.
I've used a Philips Magnavox CDB650 CD player, from 1986, digital output, to the digital input (SPDIF) of a Tascam 700 CDRW and in real Time transcribed hundreds of CD's from local libraries, for the cost of blank media, so its CHEAP. Then playback at my convenience, on the Tascam unit's digital output into an Audio Note Kit Dac.
I bought an Audiolab 6000CDT transport recently which was an eye opener for me. The first thing I noticed is that it was far superior to my Ifi Zen Streamer. I had no peace of mind and had to buy a better power supply for the Ifi, which brought the sound of the streamer closer to that of the transport but it is evident that the transport with the correct Cds still sounds marginally better. Vinyl kills them both 😄
People say the 6000CDT makes a huge difference. It still seems strange to me, considering it's only outputting a digital signal. But that's how a lot of this stuff works. Hearing is believing...
@@arthurkillen396 It is a great transport indeed and the price is incredible. 4 reasons why it sounds like this: 1. Digital buffer 2. Master clock controlled by a temperature-compensated crystal oscillator 3. Electromagnetically shielded 4. Power Supply
Back in the day i used a philips cd recorder connected by coaxial cable from a high quality cd player. I always found the copied cds did not not sound anyhere near as good as the original cd.
Great question and answer. I recently ripped Supertramp’s Cannonball using Sony Music Music Center as the ripper to a hard drive copied to and played on a Sony NW-A55 DAP. I also played the same on a Sony Blueray player, the one right below their 4K model, through a Schiit Modius/Magnius. All listening done via a HifiMan Sundara. Ripped version easily wins. Apparently due to the hard drive step. I don’t know if the DAP reclocks. So the question is: Will an affordable for me transport (Cambridge CXC or Audio Lab 6000) or even a higher end Blueray offer a significant audio improvement over a ripper?
I have the Audiolab 6000 cdt. It is a big improvement over the Samsung bluray player I was previously using. Connected to my Arcam SA10 integrated amp using a WBC Gotham cable, it provides excellent CD sound. If there is something I don't like, I know it is coming from the music's mastering, not from the playback tech.
I got a Denon DCD-A110 a few months ago. Heads and shoulders above my old Denon 1941 DVD/SACD player, or any of my FLAC files. I own the Bifrost 2, Modius, Jotunheim 2, and the HEL. The A110 has clarity, depth, and a holographic sound that my other DAC's just lack. The FLAC files played through the Bifrost 2 are super clear, but sort of cold, and 2 dimensional compared to the A110.
While I've used EAC exclusively for years, unless the disc was really scratched and full of errors (and at least 3/4 of my collection is second hand), I can't hear a difference between that and a disc ripped with my previous ripper. And, believe me, I have done some direct comparrisons.
Lol I like it when you say the bits are fine left on the hd, the trouble comes when you need to extract them to have a listen! presumably it's the same with cd, just leave them unplayed is best
Yeah, and there are no clocks in a hard drive :) Presumably it uses the Sun to sync all its internal operations :) I get what he was trying to explain though, we're just nitpicking here
My experience of rippers is to just listen to the resultant audio file, either it's ok, 99% of the time, or it has some very obvious glitches in it (clean the CD, etc.). Those dodgy rips are usually few and far between. Windows sometimes decides it has some task that just has to happen now, interrupting the rip, so avoid ripping immediately after booting the computer, let it settle down, with no pending updates & virus scans, or other tasks like an email client lurking in the background. The same goes for digitising vinyl or tape etc.
Something that isn't often discussed is how the ripped data itself is stored on the hard drive. On the CD it's in one continuous 1bit stream, which is then read into 16bit packets. On a hard drive it's neither continuous nor stored in 1bit packets due to hard drives being formatted in clusters. Does this make any difference to sound quality? Not a clue.
@@380stroker Glad I'm not the only one who's noticed this. I used to use simple FAT formatted memory sticks back when they were a thing to avoid the large cluster sizes of FAT32 upwards and my ears told me there was a difference. I also found that spinning rust hard drives versus SSD had a difference, with the spinning rust having a less focused sound. When I looked at how hard drives store and retrieve data it started to make sense. That's why I personally stick to the original CD rather than ripping. A ripped file may be bit accurate, even though that is a contentious point as to exactly what that means, but it's storage is very different.
@@Toymortal SSD, HDD, and data discs do not store and retrieve data in a linear fashion like a redbook cd. That's the difference, and so streaming lacks the high end info compared to cd because it's also stored and retrieved in a non-linear fashion...which then opens up a can of worms because when you multitrack record and print the final 2-track mix, it's being played from and printed in an inferior way, in a non-linear way.
@@380stroker Yep. That's why personally speaking I still prefer good old fashioned analogue multi track mastered on to analogue master tape. Yes, it has its inherent flaws, but to my ears those flaws actually add to the musicality of the recordings. There are of course instances where digital had advantages such as it's ability to record really quiet passages without the noise floor of tape, but saying that when I listen to 'A Kind of Blue' even with its high hiss levels - I can't help but feel that DSD or PCM would have murdered the life from it. As far as I'm personally concerned neither DSD nor PCM will ever come close to analogue tape. And that's before you factor in the longevity of hard drives, SSD's and the ability to be able to read them in 50 years time.
I could foresee one day , the CD driver will be so good that could actually reverse the damage on the CD and giving the ultimate accurate digital file.
I've used many cd rippers including EAC. They all lose some high end and stereo image. The best way to rip a cd is to rip it in 1x and not use a cd ripper program. This is the only way i have gotten 1:1 rips after many A/B tests.
Any ripper will do the job, there is no difference with high-end rippers. You can use your PC's burner if you have one. It would bode well though to use EAC as it is still the gold standard. Personally, I prefer listening to CDs on a CD player over ripping and trying to maintain and worry about network drives and connections and all the failures likely to happen with that. I also do not have a smartphone (and never will) to control stuff and access stuff (don't need to). I'm partial to physical media.
hi pal, why dont you consider a phone a physical media? . music is recorded in the micro sd memory card. use flac loseless files then bluetooth it to a nice bluetooth receiver and dac using Ldac to an amp and you are nicely done... and so convenient. i have a 512 Gb card loaded with thousands of songs i carry with me in my pocket. i can listen to that anytime anywhere. you are missing that.. just try it. I also have my cds but the phone thing wins for me. cheers
@@endrizo Or skip Bluetooth since that's usually the bottleneck in quality. You must have an Android if you're using microSD cards (same here), so find a DAC to connect to your USB C port and really up your game! I regularly listen to DSD & high res PCM playback on my R2R DAC with nothing more than Neutron Player.
bluetooth for couch convenience... i also have cabled dacs.. of course always android LG with quad dac. i have neutron installed but prefer Usb audio player pro. sounds better to me. try it.
@@endrizo To each their own. That scenario would require me to purchase a device I never want and can't use and then I would have to purchase a bunch of extra gear with it and set all that up just to listen to a song. Doesn't sound very convenient to me personally. I don't listen to my music on phones, bluetooth speakers or anything other than my home system. By "listen" I mean formal listening, not background. For background I am more than happy with my PC and my studio monitors or my Roku pumped through my sound bar or what have you. SD cards, phones and the like are NOT physical media by definition. The files of music may certainly come from physical media of course such as ripping CDs or digitizing vinyl records. I personally find it much easier to slip a CD into the tray of my player or put a record on the turntable. One step and done for each. I understand some folks don't care for that and prefer streaming or phones and whatever, that's fine. It is all personal preference. I'm not missing anything. I'm insufferably old school and I do all my listening at home. I don't have any scenarios where I need to take my music with me. If I did, then we would be talking a different game of course. I will grant you this though: Storing CDs and records can get a bit testy when you reach triple digits in either one. 60 or so records or 40 or so CDs don't take much room and are not really a problem, but 700+ records and 850+ CDs can be a tall order. I built my own CD cabinets and I have Ikea and crates for the records. It does enforce the occasional purge.
Yes most people confuse the issue of bits are same statement. It’s not the storage but the retrieval of the timing of the data that makes the difference. Cd transport generally is going to be better at this task than a file based source.
Hard drives are capable of reading data at orders of magnitude faster than a CD transport. Hard drives data is read into a ram buffer much bigger than any buffer on a CD transport. So no a CD transport is not going to be better than a file based source.
I know I hate download my speaker pick the that sound up and most of the time the sound be low and I am sitting on 1500 watts and most times I have to use alot of power to play it out loud
Well I design chips/ stack diodes for a living and ssd or flash memory every time u access a file it will degrade but not to any notably change I'm talking like 3-6 million pulls some 1 and 0 get misplaced on bit adress
Isn’t the giant elephant in the room that most elderly so called audiophiles will have lost a large amount of their high frequency hearing… 😅 nice to know the theory that Paul explains so well
There is no technology applied to audio that can not be applied to a computer. The myth is they can not be the same, reality is you rarely can buy the same.
Who is the average user that rips CD files? I know there are plenty of them but I’m not one. Rather keep purchasing higher quality CDs any day of the week and stream music off of a great music provider like Qobuz. Perhaps I’m in the minority.
Yours is the most practical way of digital hi-fi use, but I rip CDs mostly for not being on Qobuz, due to licensing or some great old cs mixes of albums that are only available in a remastered (Often loundened and compressed) version.
I mostly play ripped CD files for convenience but like playing actual CDs when I have the time. I have Qobuz for discovering new music (and sometimes convenience) but if I like something I’ll buy it.
@@andygilbert1877 Did the same too.. I prefer playing the ripped CD files than streaming.. I do stream too, but mainly to discover new songs, which I’ll buy the CDs later.. For serious listening session typically when I have a bit more spare time, I’ll definitely spin the CDs, through transport and DAC
@@ikromtamat1681 Yep, same, I have a CD transport & DAC, and also a ripper/server/steamer. Playback is roughly the same quality, never done an A/B comparison but it’s pretty close.
I wouldn’t say the minority, I also love Qobuz, I use it way more than I ever did CD’s. Feels good to have a platform to listen first-buy next, and in lossless, unlike iTunes 👎
When I was a kid, ripping a CD meant copying it to a cassette tape, and then you might use that tape to rip another tape for someone else. Those were fun times..
@@geddylee501 Yea, and every time you copy a copy, of a copy, of a copy, the quality would get worse and worse! And then one day the tape would get tangled in the player.. Happy days!
The word wasn't used at all - stop spreading nonsense - the fun times started with digital copies without any loss and CD-burners instead having 6 CDs with two good tracks on each in the car
Nope, I can hear a difference between a cheap dvd rom and a fancy custom pioneer blu ray ripper. Passed the blind test with 3 pairs of ears. Eac also sounds different to db poweramp
But the differences don't mean anything in the long run, especially since you didn't explain what they actually were. I'm sure if you had a larger number of "ears" in the comparison, the outcome would be quite different, especially since you had direct control over how the test was set-up. Considering the number of possible set-ups, source materials, adjustments, etc, having "3 pairs of ears" available does not render the results conclusively.
Lol. So much to untangle in such a short post. EAC will sound exactly the same as dbPoweramp when they are ripped to the same spec because they are both exact audio copiers - if you hear a difference you've got them set-up incorrectly. Also, there will be no difference between a *correctly ripped* CD from a cheap DVD ROM and a Pioneer Blu Ray ripper - that's the whole point of the software, to ensure an Exact Audio Copy. You'll soon be told if the cheap drive is faulty, and that is the ONLY time you'd hear a difference.
Have you inspected the files? Were they different and in what way? Genuinely curious because a straight copy of a file from CD to HDD should NEVER alter the data.
Way too much info for even average audiophile .. more interesting would be CD vs average streamed like pandora. Next pandora vs Tidal for the average system..
@@LuxAudio389 in some circumstances maybe. There's better bandwidth on the low end from Tidal streaming hifi whereas i believe CD clips more. Plus access to 30-40million tracks without having a room full of CDs.
I mean no offence by illegally sharing music. Please delete straight after. *This is an example of a resurfaced CD ripped on laptop. Track 7* is just to die for, once given a chance. Track 9* is probably the culturally important example of female vocals in the realm of "black culture" to exist. This track should only be played very loud as 90% is pure acapella only. drive.google.com/drive/folders/1VVrkv9h8ISGVaicKMTskHI_uH28JH0Bm?usp=sharing Don't tell me off.
Totally agree! I have no idea why some of audiophiles insist ripping CDs by expensive rippers. I only use a 70 USD BD combo with AccuratrRip database to make sure every single bit was perfectly ripped, and it sounds great. Thank you, Paul.
But that IS a high-end CD ripper - anything that will make a bit-perfect copy is. Isn't that the whole purpose of not ripping one's CDs with e.g. iTunes, because there, instead of reading sections multiple times to achieve bit-perfection, it lazily relies on error-correction? Playback is a different matter altogether (there, jitter, i.e. timing errors, noise etc., come into play), but as far as the ripping process is concerned, what more than a bit-perfect copy could one want?
expensive rippers??? what in hell is a expensive ripper? I never see a dedicated machine to only rip CDs, any CD Drive under $50 can rip a CD, of course there's so better CD drives than others, but!! again an expensive ripper??? I rip with XLD on mac and that's enough.
How very clear and insightful. Thank you, Paul.
I put my Cdrom drive on a shoe boxed sized 20mm wall thick acrylic box, filled with sand, with spikes and a copper weight. This makes me feel good.
Lol
Sounds nice, now add some RGB lighting
@@paulstubbs7678 I will re use it some day for some sort of Hannibal Lecter hamster. Will just need to make provision for the sliding steel food tray. I will omit the LED lighting for such a creature - very very bad idea.
Don’t let your cats near the sand box.💩
@@stevejones8660 audiofools versus humans with a brain 🙂
Wondering about that one for a long time. Thanks for putting my mind at ease.
Paul's advise is priceless. Thank you ❤️
Super nicely explained Paul. Thanks for that. If I understand you correctely, it means I need a good DAC, Streamer, a fine cable, etc. when using the ripped data later.
Good Q&A to a really complicated question.
A CDP has the disadvantage of no FIFO buffer as Paul outlined. But it has the advantage of very simple circuits. Playing a ripped file has the disadvantage of a general-purpose computer with a noisy interrupt base OS.
Everything matters in audio.
You can use the CDP as a transport, so the DAC is the same in both use cases.
You can even have a FIFO reclock between the transport and the DAC so they both 'should' be the same.
Generally, there are so many variables that there can be no answer as to which will be better. It depends on the two setups.
If you have an inferior internal sound card. Buy an external USB sound card for your computer. It bypasses the internal sound card in your computer/laptop.
Most all of them will need an update right away. There is typically additional software and firmware updates available. Future updates/versions might also be available. Prices vary on these depending on features. You have to do your research on these from numerous vendors that sell them.
@@davidfromamerica1871 No doubt good advice for people using commercial computers. I'm down a different path using small single board computers running linux. We discovered back in the winxp days you do much better with dedicated minimalist OS on a minimalist hdw platform. That led to an Alex, then the BBB followed by the Rpi. The real magic happens after that in what Paul calls the digital lens. Basically a FIFO buffer that reclocks and isolates all the upstream process. Then I2S into the DAC.
I used EAC so many time, It's funny to hear you talking about the Art of ripping😃
Wow I think we need to continue this discussion with how to make ripping complete. You've covered the drive now let's cover the rest. 👍
Great explanation. You implied a future followup...I'd love to see something about the best way to burn a CD from a HD file for friends who need an actual CD. (I'm referring to copies of original live recordings, not illicit copies of commercial recordings.)
I tried doing A/B comparison with cd + dac vs qobuz + dac vs rip + dac with same songs and where the dac remained the same and.. I honestly couldn’t hear a difference with my hifi setup. Not saying there isn’t any, but if there is, it’s not worth going back to cd or ripping them, also means qobuz sounds wonderful.
Amazing. Thank you, sir.
I thought you were talking about mini disc for a second. BTW I love EAC and still use it a lot.
EAC is Windows only, the equivalent Mac app is dbPowerAmp's CD Ripper, which I use to rip my CDs, and which checks the rip for accuracy against AccurateRip. I have a SuperDrive and also an LG CD drive to ensure best copying. Once ripped they get stored on my NAS drive, and then connected via Ethernet to my streamer. There is no loss of data, no less of quality, and - to remind everyone! - Ethernet connection is galvanically shielded by design - no need to introduce a further layer of galvanic shielding. Choose a good audio ripper, a decent CD drive, and chill.
Aha AccurateRip is the name of the tech I couldn't remember. I answered someone's question about iTunes saying they should find ripping software with that.
@@Dobbs65 Correct - my point was that EAC isn't Mac compatible so Mac users need dbPowerAmp 👍
A CD player is just a general name for what is a "transport" and "DAC" in a single box.
Ripping a CD has zero affect on the quality of the data, as our host explained.
When a computer copies a file, it makes exact copies. "Ripping" is simply a term for copying the data off of a CD to some other storage medium (like a hard drive).
You could Rip a song to a floppy disk, and it will be done perfectly.
What matters is the playback. And that is where the "transport" comes in.
A crummy transport will have noise and jitter.
A quality transport will have virtually no noise or jitter -- and that makes a huge difference.
With a CD player, the CD is the storage medium, and the player uses its built-in transport to send the data to its built-in DAC.
So between the quality of the CD player's transport, DAC, and power supply, you get wildly varying differences in sound quality from CD players from different manufacturers, as well as varying sound quality within a single manufacturer's model line.
For the best possible digital sound quality you must:
1) Find releases of songs that sound the best. It might be from an original release, or greatest hits, or one-hit-wonders compilation, etc.
2) Use a state-of-the-art transport.
3) Use a state-of-the-art DAC.
#2 and #3, when taken to the extreme, will cost $30,000+.
or replace the state of the art transport with a state of the art re-clocker, this will then de-jitter all sources, like your streamer etc.
@@paulstubbs7678 "or replace the state of the art transport with a state of the art re-clocker, this will then de-jitter all sources, like your streamer etc."
A state of the art transport performs re-clocking.
If you have a state-of-the-art re-clocker, then you have a state-of-the-art transport.
The point of a quality transport is to send your DAC re-clocked samples, such that they arrive in unison / perfect timing, virtually eliminating jitter (assuming your DAC perfectly syncs to the timing of the transport).
A quality transport also sends the samples to the DAC, noise free.
Excellent points. Although I think you can get fairly close to state-of-the-art with Auralic Aries G1.1 fitted with SSD (and including reclocker and quality power supply) as transport into Musician Aquarius Dac, combined under $7,000.
Nicely put Paul thanx.
Do both. If you have a fire you loose everything. Backup your library and store that backup off site somewhere.
Great information. 🎶🎶
Never noticed any difference in sound using many different rippers over the years. The only thing that would happen, is errors reading the disc when trying to copy one with lots of scratches.
bits are bits as long as they are correct.
I never experienced any jitter in any of my CDRs...All my CDRs sound exactly like the studio CDs...My room, my ears, my system, my happiness
what CD players do you use?
@@CyrilleBoucanogh bought from Walmart...
Is that a Metcal solder station to his right? We used those years ago and they were awesome soldering stations.
Metcal Soldering station...love it. No cold solder joints....👍👍👍
I prefer the sound when it is ripped on a usb key.
It can deliver the pure, unadulterated reality of a live performance to transcend sonic boundaries and redefine sound reproduction.
the transparency and sound staging is unrivaled
Yeah, I wonder if just ripping to USB and plugging straight into your DAC avoids a lot of potential problems.
I hadn't really considered this until now. Listening to a FLAC rip on the small Marantz AV amp in my office via USB is as least as good as listening to the source CD on my trusty old Arcam A3 CD player via the same amp. Thanks for mentioning it.
I have around 3000 CDs ripped to FLAC and wav files on an external SSD drive. The internal DAC on my CD player (Rotel CD11 Tribute) sounds a little different than the internal DAC on the media player (Cambridge Azure 851N). Not better just a little different. If I connect the CD player or media player using digital outs to the internal DAC in my receiver (Outlaw RR2160 MkII) they sound pretty much the same. So for convenience I play the FLAC files. The CDs are on a rack and I play them on occasion when I want to feel a little nostalgic. I can't beat the convenience of having those CDs ripped. I also download Hi Res FLAC files from Qobuz or Presto Jazz, I do not stream.
You and I are doing the same thing as far as the digital out to bypass the player DAC and run straight to the receiver's. I can also detect very slight differences between the two, but both sound good. Most of the difference seems to be in vocals, my rcvr DAC produces slightly less sibilance in an A/B comparison.
I have about ⅓ the CDs you have. I'm just curious... Where do you find them? What percentage do you think you like well enough to buy again to listen to, rather than completing a collection?
Edit: Do you collect album art too?
EAC is still the king of rippers. But there are caveats regarding how well it's set up to ensure the perfect rip, like c2 error correction should be off, etc.
I've never seen EAC rip at 24x or even 4x on any system if using optimal quality settings.
TLDR is a physical CD vs a ripped one are the same thing. It's up to your playback system do determine the sound.
I've used a Philips Magnavox CDB650 CD player, from 1986, digital output, to the digital input (SPDIF) of a Tascam 700 CDRW and in real Time transcribed hundreds of CD's from local libraries, for the cost of blank media, so its CHEAP. Then playback at my convenience, on the Tascam unit's digital output into an Audio Note Kit Dac.
I bought an Audiolab 6000CDT transport recently which was an eye opener for me. The first thing I noticed is that it was far superior to my Ifi Zen Streamer. I had no peace of mind and had to buy a better power supply for the Ifi, which brought the sound of the streamer closer to that of the transport but it is evident that the transport with the correct Cds still sounds marginally better. Vinyl kills them both 😄
People say the 6000CDT makes a huge difference. It still seems strange to me, considering it's only outputting a digital signal. But that's how a lot of this stuff works. Hearing is believing...
@@arthurkillen396 It is a great transport indeed and the price is incredible.
4 reasons why it sounds like this:
1. Digital buffer
2. Master clock controlled by a temperature-compensated crystal oscillator
3. Electromagnetically shielded
4. Power Supply
Vinyl is shit
"Better power supply" - snake oil power cable sellers everywhere just raised flickered their tongues in delight.
@@richardt3371 that's why "audiophile" became an insult to me - poor souls dumb as hell
💯%👌🏾
Back in the day i used a philips cd recorder connected by coaxial cable from a high quality cd player. I always found the copied cds did not not sound anyhere near as good as the original cd.
Great question and answer. I recently ripped Supertramp’s Cannonball using Sony Music Music Center as the ripper to a hard drive copied to and played on a Sony NW-A55 DAP.
I also played the same on a Sony Blueray player, the one right below their 4K model, through a Schiit Modius/Magnius.
All listening done via a HifiMan Sundara. Ripped version easily wins. Apparently due to the hard drive step. I don’t know if the DAP reclocks.
So the question is: Will an affordable for me transport (Cambridge CXC or Audio Lab 6000) or even a higher end Blueray offer a significant audio improvement over a ripper?
I have the Audiolab 6000 cdt. It is a big improvement over the Samsung bluray player I was previously using. Connected to my Arcam SA10 integrated amp using a WBC Gotham cable, it provides excellent CD sound. If there is something I don't like, I know it is coming from the music's mastering, not from the playback tech.
@@stephenbailey9969 thanks
I got a Denon DCD-A110 a few months ago. Heads and shoulders above my old Denon 1941 DVD/SACD player, or any of my FLAC files. I own the Bifrost 2, Modius, Jotunheim 2, and the HEL.
The A110 has clarity, depth, and a holographic sound that my other DAC's just lack.
The FLAC files played through the Bifrost 2 are super clear, but sort of cold, and 2 dimensional compared to the A110.
usb 2.0 interface to dac possibly would do same as digital lens.
While I've used EAC exclusively for years, unless the disc was really scratched and full of errors (and at least 3/4 of my collection is second hand), I can't hear a difference between that and a disc ripped with my previous ripper. And, believe me, I have done some direct comparrisons.
👍, saludos.
I was sooo wrong about my "big computer = great rips" idea. Man, the most important thing IS making sure all the the bits are available.
Lol I like it when you say the bits are fine left on the hd, the trouble comes when you need to extract them to have a listen! presumably it's the same with cd, just leave them unplayed is best
Yeah, and there are no clocks in a hard drive :) Presumably it uses the Sun to sync all its internal operations :) I get what he was trying to explain though, we're just nitpicking here
@@dan-nutu oh it's all bloody black magic according to paul lol does he ever actually listen to any music ...
I think he does enjoy music, he seems pretty chill to me
@@dan-nutu 👍
just like owning an old Jag.
My experience of rippers is to just listen to the resultant audio file, either it's ok, 99% of the time, or it has some very obvious glitches in it (clean the CD, etc.). Those dodgy rips are usually few and far between.
Windows sometimes decides it has some task that just has to happen now, interrupting the rip, so avoid ripping immediately after booting the computer, let it settle down, with no pending updates & virus scans, or other tasks like an email client lurking in the background.
The same goes for digitising vinyl or tape etc.
Something that isn't often discussed is how the ripped data itself is stored on the hard drive. On the CD it's in one continuous 1bit stream, which is then read into 16bit packets. On a hard drive it's neither continuous nor stored in 1bit packets due to hard drives being formatted in clusters. Does this make any difference to sound quality? Not a clue.
Yes it does
@@380stroker Glad I'm not the only one who's noticed this. I used to use simple FAT formatted memory sticks back when they were a thing to avoid the large cluster sizes of FAT32 upwards and my ears told me there was a difference. I also found that spinning rust hard drives versus SSD had a difference, with the spinning rust having a less focused sound. When I looked at how hard drives store and retrieve data it started to make sense. That's why I personally stick to the original CD rather than ripping. A ripped file may be bit accurate, even though that is a contentious point as to exactly what that means, but it's storage is very different.
@@Toymortal SSD, HDD, and data discs do not store and retrieve data in a linear fashion like a redbook cd. That's the difference, and so streaming lacks the high end info compared to cd because it's also stored and retrieved in a non-linear fashion...which then opens up a can of worms because when you multitrack record and print the final 2-track mix, it's being played from and printed in an inferior way, in a non-linear way.
@@380stroker Yep. That's why personally speaking I still prefer good old fashioned analogue multi track mastered on to analogue master tape. Yes, it has its inherent flaws, but to my ears those flaws actually add to the musicality of the recordings. There are of course instances where digital had advantages such as it's ability to record really quiet passages without the noise floor of tape, but saying that when I listen to 'A Kind of Blue' even with its high hiss levels - I can't help but feel that DSD or PCM would have murdered the life from it. As far as I'm personally concerned neither DSD nor PCM will ever come close to analogue tape. And that's before you factor in the longevity of hard drives, SSD's and the ability to be able to read them in 50 years time.
@@Toymortal I totaly agree.
I could foresee one day , the CD driver will be so good that could actually reverse the damage on the CD and giving the ultimate accurate digital file.
Anyone have opinions on the Bluesound Vault? Thanks.
There is no difference unless there's an error reading the disk -- data is data
I've used many cd rippers including EAC. They all lose some high end and stereo image. The best way to rip a cd is to rip it in 1x and not use a cd ripper program. This is the only way i have gotten 1:1 rips after many A/B tests.
Any ripper will do the job, there is no difference with high-end rippers. You can use your PC's burner if you have one. It would bode well though to use EAC as it is still the gold standard.
Personally, I prefer listening to CDs on a CD player over ripping and trying to maintain and worry about network drives and connections and all the failures likely to happen with that. I also do not have a smartphone (and never will) to control stuff and access stuff (don't need to). I'm partial to physical media.
hi pal, why dont you consider a phone a physical media? . music is recorded in the micro sd memory card. use flac loseless files then bluetooth it to a nice bluetooth receiver and dac using Ldac to an amp and you are nicely done... and so convenient. i have a 512 Gb card loaded with thousands of songs i carry with me in my pocket. i can listen to that anytime anywhere. you are missing that.. just try it.
I also have my cds but the phone thing wins for me.
cheers
@@endrizo Or skip Bluetooth since that's usually the bottleneck in quality. You must have an Android if you're using microSD cards (same here), so find a DAC to connect to your USB C port and really up your game! I regularly listen to DSD & high res PCM playback on my R2R DAC with nothing more than Neutron Player.
bluetooth for couch convenience... i also have cabled dacs.. of course always android LG with quad dac. i have neutron installed but prefer Usb audio player pro. sounds better to me. try it.
@@endrizo Hmm I will, thx. Ha, LG phones for the win. That quad DAC does just fine with on-the-go 🎧!
@@endrizo To each their own. That scenario would require me to purchase a device I never want and can't use and then I would have to purchase a bunch of extra gear with it and set all that up just to listen to a song. Doesn't sound very convenient to me personally. I don't listen to my music on phones, bluetooth speakers or anything other than my home system. By "listen" I mean formal listening, not background. For background I am more than happy with my PC and my studio monitors or my Roku pumped through my sound bar or what have you.
SD cards, phones and the like are NOT physical media by definition. The files of music may certainly come from physical media of course such as ripping CDs or digitizing vinyl records. I personally find it much easier to slip a CD into the tray of my player or put a record on the turntable. One step and done for each. I understand some folks don't care for that and prefer streaming or phones and whatever, that's fine. It is all personal preference.
I'm not missing anything. I'm insufferably old school and I do all my listening at home. I don't have any scenarios where I need to take my music with me. If I did, then we would be talking a different game of course.
I will grant you this though: Storing CDs and records can get a bit testy when you reach triple digits in either one. 60 or so records or 40 or so CDs don't take much room and are not really a problem, but 700+ records and 850+ CDs can be a tall order. I built my own CD cabinets and I have Ikea and crates for the records. It does enforce the occasional purge.
Talk about it now. (File off of hard disk/drive.)
Yes most people confuse the issue of bits are same statement. It’s not the storage but the retrieval of the timing of the data that makes the difference. Cd transport generally is going to be better at this task than a file based source.
Hard drives are capable of reading data at orders of magnitude faster than a CD transport. Hard drives data is read into a ram buffer much bigger than any buffer on a CD transport. So no a CD transport is not going to be better than a file based source.
🤗 I never was perturbed,😅 but GREAT NEWS FOR THOSE WHO DO 🙂💚💚💚
I know I hate download my speaker pick the that sound up and most of the time the sound be low and I am sitting on 1500 watts and most times I have to use alot of power to play it out loud
Are you drunken?
Is Deezer better than tidal ?
Well I design chips/ stack diodes for a living and ssd or flash memory every time u access a file it will degrade but not to any notably change I'm talking like 3-6 million pulls some 1 and 0 get misplaced on bit adress
If the file don't change it don't degrade moron
I have A-B'd songs playing from CD and the FLAC version ripped from that CD and I can't tell any difference switching back and forth repeatedly.
Isn’t the giant elephant in the room that most elderly so called audiophiles will have lost a large amount of their high frequency hearing… 😅 nice to know the theory that Paul explains so well
There is no technology applied to audio that can not be applied to a computer. The myth is they can not be the same, reality is you rarely can buy the same.
Do more expensive fiber optic cables make a difference? Since it's just a carrier of light?
Who is the average user that rips CD files? I know there are plenty of them but I’m not one.
Rather keep purchasing higher quality CDs any day of the week and stream music off of a great music provider like Qobuz. Perhaps I’m in the minority.
Yours is the most practical way of digital hi-fi use, but I rip CDs mostly for not being on Qobuz, due to licensing or some great old cs mixes of albums that are only available in a remastered (Often loundened and compressed) version.
I mostly play ripped CD files for convenience but like playing actual CDs when I have the time. I have Qobuz for discovering new music (and sometimes convenience) but if I like something I’ll buy it.
@@andygilbert1877 Did the same too.. I prefer playing the ripped CD files than streaming.. I do stream too, but mainly to discover new songs, which I’ll buy the CDs later.. For serious listening session typically when I have a bit more spare time, I’ll definitely spin the CDs, through transport and DAC
@@ikromtamat1681 Yep, same, I have a CD transport & DAC, and also a ripper/server/steamer. Playback is roughly the same quality, never done an A/B comparison but it’s pretty close.
I wouldn’t say the minority, I also love Qobuz, I use it way more than I ever did CD’s. Feels good to have a platform to listen first-buy next, and in lossless, unlike iTunes 👎
😉
When I was a kid, ripping a CD meant copying it to a cassette tape, and then you might use that tape to rip another tape for someone else.
Those were fun times..
Yeah remember high speed dubbing tape to tape lol
@@geddylee501 Yea, and every time you copy a copy, of a copy, of a copy, the quality would get worse and worse! And then one day the tape would get tangled in the player..
Happy days!
@@JoeBob79569 lmao you've just described the highest end of hifi lol
At home, using a double time stereo-vhs for my cd recordings, 8 hours of music 😄
The word wasn't used at all - stop spreading nonsense - the fun times started with digital copies without any loss and CD-burners instead having 6 CDs with two good tracks on each in the car
Ripping FLAC ALAC
If you are concerned about the quality of ripping and copying, set both the rip and burn speed to 1X.
Real-time transfer can't hurt.
I want to make my own ripper and name it Jack.
Very good lol 👍😂
Even if you did, you would never be able to find it.
@@traildoggy But wherever it was it would function with surgical precision.
CD player vs ripping Who wins?
What a Rip-off question !!! 🤣🤣🤣
Nope, I can hear a difference between a cheap dvd rom and a fancy custom pioneer blu ray ripper. Passed the blind test with 3 pairs of ears.
Eac also sounds different to db poweramp
Eac also sounds different to db poweramp - better / worse or different ?
LOL @ "Eac also sounds different to db poweramp"
But the differences don't mean anything in the long run, especially since you didn't explain what they actually were. I'm sure if you had a larger number of "ears" in the comparison, the outcome would be quite different, especially since you had direct control over how the test was set-up. Considering the number of possible set-ups, source materials, adjustments, etc, having "3 pairs of ears" available does not render the results conclusively.
Lol. So much to untangle in such a short post. EAC will sound exactly the same as dbPoweramp when they are ripped to the same spec because they are both exact audio copiers - if you hear a difference you've got them set-up incorrectly. Also, there will be no difference between a *correctly ripped* CD from a cheap DVD ROM and a Pioneer Blu Ray ripper - that's the whole point of the software, to ensure an Exact Audio Copy. You'll soon be told if the cheap drive is faulty, and that is the ONLY time you'd hear a difference.
Have you inspected the files? Were they different and in what way? Genuinely curious because a straight copy of a file from CD to HDD should NEVER alter the data.
Just listen to the music.
Then why are you hanging around technical audio channels
We are but we need to listen to it perfectly. 🎶
Agreed... some people cant sleep well because these questions bother them... sad
@@Snolferd Its a free country here in the UK don't know about where you live.
@@LuxAudio389 No such thing. There is always a compromise.
flac wins. mp3 wins...
Music sounds best during an EMP. Astronauts love music during re-entry. 🤷
More tripe from Paul
Way too much info for even average audiophile .. more interesting would be CD vs average streamed like pandora. Next pandora vs Tidal for the average system..
CD 1st, Tidal second.
@@LuxAudio389 in some circumstances maybe. There's better bandwidth on the low end from Tidal streaming hifi whereas i believe CD clips more. Plus access to 30-40million tracks without having a room full of CDs.
Max Townshend proved (by inverting one of the square waves), that all speaker cables DO have a different sound.
offline hdd sounds better
I mean no offence by illegally sharing music.
Please delete straight after.
*This is an example of a resurfaced CD ripped on laptop.
Track 7* is just to die for, once given a chance.
Track 9* is probably the culturally important example of female vocals in the realm of "black culture" to exist. This track should only be played very loud as 90% is pure acapella only.
drive.google.com/drive/folders/1VVrkv9h8ISGVaicKMTskHI_uH28JH0Bm?usp=sharing
Don't tell me off.