Rippers Revisited

[rickcr42]

I pretty much have walked away from the "EAC is the mostest bestest ripper ever in the universe period" crap long ago feeling I get about the same quality with any of my "acurate" rippers.But reading this WAS surprising since the author is/was one of the lagest EAC "boosters" extant so for this person to write this added to the fact that this is a person who has been mostly way ahead of the curve in computer audio (products offered before others caught on to the potentials and who later followed with similiar ) makes me for one take notice AND re-evaluate my stance that ALL rippers are pretty much the same

www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=52276

weird part ?

I use dB PowerAmp for converting files but not for ripping,never even considered it,go figure

[PinkFloyd]

Jun 8, 2009 18:21:02 GMT rickcr42 said:

I pretty much have walked away from the "EAC is the mostest bestest ripper ever in the universe period" crap long ago feeling I get about the same quality with any of my "acurate" rippers.But reading this WAS surprising since the author is/was one of the lagest EAC "boosters" extant so for this person to write this added to the fact that this is a person who has been mostly way ahead of the curve in computer audio (products offered before others caught on to the potentials and who later followed with similiar ) makes me for one take notice AND re-evaluate my stance that ALL rippers are pretty much the same

www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=52276

weird part ?

I use dB PowerAmp for converting files but not for ripping,never even considered it,go figure

What the hell is WRONG with those people? Shove a CD (or whatever) in the drawer and hit PLAY..... relax and enjoy the music.... MUSIC should not be that COMPLEX.

[charleyphogg]

Jun 8, 2009 21:14:22 GMT PinkFloyd said:

Jun 8, 2009 18:21:02 GMT rickcr42 said:

.. MUSIC should not be that COMPLEX.

And life should be ?

[charleyphogg]

Looking at that chart, and per near any others from "extractons" and such, why is it they all seemto get a lesser "rating" for what seems to be roughly the same spot which would be on a disc?

I can't think of th proper termonology, but it's consistant enough I think you all will know what I mean....... I hope.

[jeffc]

Guys,

With all this playing about with computer audio and various CD/DVD/Blu-Ray writers etc, added into the mix extensive vibration damping of my new 1 TB external HDD and Blu-Ray writer using 3M 2552 viscoelastic damping foil tape and Herbie’s Audio baby booties etc, I've been trying to come to some consensus of when I've maxed out on SQ, which at this point is quite phenomenal and allows me to detect any changes quite easily. Playback being a very direct one from my Dell laptop, XXHE XP Player engine #1, USB cable to a modded Trends UD10 USB-DAC, headphone out, vol slider set to max.

So to rippers

dBpoweramp - fantastic functionality and rips fast except in super secure mode where each track is read 5 times ;D

EAC - nowhere near as functional as dBpoweramp and rips slow, with CD-Rs copied using my LG Blu-ray writer, we’re talking x 0.5 ish average here.

So what about SQ

And this is where I've been trying my dandiest to do comparisons so that I can be contented I'm on the correct bandwagon and can get seriously into ripping my CD library to HDD without revisiting this anytime soon. This being complicated by me copying favourite CDs to CD-Rs with the Blu-Ray writer before ripping. Why, firstly because I’m a , and secondly because I think it provides something quite magical.

So boys and girls, what do you make of these .wavs.

Files: 9 downloads remaining
- 05 Gone.wav (21.89 MB)
- Jack Johnson - 05 - Gone.wav (22.07 MB)
Total 43,96 MB
www.filemail.com/dl.aspx?id=WXSANIVGMLHWVGE
to download
Files will expire 11 Jul 2009 10:40

Same CD-R of Jack Johnson ‘On and On’, copied with my Blu-Ray writer and tweaked and then ripped in secure modes using either EAC or dBpoweramp. Note the differences in file sizes.. hmmm.. first bit that’s interesting

Not being backward in coming forward, my impression on musical presentations offered by the EAC (05-Gone) and dBpoweramp (Jack Johnson - 05 - Gone) rips.

My vote goes to the more vibrant EAC rip due to better attack and bite on guitar strums/plucks that seems more palpably life like to me even though vocals are somewhat more clinical (less smoothed and resonant in those lower registers). Guitars in the dBpoweramp rip have a richer low-register tone for sure but lack some of the hard-edged bite of the EAC rip. Vocals as said above, richer and less etched and possibly more forward in the mix in the dBPA rip. For sparse music like this, I’d be relatively happy with either. However, with other CDs with piano, organ, etc like Supertramp ‘Crime of the Century’, the attack to piano/organ key strokes, as well as that thwack to the driving organ/guitar pieces in ‘Bloody Well Right’ for example, EAC provides more urgency and overall vibrancy that takes my fancy as being less Hi Fi, more real. So currently its EAC for rips, dBpoweramp to service the groovy folder structure and save CD cover art, which is simply done by starting the rip with dBPA briefly, aborting it the then ripping with EAC, and then track numbering (wish EAC used dBpoweramp's functionality).

Looking forward others impressions. Can upload a few more tracks like ‘Bloody Well Right’ if anyone’s keen to delve into EAC vs dBpoweramp further.

Cheers.. jeffc

[Deleted]

At Jeff's request, I installed the trial version of dB Poweramp Ripper, and downloaded his posted .wav files.
Below is my initial reply to Jeff. At the time, I did not know which version was which.
Alex


Jeff
Very different, aren't they ?
Jack Johnson -05-Gone Sounded louder with the voice more prominent in the mix and perhaps because of this, a little more nasal sounding., but to me a little on the monotonous side.
05-Gone Had a more 3 channel sound to me. i.e.L,C and R
( voice in the centre) with voice a little more natural in the mix to my ears. More light and shade/dynamics.

Alex

[rickcr42]

you guys ever consider "hard edged bite" may in fact be distortion componants ? A deviation AWAY from nuetral thus not accurate ?

Brings to mind systems with EMI-RFI contamination that when "fixed" the owners of complain all the "life" had been sucked out because the fact is they LIKED the additional artifacts brought to the music via RFI contamination and because they only knew that as their personal reference considering anything else "wrong sounding" even though the opposite is in fact true.

Or how many have actual op-amp ocillations full time that again when corrected far too many claim the muisc is "less detailed" and the worst part ? Not only from their perspective is that a true statement but many manufacturers realizing this fact,the fact that many use pre-recorded music played back on iffy electronics as their personal baseline rather than actual music so "real" to them sounds bland,lacking,has less "life" as if LIVE is meaningless but bigger than life is REAL and to me the crux when trying to discuss SQ with many who have no clue what that even means.


Real music flows rather than be forced or shouty,real instruments blend rather than stand out except by design in the performance,real vocals sound like actual humans are singing but yet these things are not aspired to in many modern systems where bigger than life,added detail,enhanced vocals are the desired goal which means the electronics take precedence over the artist with the evidence of that all too common.

not saying that is the case here but statements such as

"My vote goes to the more vibrant EAC rip due to better attack and bite on guitar strums/plucks that seems more palpably life like to me even though vocals are somewhat more clinical (less smoothed and resonant in those lower registers). Guitars in the dBpoweramp rip have a richer low-register tone for sure but lack some of the hard-edged bite of the EAC rip. Vocals as said above, richer and less etched and possibly more forward in the mix in the dBPA rip. For sparse music like this, I’d be relatively happy with either. However, with other CDs with piano, organ, etc like Supertramp ‘Crime of the Century’, the attack to piano/organ key strokes, as well as that thwack to the driving organ/guitar pieces in ‘Bloody Well Right’ for example, EAC provides more urgency and overall vibrancy that takes my fancy as being less Hi Fi, more real."

perspective is everything because I personally would flip that "less hi-fi,more real" to "more hi-fi,less real" with my reference being a damn lot of concert/live performance time,far too much roady time (all local ) and as much local studio time as I can squeeze in not to mention a shitload of band practice sessions/beer bashes that I tend to hang out at winking at the babes and drinking all the suds and listening to the band hone their art for an upcoming gig so "live" is a thing I am no stranger too yet my opinion is the polar opposite of what is an accurate portrayal of the live sound on a domestic playback system

not saying one way is wrong or my way better just that i judge the gear against music not the music against the gear.......

[jeffc]

All good insight rickcr42,

From someone who does know live and studio events well and who's banged away in bands with whatever you play, guessing drums - got any recordings, I'd be genuinely interested in a listen

With these credentials, you're exactly da man I need to download the files and provide some insight into the SQ differences, what they mean and which is the more *&^%$##@%^&^%$ "read real here whatever that means" honest presentation of the music as it should be presented.

Got time to download the "Gone" versions and provide a critique on the differences between SQ offered by the EAC and dBpoweramp rips. As said, I'd like others opinions, hopefully confirming those of mine and SandyK so that I can get on with ripping a fairly large CD library without any nagging feelings that I'm in the wrong camp. ;D For functionality and speed I'd use dBpoweramp any day over EAC but ....

cheers..jeffc

[Deleted]

Rick
Leaving aside the actual sound differences that were heard, and they were quite substantial for Jeff, and why Jeff uploaded the files to see if I could confirm the differences that he observed, which I apparently did, but worded differently, the point is that both rippers are claimed to be accurate, so the end results should have been identical.
Alex
P.S.
With the dBPoweramp Rip, I had the slightly uneasy feeling, that it gave the impression of being painted by the "loudness brush"

[rickcr42]

As for uploads,i'll see what i can do this not being my computer (mine won't load windows XP and i can not only NOT access any of my programs but zero of my HD music,see thread in the dark side )

as for "playing an instrument",well,if there is a human on the planet with LESS talent than me I have yet to meet that person though at one time i could sing after a fashion and was allowed to "sit in" on occasion but a particularly NASTY bar fight in a biker bar ended that years ago when my larnyx took enough damage that while healed and there is no pain will not allow me to go to any pitch at singing volume above my normal speech toe which is weird because I can yell loud enough to scare wild animals but if i take it up an octave my shit locks up and a croak comes out,damned embarrasing when i get half bagged and thinking i can still sing a bit embarrass myself when everyone including me realizes I should have kept my mouth shut

my experience has always been as a gear head/music lover so i gravitated to the artists first because they had all the cool equipment then later because I found i really liked being around creative people and being a part of the "scene" even if as a stopgap emergency tech/setup man but one thing I have found is you hang around long enough and you learn even if by total accident so for instance I have been known to fill in at the "board",have seen some studio time and have in fact been allowed to remaster a recording or two with one coming up as soon as I can get my studio equipment up to speed (and out of storage ;D ) so when you combine my very early love of music (all my life as far back as I can remeber lucid thoughts) and my very early interest in electronics (12 or so) which turned very fast to AUDIO electronics then toss in i was always there when the "music" broke out even if an impromtu concert and my experience is just being around the music and playing with the gear pretty much all of my adult life which I must say has been a damn full one in the music sense

Cheers

Rickster

[rickcr42]

Jul 9, 2009 22:13:46 GMT @sandyk said:

Rick
Leaving aside the actual sound differences that were heard, and they were quite substantial for Jeff, and why Jeff uploaded the files to see if I could confirm the differences that he observed, which I apparently did, but worded differently, the point is that both rippers are claimed to be accurate, so the end results should have been identical.
Alex
P.S.
With the dBPoweramp Rip, I had the slightly uneasy feeling, that it gave the impression of being painted by the "loudness brush"

or maybe the other is missing the fundamental bass notes ?

most not hearing real bass or true bass many times make the assertion that there is something wrong when it IS present yet those same folks many times have NO problem with statements such as "it has added detail so is a keeper" and such which by nature of the statement is wrong headed because the word "added" is not a thing that should ever be connected with "accurate reproduction" in the same sentence though I see if often.I gues again it comes down to both taste and personal expectations that determines a persons reality baseline...

Hard to tell without having the original and all rips to compare on the very same system,something i can't presently even think about doing me being on a computer with fkn LOGITECH speakers playing from a generic sound card,audio death in other words

[jeffc]

And for a something a little rockier to compare, Supertramps "Bloody Well Right" ripped with EAC and dBpoweramp. No guessing which I prefer \.

Download expiry date: Monday, July 13, 2009 1:34 PM
www.filemail.com/dl.aspx?id=EITKMXTXGLYTZPA

cheers.. Jeff

[Deleted]

I found the dB poweramp ripped version, to be brash, in your face and lacking a little in subtlety. Initially, I was fooled by the slightly higher apparent level at the beginning of the track,but after relistening, I found the EAC version was cleaner sounding, but appearing to be not quite as loud.
Again, I was reminded of being painted with the "loudness brush" like many recent recordings
are. To me,the EAC version was far more 3D sounding.This is the same as I found with the previous uploads.
Alex

[FritzS]

Hi,
ripper's for Mac


sbooth.org/Max/

Max is an application for creating high-quality audio files in
various formats, from compact discs or files.

When extracting audio from compact discs, Max offers the maximum in
flexibility to ensure the true sound of your CD is faithfully
extracted. For pristine discs, Max offers a high-speed ripper with
no error correction. For damaged discs, Max can either use its
built-in comparison ripper (for drives that cache audio) or the
error-correcting power of cdparanoia www.xiph.org/paranoia/

sbooth.org/Tag/

Tag is a metadata editor for FLAC, Ogg Vorbis, Monkey's Audio and
WavPack files.

Tag has an intuitive interface that simplifies common editing tasks
while also allowing direct manipulation of tags. Tags can be dragged
between files, or Tag can even add all the tags contained in one
file to another in one fell swoop.

[rickcr42]

"loudness brush"

that would mean a bass boost.If you mean it sounds louder overall then just back off on the volume control dude !

If bylouder you mean "segments" of the music are louder than others then that is a whole different kettle of fish and not something I get in my system at all.That fact that "bit perfect" does not mean "sounds the same" by any stretch proves to me this is not the most important part of ripping redbook CD audio because if you are getting an exact "image" of the Cd the sound would be identical no matterif played back on the computer or played back on a dedicated CD "player".And by player I mean no external DA Conversion which does and will add jitter which changes the entire context of the comparison there being no way to do it fairly

[Deleted]

Rick
Are you in effect, saying that everything that JeffC and myself have posted in "Topic: Modify a PC's CD/DVD Transport" is a load of garbage, and the differences reported by several prominent RG members after listening to uploaded .wav files, where the checksums of eack of the 2 versions were identical, was a figment of their imagination ?
BTW, the owner of the XXHE forum , who designed a very upmarket software player which plays from MEMORY,not directly from the HDD, also heard the differences, but has so far been unable to explain the cause of these differences.He has also heard differences when played from a Solid State HDD, but again is unable to explain why, at the moment.
Alex

[allenf]

It's placebo effect, or an elaborate practical joke.

I couldn't hear a difference between the Supertramp samples myself, so I run them through Cool Edit with the following results, it was totally straightforward as there was no offset:

02 Bloody Well Right
Left Right
Min Sample Value: -32732 -32733
Max Sample Value: 32732 32732
Peak Amplitude: -.01 dB -.01 dB
Possibly Clipped: 0 0
DC Offset: -.001 -.001
Minimum RMS Power: -69.37 dB -70.17 dB
Maximum RMS Power: -8.15 dB -8.3 dB
Average RMS Power: -16.69 dB -16.22 dB
Total RMS Power: -15.58 dB -15.17 dB
Using RMS Window of 50 ms

Supertramp - 02 - Bloody Well Right
Left Right
Min Sample Value: -32732 -32733
Max Sample Value: 32732 32732
Peak Amplitude: -.01 dB -.01 dB
Possibly Clipped: 0 0
DC Offset: -.001 -.001
Minimum RMS Power: -69.37 dB -70.17 dB
Maximum RMS Power: -8.15 dB -8.3 dB
Average RMS Power: -16.69 dB -16.22 dB
Total RMS Power: -15.58 dB -15.17 dB
Using RMS Window of 50 ms

This shows the samples are identical.

I did an invert sum comparison on the samples, and the analysis is as follows:

Mix invert both samples:

Left Right
Min Sample Value: 0 0
Max Sample Value: 0 0
Peak Amplitude: -inf dB -inf dB
Possibly Clipped: 0 0
DC Offset: 0 0
Minimum RMS Power: -inf dB -inf dB
Maximum RMS Power: -inf dB -inf dB
Average RMS Power: -inf dB -inf dB
Total RMS Power: -inf dB -inf dB
Using RMS Window of 50 ms

That is actually two totally flat lines, silence. The samples are completely identical.

[Deleted]

Allenf
Why don't you try unzipping that closed mind for a while, and actually try dampening the ripping writer, and the front end metalwork where your HDDs and Writer are mounted ? Try sound deadening the HDD where you store your files as well. Just because your playback gear isn't of sufficient resolution, does not mean there are no differences. I find it insulting to suggest that members of the calibre of Miguel and Leo, and others, would be part of a long running hoax. Some of the differences quoted were very specific, even down to the minutes and seconds where the differences were noted. Did you see the article in Hi Hi Choice called "Ripping Yarns" where the author, who was preparing a rip for use in a Computer Magazine article ,along with a colleague, came to the sudden conclusion that PC based rips were light years behind those from the expensive Naim HDD ripper/Recorder ? Obviously there is a lot more to the picture than just check sums.Why are many people even going to the extremes of using Linear PSUs with their external HDD and DVD writer, instead of the very noisy SMPS ?

SandyK

P.S.
The "Ripping Yarns" article is of course copyright, but if any member wants to read this single page article, send me a PM, and I will email them a copy.

[allenf]

Firstly, lay off the personal attacks Alex.

Non-sequiteurs like "Just because your playback gear isn't of sufficient resolution, does not mean there are no differences." is like saying "just because you don't see Jesus stood right in front of you does not mean that he doesn't exist."

I've covered that possibility by examining the files in Cool Edit, which returned identical results for the Summertime samples.

So in fact I've produced factual evidence to back up my claims that the files are identical and the differences you hear are entirely placebo. All you have provided is anecdotal evidence with no factual evidence at all. In fact, all the evidence you have provided yourself WRT checksum data proves the existence of placebo here.

There's nothing magical about checksums - all they do is provide a means for checking whether a file has been corrupted or modified in between source and destination or since you last checked their checksum. The entire computing architecture and data transmission is built upon the reliability of checksums. Altering one single bit of information results in a different checksum value - and there isn't some kind of quantum event that can alter the contents of a file without altering the checksum (except under highly unusual circumstances "checksum collision" which aren't relevant to this discussion).

Did the audio magazine produce any kind of factual information to support their claims that PC rippers somehow are unable to extract infomation from cd roms in the red-book format reliably, or were their claims entirely anecdotal?
The files you have provided indicate that in fact cd roms can - and do - unless a disc is badly scratched or cracked.
Does this mean that the same cd rom drives are unable to reliably extract all the information from cd rom drives containing data, or is in fact every single file on my hard drive missing bits of information ie corrupted?

Has it occurred to you that sitting round discussing the various sonic flavours of different rippers like you were sitting around tasting wine is in fact spreading misleading information at best?

And of course your XXX pal wants to spread the word about "hard drive vibration data corruption" (LOL) because he has some nice gear designed to solve that exact "problem" he wants to sell to you.

Placebo is great, I experience it all the time. My turntable sounds even better if I angle the lampstand slightly to shine some light on it so I can see the platter revolving.
But ,perhaps the light is warming up the cartridge cantilever ever so slightly, increasing the compliance thereby matching the cart to the arm better and increasing the tracking ability?

[Deleted]

Allenf
Lay off the personal attacks ?
You have in effect labelled me as a wanker !
How do you expect me to react ?

There's nothing magical about checksums - all they do is provide a means for checking whether a file has been corrupted or modified in between source and destination or since you last checked their checksum. The entire computing architecture and data transmission is built upon the reliability of checksums. Altering one single bit of information results in a different checksum value - and there isn't some kind of quantum event that can alter the contents of a file without altering the checksum (except under highly unusual circumstances "checksum collision" which aren't relevant

In my employment I had to deal with the results of Telecommunications data stores no longer having matching checksums, and the necessity to reload Destination data , and Subscriber category information, so I am fully aware of their importance.
So Leo,Miguel, and others are imagining the differences too?
Re: Modify a PC's CD/DVD Transport
« Replies #7,8,14,36
I find it interesting that Nick has heard the differences on my PC and posted that the differences were marked. Also , a Sydney based member who is also in the IT area, and initially sceptical, has also heard differences from my PC, then copied the files and taken them home to try with his own valve based system, and supported my claims in a reply email after being able to pick the differences at home. Have you even considered the possibility that the files are compromised by low level noise from within the PC, caused by both internal and external vibration, also from fans,as well as the SMPS itself ? This is an area where the special 3M self adhesive tape further diminishes these effects.
Alex

[Deleted]

I feel like posting but I know I'll get into big trouble.

[allenf]

Jul 12, 2009 7:43:41 GMT @sandyk said:

Allenf
Lay off the personal attacks ?
You have in effect labelled me as a wanker !
How do you expect me to react ?

Where have I ever labelled you a wanker Alex?
And where have I actually ever said you can't hear the differences? I don't doubt for a second you are perceiving differences, what interests me is how and why.

I believe that you have become very enthusiastic about a series of modifications you have made - which quite normally in these situations - seem to have made substantial sq improvements.
Because you can't actually see any measurable difference in the actual data in the files you have moved to a faith-based system in order to rationalise these improvements you hear.

Jul 12, 2009 7:43:41 GMT @sandyk said:

In my employment I had to deal with the results of Telecommunications data stores no longer having matching checksums, and the necessity to reload Destination data , and Subscriber category information, so I am fully aware of their importance.

Absolutely.

Jul 12, 2009 7:43:41 GMT @sandyk said:

So Leo,Miguel, and others are imagining the differences too?

Perhaps Leo and Miguel would like to join this thread?

Jul 12, 2009 7:43:41 GMT @sandyk said:

Re: Modify a PC's CD/DVD Transport
« Replies #7,8,14,36
I find it interesting that Nick has heard the differences on my PC and posted that the differences were marked. Also , a Sydney based member who is also in the IT area, and initially sceptical, has also heard differences from my PC, then copied the files and taken them home to try with his own valve based system, and supported my claims in a reply email after being able to pick the differences at home. Have you even considered the possibility that the files are compromised by low level noise from within the PC, caused by both internal and external vibration, also from fans,as well as the SMPS itself ? This is an area where the special 3M self adhesive tape further diminishes these effects.
Alex

To be clear on this, my argument is about ripping, not real-time playback which introduces the possibility of jitter etc.
All a ripper has to do is make repeated passes at data on the disk to return the data error-free, which is exactly what they do - repeatably - which is exactly what your samples show. Your samples are identical at the bit level.
If errors were being introduced by internal noise etc and the resultant checksum errors were being ignored so what - the samples you have provided are still identical - an invert comparison proves this - and the differences are still placebo.

[Will]

Jul 12, 2009 8:29:08 GMT allenf said:

...To be clear on this, my argument is about ripping, not real-time playback which introduces the possibility of jitter etc.
All a ripper has to do is make repeated passes at data on the disk to return the data error-free, which is exactly what they do - repeatably - which is exactly what your samples show. Your samples are identical at the bit level.
If errors were being introduced by internal noise etc and the resultant checksum errors were being ignored so what - the samples you have provided are still identical - an invert comparison proves this - and the differences are still placebo.

If I get this right, you are saying it is only the perceived differences between the ripped music files that are placebo, not the effects of dampening/3Mtape on playback system?

I have yet to have a good listen to the tracks that Jeff has posted, as my system is in bits, but did have a good listen to the blu-ray/damped files that Alex put up for comparison. On a system that comprised of a PCM2702 based USB DAC and the modified SCHA, I reported improvements that corroborated with others, with no hints. The differences were subtle, put I think that they would have been more apparent with more revealing equipment than mine.

Allen, have you damped your PC equipment to the same levels that Jeff and Alex have? Perhaps the differences are more apparent (sonically) in systems that are already damped?

No attacks here, just a thought.

[robertkd]

OK I have watched this for a while and need to ask,...

now what about the cache memory in the i/o of the HDD sub assembly?

does the additional photons falling on the tone arm add additional tracking force or is it simply an additional glass or 2 of good red?

if streaming data from hdd into a RAM buffer and outputting this data at a CBR what difference does the source jitter make?

if rippers couldn't make a "copy" of a CD why is the music industry so hell bent on preventing copying CD's (and DVD's) so much so they want us to all suffer "protected MP3"

has there been any quantified results to these tests?

Robert

[robertkd]

Jul 11, 2009 18:16:22 GMT rickcr42 said:

"loudness brush"

that would mean a bass boost.If you mean it sounds louder overall then just back off on the volume control dude !

If bylouder you mean "segments" of the music are louder than others then that is a whole different kettle of fish and not something I get in my system at all.That fact that "bit perfect" does not mean "sounds the same" by any stretch proves to me this is not the most important part of ripping redbook CD audio because if you are getting an exact "image" of the Cd the sound would be identical no matterif played back on the computer or played back on a dedicated CD "player".And by player I mean no external DA Conversion which does and will add jitter which changes the entire context of the comparison there being no way to do it fairly

not at all, loudness in the context of a typical domestic amplifier certainly refers to a modification of the low frequency gain dependent on volume control setting to make up for the perception of bass at low playback levels.

On the other hand loudness of a source refers to the manipulation of the psycho acoustic levels of specific frequencies of the audio spectrum, as well as the introduction of a limiter compressor.

Modern loudness "enhancers" processors can do so much more employing techniques that play on the way the human aural system responds to sound and spectra density.

Robert