He could do a simple test. Write wav back to CDR and compare original and CDR on his CD-deck. If quality is the same then ripping process was not the problem.
Correct. Then the difference is down to the quality of playback whether CD or hard drive. Some think streaming or hard drive surpasses CD, can’t see how that’s possible, unless CD transport is crap.
@@Coneman3 Thats besides the point. Viewer wanted to know if ripping process changed anything. If you write ripped wav back to CD and listen it on the same CD-deck then you are comparing original and the ripped copy on the same CD transport. If the original and copy sounds the same then ripping process is not the problem.
1) Right Click on your Speaker Icon. Chose "Open Volume Mixer". Click on the Speaker Icon. Click on the Advanced Tab, and Select the desired Rate. Its also in the Control Panel, under Sound. 2) Many Audio Players have their own built in EQ. You might need to turn them off, or adjust them to your liking. 3) Certain Audio Chips, or Soundcard Software... have their own Mixer Software + EQ. Check these settings, and adjust. 4) A dedicated Sound-Card... will Always sound superior to Built-in Motherboard Chip Audio (onboard sound chip). In either case.. With either Onboard sound, or an Installed Soundcard sound... Ive Always had to adjust the EQ settings. On soundblaster cards, I always needed to raise the Bass and Treble levels. On Onboard-Sound... I had to create a custom EQ pattern. Onboard EQ settings.. have been very "Glitchy", in my experience. If you raise certain bars enough... it takes away from other bars (not graphically... but in what you actually hear). This likely has to do with Onboard audio Chips being Low-power, and having to divide and balance the output levels. That doesnt happen on Dedicated soundcards. 5) If your PC lacks EQ software settings... Download a good Software EQ program. Currently Ive been using "PC Equalizer Free". However, Im sure there are many others that are great / superior. 6) Use EAC (Exact Audio Copy) to Rip your CDs. Select the Slowest CD speed, and choose the most Accurate Settings for the Rip. I believe EAC runs multiple reads of the same tracks, and tries to make sure that any errors are eliminated / corrected, with those extra reads. At the end of each RIP, it will specify any errors, among other details about the Rip. 7) Ive personally had a lot of issues with Auto-Labeling programs... So you will likely have best results in hand-typing each track name, into your Rips. Ive had these programs put the wrong data on some / all of my ripped audio tracks / files. And or, they would put excessive data in... that I didnt want added. I prefer the label format of: Artists Name, Album Name, Track Number (double digits 01,02...etc), Track Name. Though, it can make filenames a bit long.
Redundant audio re-synching is a good option when ripping from any CD rom that has flaws or damage, as it takes the ripped data as it tries to read over multiple passes and then keeps the ‘redundant’ data from comparison since that’s probably how it really is on the disk.
If anything errorless ripped files could sound better... There's no jitter or distortion playing back a .wav or .flac, where that is a potential issue w/ CD transports.
The other issue could be if USB is being used from the computer and there is no galvanic separation noise from the computer can be impacting the quality of the playback
I had an Aurender A30 which Rips CDs to WAV files into its hard drive and used my Luxman D-10X's DAC and nope, the A30 wasn't quite as close to the D-10X's CD playback. I traded it in for an Aurender N20 and it has a way better and isolated audio section than the A30 and the N20 is so much better and closer to the D-10X's playback in both ripping and streaming.
I use a PlayStation 2 as a transport direct into a schiit modi 3+ and I can concur that any cd sounds slightly more alive & more dynamic than the exact copy ripped into WAV or any other high fidelity file. These digital copies are played by Audirvana on a MacBook Pro using bit perfect playback & using the top level of importance selected for the program to quiet down all other needless computer noise & resources. - also goes into the exact same DAC bypassing the internals of the mac sound circuitry
EAC (Exact Audio Copy) as Paul mentioned does a good job for ripping CDs. Foobar2000 is a good player. Using this combo and a Cambridge Audio DACMagic 100 as test setup, I found no significant difference between playing ripped FLAC files or the CD. The DACMagic 100 is comparable to the DAC in the CD player I used. Upgrading to a RME ADI-2 FS DAC, playing the Flac files sounds better, so with the tests and the ripping process completed and the Flac files backed up, I can get rid of the CDs. By the way, Foobar2000 has a nice feature: it's portable, which means it does everything in its own folder on the computer. It's not installed in the classic sense. This way it's easy to move or copy a foobar2000 setup with all settings and playlists to another computer.
@@colanitower I wish you good luck. Recently I replaced my dedicated streamer from 2014 for a music server and bridge supplied by Pachanko Labs, a great improvement.
@@myself61607 I had to look up Pachanko Labs. It looks like they assemble great stuff, much like Grimm Audio of the Netherlands. I like these smaller brands. Another one is Estelon of Estonia who build speakers. I heard a pair of Estelons at an audio show. That's mostly not the best place to really listen to music, but the Estelons blew me away.
My player (Marantz Sacd 30n) can play both CDs and files from ssd. It's the best file player I've ever had and a huge step above using a PC to play files. Other file players I've had played files soundingly worse than CDs on the same dac. On this Marantz player files sound very near to CDs, that's the first time for me. But CDs still play better.
It is not the computer but the audiocard that is responsible for the sound. Investing in a home studio quality external sound card will solved the problem. Focusrite, SSL Universal Audio or even Steinberg.
Good morning Paul ☕️☕️ I’ve “simplified” my set up… Cd 💿 player , Streamer , BT ..ect all get fed into my DAC then to my headphone stack. Would I one day rip my cd’s to a central drive …possibly..but that’s a lot work ..but who knows . Simplicity has its advantages. Great video.☕️🍕👍
I've noticed "CDs sound better than on a hard drive" but that has to be qualified... Firstly, as Paul says, the playback chain makes a big difference, example, the CD's DAC versus the 'other' DAC. Then there is also the question of resolution. I've noticed that at CD resolution 16/44, yes, my CD player sounds better but if, say, a 24/96 stream is available, the result tilts towards the stream (ie, or hard disk).
You MUST run everything through the same DAC. with the same CD or the test is invalid!! The playback chain makes a big difference. Then there is something in the playback chain that changes the sound!
@@bossybill7437 Okay Then you can't compare. That will be completely wrong. All digital audio products have their own DAC. different DACs. has a different sound. If a CD player does not have a digital output, there is often a cheaper CD player you have!
Where CDs can sound better, is that a good audio cd player has a secondary bitstream from the transport of confidence in the bit. That allows for sub-sample interpolation to recreate data from scratches, where a computer cd rip only has the whole block of 588 samples and some FEC to work with.
Here's the problem I have had with my ripped music since Windows 7, when I adjust the EQ, increasing frequency the music starts sounding like a cassette tape that has been left out in the sun in a car with the window's closed. The sound drops and sounds muffled and wavy. Windows XP, did not do this when adjusting the EQ. It was like adjusting a physical graphic equalizer.
I strted using Swinsian 9Mac only)on my mac Mini years ago because it bypasses the mac audio engine and is very minimalist in the way it works. It's just a front end that presents a table of all the music files and allows you to sort them as you wish. They just released a v3.0 that sounds like it will be a little more consumerish so for now I'll stick with the older v2.3.till I find out exactly what v3.0 is doing with the misic stream.
What i suggest doing is simply just hook up externaly a cd player in spdif to a nice dac then wire it to a good pre amp and reduce the pre amp to -3 db then send the signal to the imput of the 32 bit sound card and have windows input set to 32 88khz and remove the checkbox "allow extra signal processing". Then finally in Audacity after setting your out and in to match your soundcard input..do a test at 100% input signal recording with a music that has high high signals like guitar rifts and so on..then test it at around 85% in audacity and see which sounds best. 85% should do the trick.
Yeah, EAC is a bit of a chore to setup, takes about 8 minutes and then there''s no reason for a rip to be worse than the cd, unless talking computer hardware stuff. When disable stuff like c2c corrections, have drive tuned via AccuRip etc.. the output .wav / .flac is bit perfect, any issues having after is with the chain.
He, you do not mention what DAC is being used during computer playback? Hopefully not some internal one, line out of some PC? Perhaps he needs a good DAC?
I spent years in the early 2000’s trying to “better” the sound of a Cary 306 CD player using Computer Audio - never succeeded!! Learned a lot though🧠💿💻👍!! The Problems were: the Cary was built like a tank with a very rigid and strong transport, multiple Burr Brown DAC Chips in parallel, multiple isolated power supplies, and a rock solid analog output stage = cannot be beaten with Computer Trickery!! Fast forward to 2024 and I no longer have the Cary to compare - but - my current Computer setup sound is excellent. Is it better? Dunno🤷♂ It is Damn good, and the cost of a CD player that is demonstrably better than my old Cary is too high for me to do anything about it. Key for me was clean power at every step in the chain - and - squeaky clean USB interface. I use a DAC with multiple Burr Brown DAC Chips in parallel - and yes - I use EAC and WASAPI. No processing of Audio in the Computer, just file playback through the DAC. Thinking of moving to a MAC Mini with external SSD Storage
Your computer probably has a switching power supply and you are sending the signal via a crumby ethernet cable and cheap switches. A transport, even a basic transport and DAC usually sounds better because you don't get the 50hz (or 60hz) hum from the power and you have far better connections. It is almost like they designed them to play music well!
IMHO: You need a decent! DAC. When ripping is not the problem (with EAC it is likely not!) analog signal generation is. Your PC sound generation facilities are likely not optimized for HQ audio replay. Your CD player likely is. The digital signal is all 1001101001 and all the same, but the electronics is not. There is a great video explaining this here: ua-cam.com/video/TAOLGsS27R0/v-deo.html Paul, I think you say this somehow between the lines, but I just wanted to make it clear (I guess you are assuming a good DAC :) and not your PC line-out jack).
Paul's solution was vague. Is the problem with the media player inside a Windows based computer, or the operating system? I am using VLC player which sounds better than Windows media player, unless it is my brain fooling myself.
Why do CDs sound better than any streaming service? Even on the best network with a decent streamer. It doesn't sound better than when I play a CD. Im confused 🤔
Isn't this the case of cd Redbook standard and cd yellow standard non compliance in the cd ROM of computer? Correct me if wrong but yellow book doesn't fully support cd Redbook files.
AFAIK the Redbook is for the original CD-DA specifications, i.e. regular audio CDs, and Yellowbook is for CD-ROMs and data. There are some mixed mode CDs, with Redbook audio and Yellowbook CD-ROM data as separate sessions. Audio only players ignore the second CD-ROM data session, while computers with multi-session CD-ROM drives can usually use both.
You need a decent soundcard. I use a Creative external sound"box" and use Steinberg Wavelab to record records and clean them up with Wavelab. It sounds better than the record when I put it on CD or playback with Wavelab.
Nice. I have heard some vinyl rips that were done with new records and I could not tell a difference between them and the digital version, no click and pops and a somewhat warmer tonality forever in the flac file.
Audiophiles, whatever else you do, be sure to get a bit-perfect rip, in other words, when Paul mentions "Apple", don't even consider using iTunes for ripping. It's using error correction, isn't even attempting to get a bit-perfect rip. That's why it's so fast, and also why it'll rip scratched CDs (actually, that might be it's only purpose: if it's otherwise impossible to rip an old out-of-print album). There are several free apps that do the same Exact Audio Copy (what Paul likes) uses on a Windows computer, e.g. XLD, sACT and probably others. All those use Accurate Rip, comparing PCM word cross total (digit sum) to an online database, and if needed, retrying damaged sectors multiple times until the rip is accurate, and these apps will tell you if the rip was bit-perfect and in which tracks it wasn't etc. Once one has that covered, the real fun (computer audio playback) begins!
@@Sonnell Be sure to make a comparison rip and if you cannot hear a difference, good for you, as you're either an engineer working for Apple and/or listening on an iPod. 99% of people reading my post are probably audiophiles, so to those, please remember those apps that'll provide bit-perfect copies are for free (maybe with the exception of Paul's EAC), so be sure not miss out on the sonic difference. Needless to say, if bit-perfect rips didn't sound better, those alternative ripping programs wouldn't exist, and for convenience alone, we'd all be using iTunes. But 20 years down the road, when someone is asking you for a bit-perfect rip of a dear to someone's heart out-of-print CD, don't be surprised if tears are being shed when all you have is an iTunes rip…
@@LeonFleisherFan Hm, I sense some unrequested emotions behind your message. Be sure that I am writing pro audio software since more than 20 years, and if you get some difference then that was due to a very crappy CD or drive or something like that. And I would love to make a blind test with you and with the audiophile people, be sure most of you would fail them. I always forget not to talk to "audiophiles" :)
@@SonnellSoftware engineer? If so, chances are I know (much) more about blind and double blind testing (a few hundred, possibly thousands, professionally and as a hobbyist). Even if you don't care to listen to the difference, or don't currently own a system on which it's audible, don't forget it can take true music lovers (= audiophiles) weeks and months to rip a sizable collection. The difference between a bit-perfect and an iTunes rip is not of the sort where you'll ever find a single person who prefers the iTunes rip on a great-sounding system. Occasionally someone who cannot or refuses (engineer = self-fulfilling prophesy) to hear a difference, but even my 90-year-old dad used the exact same attributes as everyone else (blind or double blind), which is the iTunes rip sounds "curiously bland", "muted", "unengaging" etc. The apps I recommended are for free, the time people invest in ripping their collection is NOT, so don't patronize others to the extent where they'll have to repeat the process only because you believe you know something (which clearly, you don't). Not saying you're hard of hearing or not smart enough, but it would appear you're suffering from conditioning by job and/or education. Try to muster some scientific curiosity and listen yourself. If not, scrutinize your motives for posting your opinion at all, and the consequences this is going to have on others. You're literally not doing anyone a favor, not going to save them any time or money by giving them the wrong advice. I'll stop my rant here. Happy holiday!
@@LeonFleisherFan Lol, omg... amazing, I did not know you are half god, who knows what I know, and who will tell me what I do not know, and who is capable to judge me, and who thinks can judge anyone. (!) You are truly a god like person. I envy you.
"The CD Sound is always better" can be: The DAC used is different (Internal of CP player vs the external DAC he's using) Bad ripping software, bad settings PC/Mac audio engine not properly set for direct audio streaming to DAC EAC ripping is not "so close", it's identical if the media isn't corrupt. Ha ha ha, "the transport in out CD sounds significantly better than anything that we would stream"! I challenge you on this with blind testing anytime with identical source media! Last thing, don't waste space with WAV, use FLAC, it's lossless! I repeat, LOSSLESS! The peddlers think there's difference, there isn't whatsoever.
I do a lot of RIPPING. --- I don't know if this is a solution, but I mostly use a BLU-RAY Player (the most modern I can find) and simply attach my HD to the USB in of the Player. .... To be honest I do use a crappy computer too & I've never found anything from a program playing the files or in the computer to tell the computer what 24/44 or 24/96 I should be using. MOSTLY the streamers (blu-ray/computer) either will play the HIGHER RES or they wont'.... which seems to be my biggest problem. - m.
This is rather vague. The file format does not matter at all, but compression degrades the signal quality. AAC, MP3, FLAC, WAV, whatever file format you use, they are all very similar quality at a high enough bitrate, just don’t compress your audio (too much). Also, don’t rip through the analog chain, some audiophools believe it is better to rip CD’s from the audio out/sound in ports but this introduces all kind of artifacts, some softwareworks like this because the makers were too lazy to do anything beyond patching the output. Your CD mechanism has very little to do with sonic quality, audio engine is not a thing except in Digidesign software, your audio chip/processor/software will not up/down convert any signal that is already at a compatible samplerate, and the real problem is the two cent DA converters in your PC that sound like wet eggcartons, versus the two dollar DA converters in your audio system that are neatly shielded and sound like DA converters.
Don`t know if its mentioned, but the most important thing when ripping a cd, is to do that right. Use a player for the ripping that can read as slow as possible. 4x is fine! When I use max speed wich is extremely fast, it sounds much vorse than with the slowest ripping speed. If your player doesn`t let you rip very slow, buy one that does! These players are cheap. A perfectly ripped cd shall sound better than a cd. A cd player delivers the 0 and 1 data with a spinning disc. And that spin is not perfect. The high-end cd players cost very much, mostly because of the advanced drive unit. To deliver the data as steady as possible. When ripped to a harddrive, there is no unsteady spin, the data is delivered totally steady and gives max sound quality. And of course, use a proper dac in a receiver or in a regular amplifier or a dedicated standalone Dac.
Your logic is screwy. You say to rip at as slow a speed as possible, and that 4x is fine. You also say that a perfectly ripped CD will sound better than the CD played on a CD player, because the CD player spin is not perfect. Then you say that when you rip to a hard drive there's no unsteady spin - it's totally steady. So, to sum it up, rip a spinning disc as slow as possible (a faster 4x is ok) because it's more steady than a CD player spinning the disc at 1x. Like I said, logic is screwy.
@@purpleghost4083 Maybe it is beyond your understanding? The ripped data is steady delivered from a harddisk without the unsteady drive in a cd player. Or maybe even better from a usb or a ssd. Don`t even need a high end stereo to hear the difference in sound.
@@juniore159 So how is it getting on to the hard drive? With a CD player - aka a computer CD drive. What you have failed to include is why a faster spinning computer CD drive is better than a normal spinning CD player that has unsteady spin. Why doesn't the computer CD drive have the same unsteady spin as the CD player? The 1x speed CD player could be more steady than the 4x speed computer CD drive. The computer CD drive still has to read and deliver the data to the hard drive. Maybe it is beyond your understanding?
@@juniore159 You did a masterfully bad job of what you were saying and didn't include anything to back it up. You can't even understand the relevance of the valid points I made or questions posed. That makes it clear for everyone how slow you are and that you really have no clue.
Than what? SACD ripped to DSD? Audio DVD ripped to HDD? Once I got my dacs to talk to my media pc then CD from my decent quality musical fidelity CD player was inferior. Using foobar 2000 with appropriate plugins and defeating the windows volume controls left it very sweet. Better than all of the CD players I've used in a similar price range.
@@CMDR_Hal_Melamby You're right, I guess. However from my POV, and from my approach in finding CD's that are not reissues - as a means of getting a sound that I like, leaves SACD, DSD and DVD out of the picture, for now. Ripping these CD's with blemishes and defects increases error correction in windows which increases God knows what else. All i'm saying is that those defects, right now, for me, are better managed on the fly from a CD player. Playing rips from a computer system is something I AM striving for but morphing my preference from disc playback to the cleanliness of server rips is at the extra cost of resurfacing CD's as a means to reduce extra noise introduced from the computer system itself - AM I WRONG??? Going back to just CD playback, listening to a resurfaced CD which is thin (weight) compared to an unresurfaced (thicker) one, despite the lack of jitter introduced from the clean surface, the thinner "clean" CD's sound...thinner. For now, at least, the closest I seem to getting to the artist, baring in mind that I hunt EBAY for what I think are CD "originals" constantly (sometimes buying more than one), IS the the shortest path to the disc's data. This is NOT some back handed comment on the nature sublime sound achieved via PC. In MY case a well sourced CD does sound better than its 44khz 16BIT ripped counterpart..maybe I prefer the kind of noise it produces at-the-moment.
@@Yiannis2112 TO be fair it's been a while since my media PC was running as I've moved from the other side of the world and into a small space to help care for my aged parents (80 and 86 both with cancer). So the main system is in storage.... The laptop that is running sound via a Burson Audio headphone amp/dac is not on the same level but for what it's worth here are the components in the current Foobar 2000 install: Core (2017-07-10 05:24:08 UTC) foobar2000 core 1.3.16 foo_ac3.dll (2019-03-25 07:34:02 UTC) AC3 decoder 0.9.13 foo_albumlist.dll (2017-07-10 05:22:48 UTC) Album List 4.5 foo_cdda.dll (2017-07-10 05:22:22 UTC) CD Audio Decoder 3.0 foo_converter.dll (2017-07-10 05:22:28 UTC) Converter 1.5 foo_discogs.dll (2019-05-21 20:57:51 UTC) Discogs Tagger 2.19 foo_dsd_processor.dll (2019-02-07 19:35:34 UTC) DSD Processor 1.0.2 foo_dsp_eq.dll (2017-07-10 05:22:46 UTC) Equalizer 1.2 foo_dsp_std.dll (2017-07-10 05:22:42 UTC) Standard DSP Array 1.3.1 foo_dsp_xgeq.dll (2019-10-26 04:22:01 UTC) Graphic Equalizer 0.3.7 foo_fileops.dll (2017-07-10 05:21:24 UTC) File Operations 2.2.2 foo_freedb2.dll (2016-03-30 11:45:14 UTC) Online Tagger 0.7 foo_httpcontrol.dll (2013-04-26 16:12:30 UTC) HTTP Control 0.97.14-fb2kc foo_input_dts.dll (2019-03-25 07:34:20 UTC) DTS decoder 0.6.8 foo_input_dvda.dll (2012-03-16 04:30:28 UTC) DVD-Audio Decoder and Watermark Detector 0.4.11 foo_input_monkey.dll (2019-05-17 11:18:41 UTC) Monkey's Audio Decoder 2.2.3 foo_input_sacd.dll (2019-02-07 19:35:22 UTC) Super Audio CD Decoder 1.0.11 foo_input_std.dll (2017-07-10 05:22:04 UTC) FFmpeg Decoders 3.2.4 Standard Input Array 1.0 foo_musicbrainz.dll (2015-01-18 13:15:20 UTC) MusicBrainz Tagger 0.3.1 foo_out_asio.dll (2019-04-10 02:06:23 UTC) ASIO support 2.1.2 foo_out_upnp.dll (2019-03-07 12:01:36 UTC) UPnP MediaRenderer Output 1.1 foo_out_wasapi.dll (2019-03-25 07:32:34 UTC) WASAPI output support 3.3 foo_playcount.dll (2013-02-01 08:40:46 UTC) Playback Statistics 3.0.2 foo_rgscan.dll (2016-03-30 11:44:24 UTC) ReplayGain Scanner 2.2.2 foo_ui_std.dll (2017-07-10 05:22:34 UTC) Default User Interface 0.9.5 foo_uie_albumlist.dll (2019-03-27 01:57:17 UTC) Album list panel 0.3.7 foo_unpack.dll (2017-07-10 05:22:22 UTC) ZIP/GZIP/RAR Reader 1.8 foo_vis_shpeck.dll (2009-09-28 09:32:16 UTC) Shpeck - Winamp vis plugins wrapper 0.3.7 foo_vis_vumeter.dll (2019-03-27 02:02:04 UTC) VU Meter 2013-02-16 Probably a few Foobar components that need updating but it's all good on my old HD540 Ref IIs and the Grados I use for daily listening. As far as the comparison between rips and physical media I'd add that its all dependent on your source, how you rip and the fault tolerances of your disc spinner. I've been happy that I ripped some out of print DVD-As which were damaged by my kids when they were very young. I used an old Sony BLuRay player to rip my SACD collection and that produced pretty good results with the SACD plugin. With EAC, Exact Audio Copy, you can confirm that the rip is bit for bit identical to the original disc using their online checksum database so there's no issues with mis tracking, scratches and fingermarks or with anything more complex coming from even the best CD transport that is spinning a defective disc.
@@donpayne1040 there are plenty of higher sample rate/bit depth discs available that have been taken back to the good old days before the loundness wars. So in some cases you should get superior fidelity from these than from the CDs. Never mind the downloadable content from some labels that will be as good as you can hope to get by spinning any disc on any player with no marks, scratches and other effects to get in the way of extracting that musical data.
One of my experiences that I have had with comparing CDs to hard drives is that certain electric guitar sounds can sound completely off. One example is that if a guitar sounds like it’s trying to mimic a windshield wiper, then it will sound like a siren on the hard drive. If the electric guitar sounds like an ascending slide whistle, then it might sound more like a kazoo, followed by a really loud POP!
Ripping is not the same thing as copying. These days there is rarely a need to rip something. Most copy protection mechanisms have been broken so you simply make bit perfect copies. Ripping was commonly used decades ago and typically involved resampling from the analog output stage.
If you're playing the CD through your player, or a DAC that is connected to it with an RCA or optical cable, and you're listening to the ripped CD through your computer's internal audio output, you're not making a fair comparison. The DAC in the computer likely isn't as good. Better DAC options for computers are available. One is to build a system around a motherboard with a high quality DAC. You can also use an audio interface on a PCI Express card that plugs into the computer, or that sits outside the computer and connects via USB. (Other ways are available on older computers.) Some of those are very good indeed. I use an MOTU M4 for my listening, which is also a recording interface, but in the $250 price class it's a good choice for listening. (PS Audio, the makers of this video, makes some excellent DACs that would sound even better, but they all cost far more than $250!) My ripped CDs sound BETTER than if I listen through the player -- but that's because computer listening is my priority, I only have a basic CD player. For a true apples to apples comparison, you could get a DAC that has both a USB input for connecting to a computer and an S/PDIF or Toslink port for connecting to a CD transport. That would let you listen to your physical and ripped CDs through the same listening chain.
If you ripped the CD correctly (bit perfect) and use the same DAC for both the FLAC/WAV file and the CD, there is no reason why one should sound different from the other.
Other elements in the audio chain can have an impact including cables and the quality of the playback server. For example a dedicated source such as an Aurender will sound far superior to any PC due to its design.
@@BradfordWarner unless you can back that up with actual science it just sounds to me like you're trying to justify spending big bucks on something you didn't need in the first place.
If you take common mode noise out of the equation you might be right. Problem is, a computer has allot more common mode noise which distorts the dac. Pretty good measurable as well.
not only that, many "onboard" audio devices are subject to power interference as they are on the same board as the power and battery for the computer. the traces could go near enough that this can cause interference. its always best to use an external USB Audio card/DAC so you get the audio processing components as far from the main board as possible. also not all audio cards are built equally (just like any equiment) and the freebie onboard audio that came with your PC is unlikely to be a high quality audio output device.
CD ripping should be done with EAC (free) or DBPOWERAMP (more convenient) as both programs are bit-perfect. Then the PC should be connected to an external DAC and the music should be played via the ASIO driver to be installed. My experience is that the sound is then in no way inferior to the CD.
The Naim HDX which is no longer in production but acailabke pre loved, for me still has the the ultimate ripping algorithm and you don't have the issue of ripping and playback from a noisy useless PC
Internal computer sound cards are not the best quality. The best results will be obtained with an external DAC, or with a really good internal separate sound card.
If Murat is using his computer's built-in DAC, then that is his problem. He would know, if he is connecting his computer to his pre-amp (or receiver) with RCA cables. If he is, then that is the problem. Murat needs to connect his computer to a stand-alone DAC, via a digital out from his computer. His CD player might accept a digital input from his computer's digital output. Better yet, Murat should connect his computer's digital out to a stand-alone transport, via a digital out from his computer, and then go from his transport to his DAC. -- Testing the quality of his rips: Murat can test his ripping quality, to confirm whether or not that process is degrading the sound quality, by doing the following: 1) Rip some songs. 2) Burn those ripped songs to a blank CD. 3) Play that CD (on his better sounding CD player -- not on his computer's built-in CD tray) and compare its sound quality to the original CD's sound quality. My money is on the two CDs (original and burned) sounding identical. With that determination, Murat needs to find another way to have his computer output a digital stream directly to a transport or (if a transport is too expensive, then) to a DAC. He must not use the analog outputs from his computer. I use JRiver's Media Center. it offers "Volume Leveling". Never use volume leveling. It doubles as distortion adding. To adjust the volume of songs, use your pre-amp's volume control. I guess that if you are burning a CD to play in your car, and sound quality is not critical (especially if the songs are not mastered right to begin with), then you can use volume leveling. On a mass produced system, with nothing special sound quality, volume leveling will probably not be noticed (in terms of degrading the sound quality). But for your entire collection of ripped songs, do not use volume leveling. That edits the bits that make up the song. It modifies the file. It can not improve the sound quality. It will definitely diminish the sound quality. Back to JRiver's Media Center... It does a very good job in isolating your computer's digital output's controller, to have that controller dedicate its resources to provide a bit-perfect data stream to your transport or DAC. It will sync to your DAC's clock. Cheers!
Even my low-budget Steinberg UR12 DAC sounds quite reasonable compared to the on-board chip. Unfortunately my Parasound ZDAC decided to quit on me and now I'm looking for something more decent. Am in doubt between the Denafrips Pontus and the Audio Note DAC 0.1x, or just sell all my gear and just go for a Buchardt A500 with hub.
My question would be, how are you getting the audio out of the computer? Via the headphone jack to headphones, or to an amp via line in? I would be surprised if the DAC and other audio components on a computer are anywhere as good as a professional CD player in an audio system.
@@axelBr1 😂 I know that Alex - there'll be op amps on the sound card and op amps on the motherboard. And you're right: The onboard circuits don't sound very good at all. On my gaming rig, I use an outboard Asus sound card via USB. For my music however, I stream my ripped images directly to my receiver and let the receiver do all the playback. I only use the PC to create the sound images, I then tell Windows what bit depth/frequency to output and my hi-fi does the rest. Don't worry Alex, I've been ripping/copying CD's since Windows 98! 👍❤
@@Elst07896 I'm not an audio buff, although in 1990 I saved up my first couple of pay cheques to buy a Phillips multi-CD player, (probably not HiFi) and a Denon amp and Marantz speakers. I'm not a gamer either, but pretty sure a HiFi amp is going to cost a lot more than an average motherboard, and certainly more that the audio chip set on the motherboard. I agree with you, the data coming off a ripped CD should be the same as an original CD, (for the same encoding parameters), but expecting it to sound the same on a PC as via a HiFi CD player and amp is unrealistic. Although, I'm more than happy listening to my ripped CDs on headphones on my Mac 😉
@@axelBr1 A Denon amp and Marantz speakers?! And you say you're not an audio buff? I'll not believe it Alex! 😂❤ To be fair to you though, in my case the actual listening is done through the receiver. As mentioned, I use the PC to rip/copy the CD image then stream it out - the PC plays no part in the DAC and ultimate output to the power amps. So, from that point you are quite correct: PC playback and dedicated Hi-Fi playback is/are definitely two different things. 👍
If you could, use always wasapi exclusive. Qobuz has this as a build-in feature and, yes, you'll hear the difference. Also the dac on your mainboard is not suited. Use an external dac and then you encounter real cd-quality. Decent speakers are also mandatory. Qobuz uses .flac and this is 100% lossless.
Can of worms? Just some of my info; I use a Toughbook laptop for audio / video / office work / photography, everything. It is copper stereo and video connected to my a/v system. With software the total can set you back $6,000. It is also a digital A/V production studio. Nero software is used for audio editing and video conversion to other formats. Nero is not expensive. It can take a CD with digital errors and usually correct them while making a bit duplicate CD image to a hard drive. How does it sound? Usually better than a cheap CD player. Equal to a high end component. With 4 processors at 3.2 ghz each, 8 gb ram, hi-fi HD audio card, and VLC player supporting LAME encoding, yes. It sounds fantastic. It should. So your player is very important. Good video.
I can't be bothered to go through that again my comment fell to post, I don't know if it's PS audio blocking it or what? I have said before People not getting the message.
It's impossible to analyse why you are hearing this, because you have not provided enough information. Firstly if you are playing your stored audio files, what are you playing them back on? Pointless to even try to hazard a guess what your issue is.
Or, it is a lot simpler: the DAC and amplifier part of the CD player is different than on the streaming device. Try connect the CD player via digital cables to the streaming device (if possible) and compare that to the CD player output. If it sounds just as worse as from the computer, than the computer and ripping is all right, just the DAC part is worse on the streaming device.
Is it possible that he's using the computer's DAC and feeding the analag into his amp? I use a digital output and feed that to my external dac and then into my amp.
You could buy an external sound card to plug into the USB port on your computer. There are many on the market from different manufacturers and price ranges. It bypasses the internal computer sound card. I have a El Cheap o one I bought many Moons ago. Make sure you get any updates for it before you use it.
He is hardly using the CD player’s DAC (as CD players often have SPDIF outputs but almost never network or SPDIF input ports) when he streams the ripped music. So, the root cause is highly probable the different DAC and not snake-oil-reasons such as network transport or so...
To me this question sounds like he is playing the cd from cd player right! But he is "playin" the harddrive from a computer mabey he use the same DAC for booth transports but if that is the case then his computer probably is the badguy here! Because his compuer/server is noicey and not properly built for music playback with a noisey swithmode powersuppley, slow processor, no (SLC-SSD) with a OCXO clock crystal, no ecc ram, no dedicated usb card with separet lpsu connected with a bad usb cable to the DAC ore DDC, not playing in a low latency Operating system not opimsed his bios etc.. Could this be his problem mabey?
If I understood that question properly the person who asked compared apples and oranges. Like playback through sound module on mainboard (maybe some Realtek ALC DAC chipset) on the one hand and CD player's internal DAC on the other hand. Therefore he seems to lack the basic knowledge to benefit from Paul's answer.
A ripped CD played on a high end Aurender server sounds worlds better than a CD player... why you ask? A lot has to do with much improved power supplies as well as much, much lower jitter conversion noise.
Hello Paul, not sure I agree entirely. The audio software in Windows is very mature - I play audio through HDMI and I assure you, the sound is first class! There isn't a CD player that could ever beat the mechanical integrity of the classic hard drive (HDD), or none that I'm aware of anyway. To my mind, what you rip to HDD should match the source CD exactly. EAC? 👍 I also suspect playback. The OP might want to tell Windows exactly what it is he's doing: Press Win + R to open the Run command, then type mmsys.cpl, highlight the default device > Properties > Advanced > then select the correct bit depth and frequency: 16 bit 44100hz should do the trick. Windows will output his wav.file to his processor in CD 'mode' and believe me, he WILL notice the difference! The sound's a lot more disciplined and focussed - not as 'splashy' as say 16 bit 48000hz which is the bandwidth for higher definition audio. He might want to Configure his speaker set up too (same file path) - you'd be shocked as to how many still have their 'stereo' in 5.1! Apologies if either of you know this already - I'm guilty sometimes of spouting off without thinking. Give it a shot - let me know what you think. From The UK With Love. 👍
@@DJust-bv1sb Not sure I get that. How would it add noise? The pick up heads read 1s and 0s magnetically - any noise picked up via the heads could only be through the poor mechanical quality of the HDD and as I've mentioned before, the build quality of some the HDDs today are first class. If there's noise in the playback, it had to have been put there in the first place. 🤷♂
@@Elst07896 What you say is true. I havent studied it enough. A while back Paul & many others says downloads not as good as cds. Paul said WAV better than FLAC. What little experience I have shows all above is true.
Some software bug could be at play if the exact same data to the same DAC sound different. More likely it’s about our brain making us feel a difference.
Yes definitely that is a common case. Sample rate conversion to 48kHz of 44.1kHz is super common in modern audio gear. Phones, cars, smart speakers and other digital audio gear often run at 48kHz also.
The Creative Sound Blaster Z has an amazing sounding DAC, if you know how to add it to your computer (or can get someone to add it for you). It's a sound card. Yes, you heard me: A sound card, in this day and age. A good gamer knows a graphics card is better than onboard graphics. Well Mr. I Love Music And Always Have here found out that, yes, a dedicated sound card sounds way better than the crappy onboard audio. And Creative are still making cards under the Sound Blaster banner. And man does the current Z series sound great! 🎶🎵🎶
It's Istanbul. It hasn't been called Constantinople for nearly 100 years now. I mean, if you're gonna deadname it, why don't you just call it Byzantium?
@@Thomas_A_H I use that too, with all the plug-ins but WASAPI sometimes causes problems with some songs. Also on very rare occasions when I use it the settings for my DAC get reset to the most basic settings. with lowest bitrate and sample rate etc.
@@MarcelNL never had such problems (flac/wav/mp3/ogg with various bitrates and sample rates) using different DACs and one DDC. I had one DAC crashing from time to time, but that was a bug in the DAC's firmware. I no longer use an ASIO driver (I now play DSD only via streamer or DAP), but (apart from that one DAC) that never caused problems either (except making foobar's list of output devices longer). I use a bunch of plugins, too, but maybe you have one that causes issues?
@@Thomas_A_H Thanks for the lengthy reply! :) It's only WASAPI that causes these problems. I'll later check which exact MP3's or FLAC files can't be played with it. Anyway, I do want to replace this cheap dac some day soon. Maybe that will solve the problem. It's decent for its price but it clearly is one of the weaker links in my audio system.
I have had the best results playing wave files through an SSD and my streamer device I would say it sounds better than CD more relaxed yet as dynamic and detailed.
Far as I'm aware EAC doesn't work with Apple devices - I use dBpoweramp and create FLAC and WAV imports of CDs. Stored on a NAS drive then played through my BlueSound Node (2021) there's no noticeable difference between my SACD/CD player and the Node.
What about the quality of the sound card itself? Not every chip is the same, not to mention the design of the audio circuit electronics - capacitors, signal isolation, frequency response, noise etc.
Hey Paul, you are very relaxing and just want to know what you're going to say just like in the '80s. What kind of sweater wear in the Cosby show that weekHey you set the tone and we all want to know what a guy with that much history is going to say it's enticing and downright fun! Keep it up. You got it. You got that knack. Keep it up. Thank you! 0:02
On the contrary, ripped CD's don't sound better than the original CD. An investigator analysed CD rippers - especially EAC - and found that the digital offset used by all rippers causes a difference. That difference is the audible difference that many people hear after they rip a CD to a hardrive. Unfortunately, that difference is actually distortion. It happens to be a kind of distortion that many listeners like - including you - Paul McGowan, according to your own internet statement. It's similar to a small amount of IM distortion that analog open reel tape recorders introduce, which many people hear as an increase in harmonic richness. CD ripping adds distortion nonetheless. It's a tiny amount - just enough to sound a tiny bit better - but "better" to many listeners [such as you]. It's too bad that you, Paul McGowan, are just as susceptible to distortion as the average audio-blasting honcho.
Despite the fact they are bit for bit identical? That doesn't make sense. If you're going to quote "an investigator" please give us a link to that information so we may judge for ourselves. I can tell you that in my work of many years, there are no measurable difference on our AP equipment (sensitive down to crazy low levels for both IM and THD) as well as passing bit perfect tests with known data.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio @Howard Thelman - Paul is right here, of course. Ripping a disc and using the AccurateRip database (which EAC and XLD does) to confirm a bit-perfect rip means that the rip from disc is 100% bit accurate to the source. From there, the information on disc and the information on hard drive are identical, and there is no induced distortion. Any argument counter to that is null. AccurateRip database is open and crowd-sourced and this is how we know as rippers that we're doing it right. If EAC compares your rip to the AccurateRip database, and sees that your rip matches the hundreds of other rips assumed to be accurate, then it has to be accurate. You and I could have identical rips, but the chances that our rips perfectly match the database and are wrong are so infinitesimally small, we'd win a bunch of lotteries before we'd confirm that. So then from there it's about how to transfer those bits to a DAC. I use JRiver which, as Paul says in the video, bypasses the computer's control for bit rate and sample rate and commandeers that to provide a bit-perfect transfer to the DAC. Paul could also have mentioned that by using one of PS Audio's Directstream DACs, you can test this with their Bit Perfect test files. Load up the test file into the playback software, play it out to the DAC, and the DAC will light up that it is receiving the test with perfect accuracy. Then you know you have configured your computer playback system exactly and can be assured that you are listening to the DAC at its best.
Big endian AIFF produces less jitter and latency. Big endian AIFF or MKA runs fine with my preferred settings, while WAV ends up creating a buffer underrun. I assume it's due to WAV's less straightforward file format. I use StaxRip to remux videos and Fre:ac (SndFile) for audio.
I don't understand how there can be enough errors when ripping a CD to cause any reduction in sound quality. Are CDs/CD drives really that prone to errors ? A few dropped bits here and there might cause audible issues, but only at the point of the incorrect data
I have a CD with some incorrectible errors on it according to EAC. I listened to the tracks with focus on the exact locations of these errors and surprisingly couldn't hear anything suspicious. I expected sizzles, crackling or pops but nothing. Would have never noticed it if EAC hadnot told me.
@@KingKong-mp6gj If there's an isolated bit error, it's not really surprising that it's inaudible to the human ear. At 1411kbps, one incorrect bit is a tiny fraction of a second. If there are a number of bit errors close together, then it will be audible.
I've noticed the same thing. Years ago. And went into my settings in the control sound panel and switched it from ears to full range speakers. And also make sure you have the settings in your computer as to channel. Then you can go into another category and set your bits 24-bit. But where I noticed the biggest difference was switching it from here to full range and the computer. Hope that helps.
He could do a simple test. Write wav back to CDR and compare original and CDR on his CD-deck. If quality is the same then ripping process was not the problem.
How can a copy be better than the original?!
@@Coneman3 Same, not better. Also copy must not be worse, copy must be exactly the same as the original.
Correct. Then the difference is down to the quality of playback whether CD or hard drive. Some think streaming or hard drive surpasses CD, can’t see how that’s possible, unless CD transport is crap.
@@Coneman3 Thats besides the point. Viewer wanted to know if ripping process changed anything. If you write ripped wav back to CD and listen it on the same CD-deck then you are comparing original and the ripped copy on the same CD transport. If the original and copy sounds the same then ripping process is not the problem.
1) Right Click on your Speaker Icon. Chose "Open Volume Mixer". Click on the Speaker Icon. Click on the Advanced Tab, and Select the desired Rate. Its also in the Control Panel, under Sound.
2) Many Audio Players have their own built in EQ. You might need to turn them off, or adjust them to your liking.
3) Certain Audio Chips, or Soundcard Software... have their own Mixer Software + EQ. Check these settings, and adjust.
4) A dedicated Sound-Card... will Always sound superior to Built-in Motherboard Chip Audio (onboard sound chip).
In either case.. With either Onboard sound, or an Installed Soundcard sound... Ive Always had to adjust the EQ settings. On soundblaster cards, I always needed to raise the Bass and Treble levels. On Onboard-Sound... I had to create a custom EQ pattern. Onboard EQ settings.. have been very "Glitchy", in my experience. If you raise certain bars enough... it takes away from other bars (not graphically... but in what you actually hear). This likely has to do with Onboard audio Chips being Low-power, and having to divide and balance the output levels. That doesnt happen on Dedicated soundcards.
5) If your PC lacks EQ software settings... Download a good Software EQ program. Currently Ive been using "PC Equalizer Free". However, Im sure there are many others that are great / superior.
6) Use EAC (Exact Audio Copy) to Rip your CDs. Select the Slowest CD speed, and choose the most Accurate Settings for the Rip. I believe EAC runs multiple reads of the same tracks, and tries to make sure that any errors are eliminated / corrected, with those extra reads. At the end of each RIP, it will specify any errors, among other details about the Rip.
7) Ive personally had a lot of issues with Auto-Labeling programs... So you will likely have best results in hand-typing each track name, into your Rips. Ive had these programs put the wrong data on some / all of my ripped audio tracks / files. And or, they would put excessive data in... that I didnt want added.
I prefer the label format of: Artists Name, Album Name, Track Number (double digits 01,02...etc), Track Name. Though, it can make filenames a bit long.
Ty you John. I just set up a windows machine. I haven't used windows in ages and had forgotten this setting.
Apparently it's still too much to expect Windows, in 2023, to have made this simpler.
Redundant audio re-synching is a good option when ripping from any CD rom that has flaws or damage, as it takes the ripped data as it tries to read over multiple passes and then keeps the ‘redundant’ data from comparison since that’s probably how it really is on the disk.
If anything errorless ripped files could sound better... There's no jitter or distortion playing back a .wav or .flac, where that is a potential issue w/ CD transports.
You're still using a transport, the computer CD drive, for ripping. Which things would still apply? Jitter? Anything else?
@@purpleghost4083 Nothing you're reading bits and with ExactAudioCopy + AccurateRip, you're getting perfect copy unless the media is damaged.
The other issue could be if USB is being used from the computer and there is no galvanic separation noise from the computer can be impacting the quality of the playback
I had an Aurender A30 which Rips CDs to WAV files into its hard drive and used my Luxman D-10X's DAC and nope, the A30 wasn't quite as close to the D-10X's CD playback. I traded it in for an Aurender N20 and it has a way better and isolated audio section than the A30 and the N20 is so much better and closer to the D-10X's playback in both ripping and streaming.
I use a PlayStation 2 as a transport direct into a schiit modi 3+ and I can concur that any cd sounds slightly more alive & more dynamic than the exact copy ripped into WAV or any other high fidelity file. These digital copies are played by Audirvana on a MacBook Pro using bit perfect playback & using the top level of importance selected for the program to quiet down all other needless computer noise & resources. - also goes into the exact same DAC bypassing the internals of the mac sound circuitry
EAC (Exact Audio Copy) as Paul mentioned does a good job for ripping CDs. Foobar2000 is a good player. Using this combo and a Cambridge Audio DACMagic 100 as test setup, I found no significant difference between playing ripped FLAC files or the CD. The DACMagic 100 is comparable to the DAC in the CD player I used. Upgrading to a RME ADI-2 FS DAC, playing the Flac files sounds better, so with the tests and the ripping process completed and the Flac files backed up, I can get rid of the CDs.
By the way, Foobar2000 has a nice feature: it's portable, which means it does everything in its own folder on the computer. It's not installed in the classic sense. This way it's easy to move or copy a foobar2000 setup with all settings and playlists to another computer.
+1 for Foobar
Did you try taking the digital output from cdplayer to RME? If not that could be interesting.
I happen own that amazing RME too.
@@myself61607 I did, both coaxial and optical. Just for curiosity because my goal is to go computer file-based source only. Same result.
@@colanitower I wish you good luck.
Recently I replaced my dedicated streamer from 2014 for a music server and bridge supplied by Pachanko Labs, a great improvement.
@@myself61607 I had to look up Pachanko Labs. It looks like they assemble great stuff, much like Grimm Audio of the Netherlands. I like these smaller brands. Another one is Estelon of Estonia who build speakers. I heard a pair of Estelons at an audio show. That's mostly not the best place to really listen to music, but the Estelons blew me away.
which programs is Paul referring to, without doing so directly? Roon or Audirvana? I am curious.
My player (Marantz Sacd 30n) can play both CDs and files from ssd. It's the best file player I've ever had and a huge step above using a PC to play files. Other file players I've had played files soundingly worse than CDs on the same dac. On this Marantz player files sound very near to CDs, that's the first time for me. But CDs still play better.
It is not the computer but the audiocard that is responsible for the sound. Investing in a home studio quality external sound card will solved the problem. Focusrite, SSL Universal Audio or even Steinberg.
Good morning Paul ☕️☕️
I’ve “simplified” my set up…
Cd 💿 player , Streamer , BT ..ect all get fed into my DAC then to
my headphone stack.
Would I one day rip my cd’s to a central drive …possibly..but that’s a lot work ..but who knows .
Simplicity has its advantages.
Great video.☕️🍕👍
I2S vs USB??
I've noticed "CDs sound better than on a hard drive" but that has to be qualified...
Firstly, as Paul says, the playback chain makes a big difference, example, the CD's DAC versus the 'other' DAC.
Then there is also the question of resolution. I've noticed that at CD resolution 16/44, yes, my CD player sounds better but if, say, a 24/96 stream is available, the result tilts towards the stream (ie, or hard disk).
You MUST run everything through the same DAC. with the same CD or the test is invalid!!
The playback chain makes a big difference. Then there is something in the playback chain that changes the sound!
@@ford1546 If you have a digital out from your CD player, you can reduce that variable.
(I don't.)
@@bossybill7437
Okay Then you can't compare. That will be completely wrong. All digital audio products have their own DAC. different DACs. has a different sound.
If a CD player does not have a digital output, there is often a cheaper CD player you have!
@@ford1546 I think there's a crossed wire somewhere. See ya.
@@bossybill7437 There are bigger differences in the sound between different DACs. than what many people think.
Where CDs can sound better, is that a good audio cd player has a secondary bitstream from the transport of confidence in the bit. That allows for sub-sample interpolation to recreate data from scratches, where a computer cd rip only has the whole block of 588 samples and some FEC to work with.
The problem is common mode noise. The computer has allot more and that distorts the dac.
Here's the problem I have had with my ripped music since Windows 7, when I adjust the EQ, increasing frequency the music starts sounding like a cassette tape that has been left out in the sun in a car with the window's closed. The sound drops and sounds muffled and wavy. Windows XP, did not do this when adjusting the EQ. It was like adjusting a physical graphic equalizer.
I strted using Swinsian 9Mac only)on my mac Mini years ago because it bypasses the mac audio engine and is very minimalist in the way it works. It's just a front end that presents a table of all the music files and allows you to sort them as you wish. They just released a v3.0 that sounds like it will be a little more consumerish so for now I'll stick with the older v2.3.till I find out exactly what v3.0 is doing with the misic stream.
What i suggest doing is simply just hook up externaly a cd player in spdif to a nice dac then wire it to a good pre amp and reduce the pre amp to -3 db then send the signal to the imput of the 32 bit sound card and have windows input set to 32 88khz and remove the checkbox "allow extra signal processing".
Then finally in Audacity after setting your out and in to match your soundcard input..do a test at 100% input signal recording with a music that has high high signals like guitar rifts and so on..then test it at around 85% in audacity and see which sounds best. 85% should do the trick.
Wonder if its a difference with which DAC is being used from one playback vs the other?
Hi Paul, as a follow up question to your video.... Can Audivana, VOX, Amarra Luxe and Pine player outperform that of a traditional CD transport?
Yeah, EAC is a bit of a chore to setup, takes about 8 minutes and then there''s no reason for a rip to be worse than the cd, unless talking computer hardware stuff.
When disable stuff like c2c corrections, have drive tuned via AccuRip etc.. the output .wav / .flac is bit perfect, any issues having after is with the chain.
He, you do not mention what DAC is being used during computer playback? Hopefully not some internal one, line out of some PC? Perhaps he needs a good DAC?
I spent years in the early 2000’s trying to “better” the sound of a Cary 306 CD player using Computer Audio - never succeeded!! Learned a lot though🧠💿💻👍!! The Problems were: the Cary was built like a tank with a very rigid and strong transport, multiple Burr Brown DAC Chips in parallel, multiple isolated power supplies, and a rock solid analog output stage = cannot be beaten with Computer Trickery!! Fast forward to 2024 and I no longer have the Cary to compare - but - my current Computer setup sound is excellent. Is it better? Dunno🤷♂ It is Damn good, and the cost of a CD player that is demonstrably better than my old Cary is too high for me to do anything about it. Key for me was clean power at every step in the chain - and - squeaky clean USB interface. I use a DAC with multiple Burr Brown DAC Chips in parallel - and yes - I use EAC and WASAPI. No processing of Audio in the Computer, just file playback through the DAC. Thinking of moving to a MAC Mini with external SSD Storage
Usb out to a Chord Mojo 2, using wasapi and you're golden.
Your computer probably has a switching power supply and you are sending the signal via a crumby ethernet cable and cheap switches. A transport, even a basic transport and DAC usually sounds better because you don't get the 50hz (or 60hz) hum from the power and you have far better connections. It is almost like they designed them to play music well!
IMHO: You need a decent! DAC. When ripping is not the problem (with EAC it is likely not!) analog signal generation is. Your PC sound generation facilities are likely not optimized for HQ audio replay. Your CD player likely is. The digital signal is all 1001101001 and all the same, but the electronics is not. There is a great video explaining this here:
ua-cam.com/video/TAOLGsS27R0/v-deo.html
Paul, I think you say this somehow between the lines, but I just wanted to make it clear (I guess you are assuming a good DAC :) and not your PC line-out jack).
"One of those programs"...
Fubar2000
foobar2000 😀
Didn’t use to be, now it’s a user nightmare.
I encounter the exact same problem.
Paul's solution was vague. Is the problem with the media player inside a Windows based computer, or the operating system? I am using VLC player which sounds better than Windows media player, unless it is my brain fooling myself.
Why do CDs sound better than any streaming service? Even on the best network with a decent streamer. It doesn't sound better than when I play a CD. Im confused 🤔
Isn't this the case of cd Redbook standard and cd yellow standard non compliance in the cd ROM of computer?
Correct me if wrong but yellow book doesn't fully support cd Redbook files.
AFAIK the Redbook is for the original CD-DA specifications, i.e. regular audio CDs, and Yellowbook is for CD-ROMs and data. There are some mixed mode CDs, with Redbook audio and Yellowbook CD-ROM data as separate sessions. Audio only players ignore the second CD-ROM data session, while computers with multi-session CD-ROM drives can usually use both.
You need a decent soundcard. I use a Creative external sound"box" and use Steinberg Wavelab to record records and clean them up with Wavelab. It sounds better than the record when I put it on CD or playback with Wavelab.
Nice. I have heard some vinyl rips that were done with new records and I could not tell a difference between them and the digital version, no click and pops and a somewhat warmer tonality forever in the flac file.
My thoughts exactly.
Right on!
I definitely prefer listening to CDs in my truck as opposed to bluetooth. My CDs definitely sound better.
Audiophiles, whatever else you do, be sure to get a bit-perfect rip, in other words, when Paul mentions "Apple", don't even consider using iTunes for ripping. It's using error correction, isn't even attempting to get a bit-perfect rip. That's why it's so fast, and also why it'll rip scratched CDs (actually, that might be it's only purpose: if it's otherwise impossible to rip an old out-of-print album). There are several free apps that do the same Exact Audio Copy (what Paul likes) uses on a Windows computer, e.g. XLD, sACT and probably others. All those use Accurate Rip, comparing PCM word cross total (digit sum) to an online database, and if needed, retrying damaged sectors multiple times until the rip is accurate, and these apps will tell you if the rip was bit-perfect and in which tracks it wasn't etc. Once one has that covered, the real fun (computer audio playback) begins!
That error correction is an integral part of the CD, and it is quite foolproof and does not change the end result.
@@Sonnell Be sure to make a comparison rip and if you cannot hear a difference, good for you, as you're either an engineer working for Apple and/or listening on an iPod. 99% of people reading my post are probably audiophiles, so to those, please remember those apps that'll provide bit-perfect copies are for free (maybe with the exception of Paul's EAC), so be sure not miss out on the sonic difference. Needless to say, if bit-perfect rips didn't sound better, those alternative ripping programs wouldn't exist, and for convenience alone, we'd all be using iTunes. But 20 years down the road, when someone is asking you for a bit-perfect rip of a dear to someone's heart out-of-print CD, don't be surprised if tears are being shed when all you have is an iTunes rip…
@@LeonFleisherFan Hm, I sense some unrequested emotions behind your message. Be sure that I am writing pro audio software since more than 20 years, and if you get some difference then that was due to a very crappy CD or drive or something like that.
And I would love to make a blind test with you and with the audiophile people, be sure most of you would fail them.
I always forget not to talk to "audiophiles" :)
@@SonnellSoftware engineer? If so, chances are I know (much) more about blind and double blind testing (a few hundred, possibly thousands, professionally and as a hobbyist). Even if you don't care to listen to the difference, or don't currently own a system on which it's audible, don't forget it can take true music lovers (= audiophiles) weeks and months to rip a sizable collection. The difference between a bit-perfect and an iTunes rip is not of the sort where you'll ever find a single person who prefers the iTunes rip on a great-sounding system. Occasionally someone who cannot or refuses (engineer = self-fulfilling prophesy) to hear a difference, but even my 90-year-old dad used the exact same attributes as everyone else (blind or double blind), which is the iTunes rip sounds "curiously bland", "muted", "unengaging" etc. The apps I recommended are for free, the time people invest in ripping their collection is NOT, so don't patronize others to the extent where they'll have to repeat the process only because you believe you know something (which clearly, you don't). Not saying you're hard of hearing or not smart enough, but it would appear you're suffering from conditioning by job and/or education. Try to muster some scientific curiosity and listen yourself. If not, scrutinize your motives for posting your opinion at all, and the consequences this is going to have on others. You're literally not doing anyone a favor, not going to save them any time or money by giving them the wrong advice. I'll stop my rant here. Happy holiday!
@@LeonFleisherFan Lol, omg... amazing, I did not know you are half god, who knows what I know, and who will tell me what I do not know, and who is capable to judge me, and who thinks can judge anyone. (!)
You are truly a god like person. I envy you.
"The CD Sound is always better" can be:
The DAC used is different (Internal of CP player vs the external DAC he's using)
Bad ripping software, bad settings
PC/Mac audio engine not properly set for direct audio streaming to DAC
EAC ripping is not "so close", it's identical if the media isn't corrupt.
Ha ha ha, "the transport in out CD sounds significantly better than anything that we would stream"! I challenge you on this with blind testing anytime with identical source media!
Last thing, don't waste space with WAV, use FLAC, it's lossless! I repeat, LOSSLESS! The peddlers think there's difference, there isn't whatsoever.
I do a lot of RIPPING. --- I don't know if this is a solution, but I mostly use a BLU-RAY Player (the most modern I can find) and simply attach my HD to the USB in of the Player.
.... To be honest I do use a crappy computer too & I've never found anything from a program playing the files or in the computer to tell the computer what 24/44 or 24/96 I should be using. MOSTLY the streamers (blu-ray/computer) either will play the HIGHER RES or they wont'.... which seems to be my biggest problem. - m.
Probably because computer soundcards arent even in the same league as a decent amplifier
This is rather vague. The file format does not matter at all, but compression degrades the signal quality. AAC, MP3, FLAC, WAV, whatever file format you use, they are all very similar quality at a high enough bitrate, just don’t compress your audio (too much).
Also, don’t rip through the analog chain, some audiophools believe it is better to rip CD’s from the audio out/sound in ports but this introduces all kind of artifacts, some softwareworks like this because the makers were too lazy to do anything beyond patching the output.
Your CD mechanism has very little to do with sonic quality, audio engine is not a thing except in Digidesign software, your audio chip/processor/software will not up/down convert any signal that is already at a compatible samplerate, and the real problem is the two cent DA converters in your PC that sound like wet eggcartons, versus the two dollar DA converters in your audio system that are neatly shielded and sound like DA converters.
Don`t know if its mentioned, but the most important thing when ripping a cd, is to do that right. Use a player for the ripping that can read as slow as possible. 4x is fine! When I use max speed wich is extremely fast, it sounds much vorse than with the slowest ripping speed. If your player doesn`t let you rip very slow, buy one that does! These players are cheap. A perfectly ripped cd shall sound better than a cd. A cd player delivers the 0 and 1 data with a spinning disc. And that spin is not perfect. The high-end cd players cost very much, mostly because of the advanced drive unit. To deliver the data as steady as possible. When ripped to a harddrive, there is no unsteady spin, the data is delivered totally steady and gives max sound quality. And of course, use a proper dac in a receiver or in a regular amplifier or a dedicated standalone Dac.
Your logic is screwy. You say to rip at as slow a speed as possible, and that 4x is fine. You also say that a perfectly ripped CD will sound better than the CD played on a CD player, because the CD player spin is not perfect. Then you say that when you rip to a hard drive there's no unsteady spin - it's totally steady.
So, to sum it up, rip a spinning disc as slow as possible (a faster 4x is ok) because it's more steady than a CD player spinning the disc at 1x.
Like I said, logic is screwy.
@@purpleghost4083 Maybe it is beyond your understanding? The ripped data is steady delivered from a harddisk without the unsteady drive in a cd player. Or maybe even better from a usb or a ssd. Don`t even need a high end stereo to hear the difference in sound.
@@juniore159 So how is it getting on to the hard drive? With a CD player - aka a computer CD drive. What you have failed to include is why a faster spinning computer CD drive is better than a normal spinning CD player that has unsteady spin. Why doesn't the computer CD drive have the same unsteady spin as the CD player? The 1x speed CD player could be more steady than the 4x speed computer CD drive. The computer CD drive still has to read and deliver the data to the hard drive. Maybe it is beyond your understanding?
@@purpleghost4083 You sound very slow. But thanks for making it clear for everyone that this is out of your understanding. Have a nice day!
@@juniore159 You did a masterfully bad job of what you were saying and didn't include anything to back it up. You can't even understand the relevance of the valid points I made or questions posed. That makes it clear for everyone how slow you are and that you really have no clue.
But they dont😢
Try SSD
CD sounds better.
Than what?
SACD ripped to DSD? Audio DVD ripped to HDD?
Once I got my dacs to talk to my media pc then CD from my decent quality musical fidelity CD player was inferior. Using foobar 2000 with appropriate plugins and defeating the windows volume controls left it very sweet. Better than all of the CD players I've used in a similar price range.
@@CMDR_Hal_Melamby What plugins are you using for foobar?
@@CMDR_Hal_Melamby You're right, I guess. However from my POV, and from my approach in finding CD's that are not reissues - as a means of getting a sound that I like, leaves SACD, DSD and DVD out of the picture, for now.
Ripping these CD's with blemishes and defects increases error correction in windows which increases God knows what else. All i'm saying is that those defects, right now, for me, are better managed on the fly from a CD player.
Playing rips from a computer system is something I AM striving for but morphing my preference from disc playback to the cleanliness of server rips is at the extra cost of resurfacing CD's as a means to reduce extra noise introduced from the computer system itself - AM I WRONG???
Going back to just CD playback, listening to a resurfaced CD which is thin (weight) compared to an unresurfaced (thicker) one, despite the lack of jitter introduced from the clean surface, the thinner "clean" CD's sound...thinner.
For now, at least, the closest I seem to getting to the artist, baring in mind that I hunt EBAY for what I think are CD "originals" constantly (sometimes buying more than one), IS the the shortest path to the disc's data. This is NOT some back handed comment on the nature sublime sound achieved via PC. In MY case a well sourced CD does sound better than its 44khz 16BIT ripped counterpart..maybe I prefer the kind of noise it produces at-the-moment.
@@Yiannis2112 TO be fair it's been a while since my media PC was running as I've moved from the other side of the world and into a small space to help care for my aged parents (80 and 86 both with cancer). So the main system is in storage....
The laptop that is running sound via a Burson Audio headphone amp/dac is not on the same level but for what it's worth here are the components in the current Foobar 2000 install:
Core (2017-07-10 05:24:08 UTC)
foobar2000 core 1.3.16
foo_ac3.dll (2019-03-25 07:34:02 UTC)
AC3 decoder 0.9.13
foo_albumlist.dll (2017-07-10 05:22:48 UTC)
Album List 4.5
foo_cdda.dll (2017-07-10 05:22:22 UTC)
CD Audio Decoder 3.0
foo_converter.dll (2017-07-10 05:22:28 UTC)
Converter 1.5
foo_discogs.dll (2019-05-21 20:57:51 UTC)
Discogs Tagger 2.19
foo_dsd_processor.dll (2019-02-07 19:35:34 UTC)
DSD Processor 1.0.2
foo_dsp_eq.dll (2017-07-10 05:22:46 UTC)
Equalizer 1.2
foo_dsp_std.dll (2017-07-10 05:22:42 UTC)
Standard DSP Array 1.3.1
foo_dsp_xgeq.dll (2019-10-26 04:22:01 UTC)
Graphic Equalizer 0.3.7
foo_fileops.dll (2017-07-10 05:21:24 UTC)
File Operations 2.2.2
foo_freedb2.dll (2016-03-30 11:45:14 UTC)
Online Tagger 0.7
foo_httpcontrol.dll (2013-04-26 16:12:30 UTC)
HTTP Control 0.97.14-fb2kc
foo_input_dts.dll (2019-03-25 07:34:20 UTC)
DTS decoder 0.6.8
foo_input_dvda.dll (2012-03-16 04:30:28 UTC)
DVD-Audio Decoder and Watermark Detector 0.4.11
foo_input_monkey.dll (2019-05-17 11:18:41 UTC)
Monkey's Audio Decoder 2.2.3
foo_input_sacd.dll (2019-02-07 19:35:22 UTC)
Super Audio CD Decoder 1.0.11
foo_input_std.dll (2017-07-10 05:22:04 UTC)
FFmpeg Decoders 3.2.4
Standard Input Array 1.0
foo_musicbrainz.dll (2015-01-18 13:15:20 UTC)
MusicBrainz Tagger 0.3.1
foo_out_asio.dll (2019-04-10 02:06:23 UTC)
ASIO support 2.1.2
foo_out_upnp.dll (2019-03-07 12:01:36 UTC)
UPnP MediaRenderer Output 1.1
foo_out_wasapi.dll (2019-03-25 07:32:34 UTC)
WASAPI output support 3.3
foo_playcount.dll (2013-02-01 08:40:46 UTC)
Playback Statistics 3.0.2
foo_rgscan.dll (2016-03-30 11:44:24 UTC)
ReplayGain Scanner 2.2.2
foo_ui_std.dll (2017-07-10 05:22:34 UTC)
Default User Interface 0.9.5
foo_uie_albumlist.dll (2019-03-27 01:57:17 UTC)
Album list panel 0.3.7
foo_unpack.dll (2017-07-10 05:22:22 UTC)
ZIP/GZIP/RAR Reader 1.8
foo_vis_shpeck.dll (2009-09-28 09:32:16 UTC)
Shpeck - Winamp vis plugins wrapper 0.3.7
foo_vis_vumeter.dll (2019-03-27 02:02:04 UTC)
VU Meter 2013-02-16
Probably a few Foobar components that need updating but it's all good on my old HD540 Ref IIs and the Grados I use for daily listening.
As far as the comparison between rips and physical media I'd add that its all dependent on your source, how you rip and the fault tolerances of your disc spinner. I've been happy that I ripped some out of print DVD-As which were damaged by my kids when they were very young.
I used an old Sony BLuRay player to rip my SACD collection and that produced pretty good results with the SACD plugin.
With EAC, Exact Audio Copy, you can confirm that the rip is bit for bit identical to the original disc using their online checksum database so there's no issues with mis tracking, scratches and fingermarks or with anything more complex coming from even the best CD transport that is spinning a defective disc.
@@donpayne1040 there are plenty of higher sample rate/bit depth discs available that have been taken back to the good old days before the loundness wars. So in some cases you should get superior fidelity from these than from the CDs. Never mind the downloadable content from some labels that will be as good as you can hope to get by spinning any disc on any player with no marks, scratches and other effects to get in the way of extracting that musical data.
One of my experiences that I have had with comparing CDs to hard drives is that certain electric guitar sounds can sound completely off. One example is that if a guitar sounds like it’s trying to mimic a windshield wiper, then it will sound like a siren on the hard drive. If the electric guitar sounds like an ascending slide whistle, then it might sound more like a kazoo, followed by a really loud POP!
🤭
Solution, F digital, vinyl FTW
They sound better because you have decided already that they sound better.
Ripping is not the same thing as copying. These days there is rarely a need to rip something. Most copy protection mechanisms have been broken so you simply make bit perfect copies. Ripping was commonly used decades ago and typically involved resampling from the analog output stage.
I think most people would say ripping a CD is copying it, by extracting the digital audio.
first?
ua-cam.com/video/cH8iv4n2kco/v-deo.html
If you're playing the CD through your player, or a DAC that is connected to it with an RCA or optical cable, and you're listening to the ripped CD through your computer's internal audio output, you're not making a fair comparison. The DAC in the computer likely isn't as good.
Better DAC options for computers are available. One is to build a system around a motherboard with a high quality DAC. You can also use an audio interface on a PCI Express card that plugs into the computer, or that sits outside the computer and connects via USB. (Other ways are available on older computers.) Some of those are very good indeed. I use an MOTU M4 for my listening, which is also a recording interface, but in the $250 price class it's a good choice for listening. (PS Audio, the makers of this video, makes some excellent DACs that would sound even better, but they all cost far more than $250!) My ripped CDs sound BETTER than if I listen through the player -- but that's because computer listening is my priority, I only have a basic CD player.
For a true apples to apples comparison, you could get a DAC that has both a USB input for connecting to a computer and an S/PDIF or Toslink port for connecting to a CD transport. That would let you listen to your physical and ripped CDs through the same listening chain.
My computer ripped CDs sound just as good as a CD. But I use a external DAC.
If you ripped the CD correctly (bit perfect) and use the same DAC for both the FLAC/WAV file and the CD, there is no reason why one should sound different from the other.
Other elements in the audio chain can have an impact including cables and the quality of the playback server. For example a dedicated source such as an Aurender will sound far superior to any PC due to its design.
That was my thought as well. OP likes the CD player DAC better than whatever his PC setup entails.
@@BradfordWarner unless you can back that up with actual science it just sounds to me like you're trying to justify spending big bucks on something you didn't need in the first place.
@@canepaper967 well, I've done blind testing comparing such sources and the results were starkly obvious
If you take common mode noise out of the equation you might be right. Problem is, a computer has allot more common mode noise which distorts the dac.
Pretty good measurable as well.
not only that, many "onboard" audio devices are subject to power interference as they are on the same board as the power and battery for the computer. the traces could go near enough that this can cause interference. its always best to use an external USB Audio card/DAC so you get the audio processing components as far from the main board as possible. also not all audio cards are built equally (just like any equiment) and the freebie onboard audio that came with your PC is unlikely to be a high quality audio output device.
That's what I do. I use usb audio player pro on android and a usb DAC. And it plays my flac files the way I ripped them. No down sampling.
CD ripping should be done with EAC (free) or DBPOWERAMP (more convenient) as both programs are bit-perfect. Then the PC should be connected to an external DAC and the music should be played via the ASIO driver to be installed. My experience is that the sound is then in no way inferior to the CD.
Or, you could just buy a good CD player, put the disc in, sit down and listen? Seems way more practical to me.
You imply all CD transports are the same. They aren’t.
EAC is the only program that I know of that allows you to adjust the write offset, thus creating a truly perfect copy of the original CD.
@@jasonwilson556 dbpoweramp (not free) is the right choice for bitperfect ripping too.
They don't.
In total agreement with your good self
Impressive how you know the exact answer without knowing their exact setup.
Never a truer word spoken! We think flat earthers are crazy. Audiophiles have been bonkers since way back when!
The Naim HDX which is no longer in production but acailabke pre loved, for me still has the the ultimate ripping algorithm and you don't have the issue of ripping and playback from a noisy useless PC
Hard drive can never sound better than a CD transport, assume there isn’t a quality gap between the 2. So true answer is it depends.
easy, they dont.
Internal computer sound cards are not the best quality. The best results will be obtained with an external DAC, or with a really good internal separate sound card.
If Murat is using his computer's built-in DAC, then that is his problem. He would know, if he is connecting his computer to his pre-amp (or receiver) with RCA cables. If he is, then that is the problem.
Murat needs to connect his computer to a stand-alone DAC, via a digital out from his computer. His CD player might accept a digital input from his computer's digital output.
Better yet, Murat should connect his computer's digital out to a stand-alone transport, via a digital out from his computer, and then go from his transport to his DAC.
-- Testing the quality of his rips:
Murat can test his ripping quality, to confirm whether or not that process is degrading the sound quality, by doing the following:
1) Rip some songs.
2) Burn those ripped songs to a blank CD.
3) Play that CD (on his better sounding CD player -- not on his computer's built-in CD tray) and compare its sound quality to the original CD's sound quality.
My money is on the two CDs (original and burned) sounding identical. With that determination, Murat needs to find another way to have his computer output a digital stream directly to a transport or (if a transport is too expensive, then) to a DAC. He must not use the analog outputs from his computer.
I use JRiver's Media Center. it offers "Volume Leveling". Never use volume leveling. It doubles as distortion adding. To adjust the volume of songs, use your pre-amp's volume control.
I guess that if you are burning a CD to play in your car, and sound quality is not critical (especially if the songs are not mastered right to begin with), then you can use volume leveling. On a mass produced system, with nothing special sound quality, volume leveling will probably not be noticed (in terms of degrading the sound quality).
But for your entire collection of ripped songs, do not use volume leveling. That edits the bits that make up the song. It modifies the file. It can not improve the sound quality. It will definitely diminish the sound quality.
Back to JRiver's Media Center...
It does a very good job in isolating your computer's digital output's controller, to have that controller dedicate its resources to provide a bit-perfect data stream to your transport or DAC.
It will sync to your DAC's clock.
Cheers!
Exactly what I was thinking. Realtek audio sucks.
Even my low-budget Steinberg UR12 DAC sounds quite reasonable compared to the on-board chip.
Unfortunately my Parasound ZDAC decided to quit on me and now I'm looking for something more decent. Am in doubt between the Denafrips Pontus and the Audio Note DAC 0.1x, or just sell all my gear and just go for a Buchardt A500 with hub.
Absolutely. Even just a USB DAC like a Dragonfly will make a big difference.
@@MarkoVukovic0 Even an Apple USB-C dongle
Precisely, there is not enough information to be able to advise.
My question would be, how are you getting the audio out of the computer? Via the headphone jack to headphones, or to an amp via line in? I would be surprised if the DAC and other audio components on a computer are anywhere as good as a professional CD player in an audio system.
'Couldn't disagree more! If ripped properly, playback from a PC should match the source CD. 👍
@@Elst07896 You realise a PC doesn't have a high quality amp inside it?
@@axelBr1 😂 I know that Alex - there'll be op amps on the sound card and op amps on the motherboard. And you're right: The onboard circuits don't sound very good at all. On my gaming rig, I use an outboard Asus sound card via USB. For my music however, I stream my ripped images directly to my receiver and let the receiver do all the playback. I only use the PC to create the sound images, I then tell Windows what bit depth/frequency to output and my hi-fi does the rest. Don't worry Alex, I've been ripping/copying CD's since Windows 98! 👍❤
@@Elst07896 I'm not an audio buff, although in 1990 I saved up my first couple of pay cheques to buy a Phillips multi-CD player, (probably not HiFi) and a Denon amp and Marantz speakers. I'm not a gamer either, but pretty sure a HiFi amp is going to cost a lot more than an average motherboard, and certainly more that the audio chip set on the motherboard.
I agree with you, the data coming off a ripped CD should be the same as an original CD, (for the same encoding parameters), but expecting it to sound the same on a PC as via a HiFi CD player and amp is unrealistic. Although, I'm more than happy listening to my ripped CDs on headphones on my Mac 😉
@@axelBr1 A Denon amp and Marantz speakers?! And you say you're not an audio buff? I'll not believe it Alex! 😂❤ To be fair to you though, in my case the actual listening is done through the receiver. As mentioned, I use the PC to rip/copy the CD image then stream it out - the PC plays no part in the DAC and ultimate output to the power amps. So, from that point you are quite correct: PC playback and dedicated Hi-Fi playback is/are definitely two different things. 👍
THANKS PAUL 🤗 FOR GIVING “GOOD SOUND ADVICE “😁💚💚💚
I save all my CDs in bin/cue files on my hard drive. I agree this is a hardware or software problem, not the data contained in the file.
If you could, use always wasapi exclusive. Qobuz has this as a build-in feature and, yes, you'll hear the difference. Also the dac on your mainboard is not suited. Use an external dac and then you encounter real cd-quality. Decent speakers are also mandatory.
Qobuz uses .flac and this is 100% lossless.
need more information on his system and what devices are used from the WAV to amplifier.
Can of worms? Just some of my info; I use a Toughbook laptop for audio / video / office work / photography, everything. It is copper stereo and video connected to my a/v system. With software the total can set you back $6,000. It is also a digital A/V production studio. Nero software is used for audio editing and video conversion to other formats. Nero is not expensive. It can take a CD with digital errors and usually correct them while making a bit duplicate CD image to a hard drive. How does it sound? Usually better than a cheap CD player. Equal to a high end component. With 4 processors at 3.2 ghz each, 8 gb ram, hi-fi HD audio card, and VLC player supporting LAME encoding, yes. It sounds fantastic. It should. So your player is very important. Good video.
I can't be bothered to go through that again my comment fell to post, I don't know if it's PS audio blocking it or what? I have said before People not getting the message.
I just lost a reply as well. Maybe the word ex NOT THIS clu THIS NEITHER sive gets automatically moderated?
@@Thomas_A_H Comment test:
Exclusive
exclusive
EXCLUSIVE
If you're reading this then you should see the above word 3 times.
It's impossible to analyse why you are hearing this, because you have not provided enough information.
Firstly if you are playing your stored audio files, what are you playing them back on?
Pointless to even try to hazard a guess what your issue is.
Or, it is a lot simpler: the DAC and amplifier part of the CD player is different than on the streaming device.
Try connect the CD player via digital cables to the streaming device (if possible) and compare that to the CD player output.
If it sounds just as worse as from the computer, than the computer and ripping is all right, just the DAC part is worse on the streaming device.
Is it possible that he's using the computer's DAC and feeding the analag into his amp? I use a digital output and feed that to my external dac and then into my amp.
You could buy an external sound card to plug into the USB port on your computer.
There are many on the market from different manufacturers and price ranges. It bypasses the internal computer sound card.
I have a El Cheap o one I bought many Moons ago.
Make sure you get any updates for it before you use it.
He is hardly using the CD player’s DAC (as CD players often have SPDIF outputs but almost never network or SPDIF input ports) when he streams the ripped music. So, the root cause is highly probable the different DAC and not snake-oil-reasons such as network transport or so...
To me this question sounds like he is playing the cd from cd player right! But he is "playin" the harddrive from a computer mabey he use the same DAC for booth transports but if that is the case then his computer probably is the badguy here!
Because his compuer/server is noicey and not properly built for music playback with a noisey swithmode powersuppley, slow processor, no (SLC-SSD) with a OCXO clock crystal, no ecc ram, no dedicated usb card with separet lpsu connected with a bad usb cable to the DAC ore DDC, not playing in a low latency Operating system not opimsed his bios etc.. Could this be his problem mabey?
If I understood that question properly the person who asked compared apples and oranges. Like playback through sound module on mainboard (maybe some Realtek ALC DAC chipset) on the one hand and CD player's internal DAC on the other hand. Therefore he seems to lack the basic knowledge to benefit from Paul's answer.
A ripped CD played on a high end Aurender server sounds worlds better than a CD player... why you ask? A lot has to do with much improved power supplies as well as much, much lower jitter conversion noise.
He didn't say how he was getting the sound out from his computer.
Ear phone jack vs usb to external DAC?
Could you recommend any products for this? I'm not sure what to search for.
If u put a reclocker between pc and dac the difference is not so big paul
Hello Paul, not sure I agree entirely. The audio software in Windows is very mature - I play audio through HDMI and I assure you, the sound is first class! There isn't a CD player that could ever beat the mechanical integrity of the classic hard drive (HDD), or none that I'm aware of anyway. To my mind, what you rip to HDD should match the source CD exactly. EAC? 👍 I also suspect playback. The OP might want to tell Windows exactly what it is he's doing: Press Win + R to open the Run command, then type mmsys.cpl, highlight the default device > Properties > Advanced > then select the correct bit depth and frequency: 16 bit 44100hz should do the trick. Windows will output his wav.file to his processor in CD 'mode' and believe me, he WILL notice the difference! The sound's a lot more disciplined and focussed - not as 'splashy' as say 16 bit 48000hz which is the bandwidth for higher definition audio. He might want to Configure his speaker set up too (same file path) - you'd be shocked as to how many still have their 'stereo' in 5.1! Apologies if either of you know this already - I'm guilty sometimes of spouting off without thinking. Give it a shot - let me know what you think. From The UK With Love. 👍
No, you don't want to store your music in a HDD since it will add noise and make the sound brighter with a narrow bottom.
@@DJust-bv1sb Not sure I get that. How would it add noise? The pick up heads read 1s and 0s magnetically - any noise picked up via the heads could only be through the poor mechanical quality of the HDD and as I've mentioned before, the build quality of some the HDDs today are first class. If there's noise in the playback, it had to have been put there in the first place. 🤷♂
cd is better than cd to harddrive.
@@myronhelton4441 It's a pity we all don't live around the corner from each other, for what we need are A/B comparisons. Settles all issues that... 🤭👍
@@Elst07896 What you say is true. I havent studied it enough. A while back Paul & many others says downloads not as good as cds. Paul said WAV better than FLAC. What little experience I have shows all above is true.
my cds sound better in my oppo player.
Not Constantinople.
Some software bug could be at play if the exact same data to the same DAC sound different. More likely it’s about our brain making us feel a difference.
That, or just Windows or whatever OS is oversampling to 48khz
Yes definitely that is a common case. Sample rate conversion to 48kHz of 44.1kHz is super common in modern audio gear. Phones, cars, smart speakers and other digital audio gear often run at 48kHz also.
The Creative Sound Blaster Z has an amazing sounding DAC, if you know how to add it to your computer (or can get someone to add it for you). It's a sound card. Yes, you heard me: A sound card, in this day and age. A good gamer knows a graphics card is better than onboard graphics. Well Mr. I Love Music And Always Have here found out that, yes, a dedicated sound card sounds way better than the crappy onboard audio. And Creative are still making cards under the Sound Blaster banner. And man does the current Z series sound great! 🎶🎵🎶
Istanbul not Constantinople...
It's Istanbul. It hasn't been called Constantinople for nearly 100 years now. I mean, if you're gonna deadname it, why don't you just call it Byzantium?
@@rulnacco Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks!
@@joeythedime1838 Haha! Fair enough.
I think the problem is windows audio software sux
Hi Paul,
You did not provide the name of the softwares. Kindly provide the same.
The software for ripping CDs?. Paul mentioned Exact Audio Copy(EAC). Which I've used myself, with excellent results.
Try foobar2000 (I wrote a longer answer but apparently it got removed/moderated)
@@Thomas_A_H I use that too, with all the plug-ins but WASAPI sometimes causes problems with some songs. Also on very rare occasions when I use it the settings for my DAC get reset to the most basic settings. with lowest bitrate and sample rate etc.
@@MarcelNL never had such problems (flac/wav/mp3/ogg with various bitrates and sample rates) using different DACs and one DDC. I had one DAC crashing from time to time, but that was a bug in the DAC's firmware.
I no longer use an ASIO driver (I now play DSD only via streamer or DAP), but (apart from that one DAC) that never caused problems either (except making foobar's list of output devices longer).
I use a bunch of plugins, too, but maybe you have one that causes issues?
@@Thomas_A_H Thanks for the lengthy reply! :)
It's only WASAPI that causes these problems. I'll later check which exact MP3's or FLAC files can't be played with it.
Anyway, I do want to replace this cheap dac some day soon. Maybe that will solve the problem. It's decent for its price but it clearly is one of the weaker links in my audio system.
I have had the best results playing wave files through an SSD and my streamer device I would say it sounds better than CD more relaxed yet as dynamic and detailed.
A more relaxing sound is the result of loss in quality!
@@DJust-bv1sb Lol no. Relaxed means les digital glare. No loss of detail whatsoever, more natural sounding, not warm or soft.
Which streamer do you have that can play SSD?
Far as I'm aware EAC doesn't work with Apple devices - I use dBpoweramp and create FLAC and WAV imports of CDs. Stored on a NAS drive then played through my BlueSound Node (2021) there's no noticeable difference between my SACD/CD player and the Node.
What about the quality of the sound card itself? Not every chip is the same, not to mention the design of the audio circuit electronics - capacitors, signal isolation, frequency response, noise etc.
Hey Paul, you are very relaxing and just want to know what you're going to say just like in the '80s. What kind of sweater wear in the Cosby show that weekHey you set the tone and we all want to know what a guy with that much history is going to say it's enticing and downright fun! Keep it up. You got it. You got that knack. Keep it up. Thank you! 0:02
And compensate for the wolum difrent
It's all about the "DAC"... Not all 'DAC's' are created equal!
Foobar only works on PC, any recommendations for Mac? 3:28
On the contrary, ripped CD's don't sound better than the original CD. An investigator analysed CD rippers - especially EAC - and found that the digital offset used by all rippers causes a difference. That difference is the audible difference that many people hear after they rip a CD to a hardrive. Unfortunately, that difference is actually distortion. It happens to be a kind of distortion that many listeners like - including you - Paul McGowan, according to your own internet statement. It's similar to a small amount of IM distortion that analog open reel tape recorders introduce, which many people hear as an increase in harmonic richness. CD ripping adds distortion nonetheless. It's a tiny amount - just enough to sound a tiny bit better - but "better" to many listeners [such as you]. It's too bad that you, Paul McGowan, are just as susceptible to distortion as the average audio-blasting honcho.
Despite the fact they are bit for bit identical? That doesn't make sense. If you're going to quote "an investigator" please give us a link to that information so we may judge for ourselves. I can tell you that in my work of many years, there are no measurable difference on our AP equipment (sensitive down to crazy low levels for both IM and THD) as well as passing bit perfect tests with known data.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio @Howard Thelman - Paul is right here, of course. Ripping a disc and using the AccurateRip database (which EAC and XLD does) to confirm a bit-perfect rip means that the rip from disc is 100% bit accurate to the source. From there, the information on disc and the information on hard drive are identical, and there is no induced distortion. Any argument counter to that is null. AccurateRip database is open and crowd-sourced and this is how we know as rippers that we're doing it right. If EAC compares your rip to the AccurateRip database, and sees that your rip matches the hundreds of other rips assumed to be accurate, then it has to be accurate. You and I could have identical rips, but the chances that our rips perfectly match the database and are wrong are so infinitesimally small, we'd win a bunch of lotteries before we'd confirm that. So then from there it's about how to transfer those bits to a DAC. I use JRiver which, as Paul says in the video, bypasses the computer's control for bit rate and sample rate and commandeers that to provide a bit-perfect transfer to the DAC. Paul could also have mentioned that by using one of PS Audio's Directstream DACs, you can test this with their Bit Perfect test files. Load up the test file into the playback software, play it out to the DAC, and the DAC will light up that it is receiving the test with perfect accuracy. Then you know you have configured your computer playback system exactly and can be assured that you are listening to the DAC at its best.
Are you using error correction during ripping? If not, I find they sound awful.
Big endian AIFF produces less jitter and latency. Big endian AIFF or MKA runs fine with my preferred settings, while WAV ends up creating a buffer underrun. I assume it's due to WAV's less straightforward file format.
I use StaxRip to remux videos and Fre:ac (SndFile) for audio.
What about the dac on the playback maybe being a different one than the one in the CD player?😊
I don't understand how there can be enough errors when ripping a CD to cause any reduction in sound quality. Are CDs/CD drives really that prone to errors ? A few dropped bits here and there might cause audible issues, but only at the point of the incorrect data
I have a CD with some incorrectible errors on it according to EAC. I listened to the tracks with focus on the exact locations of these errors and surprisingly couldn't hear anything suspicious. I expected sizzles, crackling or pops but nothing. Would have never noticed it if EAC hadnot told me.
@@KingKong-mp6gj If there's an isolated bit error, it's not really surprising that it's inaudible to the human ear. At 1411kbps, one incorrect bit is a tiny fraction of a second. If there are a number of bit errors close together, then it will be audible.
I've noticed the same thing. Years ago. And went into my settings in the control sound panel and switched it from ears to full range speakers. And also make sure you have the settings in your computer as to channel. Then you can go into another category and set your bits 24-bit. But where I noticed the biggest difference was switching it from here to full range and the computer. Hope that helps.
Great tip!
Sound card.