Rippers Revisited

[Deleted]

Robert
Re playback from memory, I have no experience with this, but JeffC has, as he uses this software, and is a member of that Forum. The members speak highly of this particular software,
and participate in listening to differing settings, and report back to the software designer about their preferences.

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

Perhaps JeffC can ask Peter St. from the XXHE Forum that question, if he doesn't already know the answers ?

Regarding the EAC vs. dBPoweramp Ripper, it is very early days with this, and I have only joined in at Jeff's request, to give another set of ears.
So far , our impressions appear to be fairly closely aligned, which is a shame, because this inexpensive ripper has some great features, and is BLOODY fast ! EAC in Secure Mode can even dip below .3 x Read speed at times,which can make extraction painfully slow. However, it is Freeware.

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"

No inventory, and quick and easy downloads = maximum profit.
As Jeff and myself are finding out, many CDs are far better than most people realise. The direct optical disc playback performance, in affordable players at least, is far below what appears to be available from the ripped CD, and in many cases gives the impression of much higher resolution when played directly from a well dampened HDD and DVD /CD ripper. As for a typical DVD writer, what do you expect from a device that can be bought brand new for as little as $30, and is churned out like sausages almost ?

Alex

[robertkd]

seriously that would be an interesting response, given that any programmer using a stream based data source would include buffering (or maybe double buffering )

I know I would

doubly so presenting this data to an interface albeit optical/coax or even presenting it to an i/o or USB interface with it's own requirement for outputting data at a CBR (constant bit rate)

Robert

[jeffc]

Guys, what a difference a day makes, we all having fun here ;D.

Good to see some data on the files allenf, thanks for that, but its too late an I'm way too tired after a big day of manual work to walk the tight rope of identical checksums = non-identical SQ, and why this can/can't be.

All I know is that with my very direct playback systyem, described here a couple of times now, and the quite rigorous attempt I've made to dampen/vibration deaden my LG BR writer and HDD, I hear clear differences in the sonic signature of .wavs ripped from the same CD with either EAC or dBpoweramp, which TBH I wasn't expecting, and as Alex has reinforced, is a pain, as for functionality dBpoweramp slays EAC.

I'll look into the points you guys are interested in some during the week. In the meantime, go download a demo version of XXHighEnd player, Vista engine #3 is best but XP engine #1 isn't too bad either, and give these a go, I believe XXHE copies to RAM before playback, a SQ is excellent. Not to say this is the reason for perceived SQ differences, just that if you haven't tried it, it is very much worth a look see

cheers.. jeffc

[rickcr42]

RickAre 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[/quote}

There you go being confrontational and dramatic again and why i think twice before EVER weighing in on anything you say is gospel so you know what ?

You guys have a nice weekend

[jeffc]

OK lets all cool down and revisit the reason for rickcr42 starting the thread,

Some wacko's over at that place kept in straight jackets finding "holey moley batman, this new fangled dBpoweramp ripper belts the crap out of EAC for SQ, and it does this with one of those cheap external laptop DVD burners powered by USB"

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

Well I had a go at re-evaluating the 2 rippers, and my findings were, with the 3M tape damped external BR writer and HDDs, indeed the opposite of what was being touted. As I've communicated with Alex a lot about improvements in SQ that we believe have been by the use of the LG Blu-ray writer, and then through serious attempts at vibration damping, I asked whether me could compare some .wav files I uploaded for him.

As he, without knowing which file was which, came to a similar conclusion as me that there were CLEAR differences in SQ, with EAC preferred, he suggested I report the finding here. So I did with a sparsely instrumented and short Jack Johnson test track for folk to download and have a listen too. Unfortunately only allenf has taken up the offer, and with the heavily produced for Hi Fi 'Bloody Well Right' track I uploaded for another sound flavour.

I'll upload both versions of both tracks again tonight to give others a chance for a listen and feedback on SQ being indistinguishable or different.

And rickcr42.... did you really have to weigh in with this

There you go being confrontational and dramatic again and why i think twice before EVER weighing in on anything you say is gospel so you know what ?

, bit disappointing mate

Alex is getting on in age as you're well aware and seems to live with a passion to pass on his findings/wisdom (bit like you in fact but more for the reason that he has the time to dabble and good hearing might not be with him for much longer) to others here so that we all can get the utmost out of our audio systems. He trouble shoots for everybody as does Robertkd and this is always appreciated here. I suggest that you show a little more respect for this, his integrity and his always genuine intentions.

Now lets all get back to regular broadcasts and start helping each other find headphone sonic bliss, not slinging mud about

Safety helmit firmly fixed to my noggin but hopeully not needed.

cheers.. jeffc

[Sol]

I seem to have a mail from Alex (or so my iphone says) - I'll go see if it's something to listen to tonight!

My missus is out and about so I have time to do some critical listening later.

Now .. for the record .. I don't have a player direct from a PC soundcad, but I do have a squeezebox. Lets see if there's any difference from my end!

[Deleted]

Sol
No it's not a comparison. It's just an uploaded track that I thought a few of you may be interested in hearing, from "Best Audiophile Voices 5" Just an idea of what's on the CD.
Alex

[jeffc]

Sol,

While you’re in download mode, here are some .wav tracks to compare that I promised to upload to give folk more time to grab them, filemail.com in free mode will only host them for 3 days.

Be interested in whether you can detect any differences in PERCEIVED sound quality. ;D

Download files here
www.filemail.com/dl.aspx?id=BWOSZRUPILAPCLA
Download expiry date: 16. Jul 10:17 AM

Was going to upload EAC and dBpoweramp rips of a track from Emmylou Harris's 'All I Intended to Be' CD but must have deleted the dBpoweramp rip. Will rip it again as it provided good insight into how dBpoweramp seems to flesh out vocals, with hers having that edgy character. Hang, draw and quarter me for even thinking dBpoweramp might present her voice differently to EAC.

cheers.. Jeff

[Sol]

Thanks Jeff ... I'll have a listen. I see there's two of each file (I assume all ripped with EAC). I don't know which have had magic sprinkled into the ripping process and which hav not .. so I'll leave it like that )

Give me chance to have a good listen and I'll report back to this thread.

[jeffc]

As promosed, here's a track for comparison from that Emmylou Harris CD

www.filemail.com/dl.aspx?id=FDYLAWTJLRRVLRD
Download expiry date: 16. Jul 1:18 PM

To me the EAC and dBpoweramp rips sound almost
like they've come from different CDs and I'll be absolutely gob
smacked if you guys with decent gear can't pick differences in the way her voice is portrayed. Other differences too but that stands out like dogs balls even in my modest system. ;D

Sol,

Thanks and I'll be most interested in what you find. A little sprinkling of pixie dust on the CDs and with hardware vibration deadening but what you'll be listening to is files ripped with either Exact Audio Copy or dBpoweramp, in secure 'bit perfect' modes.

cheers.. jeffc

[Deleted]

To me the EAC and dBpoweramp rips sound almost like they've come from different CDs and I'll be absolutely gob smacked if you guys with decent gear can't pick differences in the way her voice is portrayed. Other differences too but that stands out like dogs balls even in my modest system.

Yes, and one is .2mB larger also. Next time can you please post tracks from the same CD ?

[Sol]

I noticed the size difference?

[Deleted]

Jul 13, 2009 17:47:18 GMT Sol said:

I noticed the size difference?

Sol
The Emmylou Harris named track is 41.0MB. The other track is 40.8MB.This is most likely due to different management of lead in/lead out of the track ?
Alex
P.S.
I was being facetious, as to my ears they did sound like they came from different masters.

[Will]

I hope my Dad doesn't find out I'm going to listen to Emmylou Harris

[PinkFloyd]

I downloaded both the supertramp files.... what exactly am I supposed to hear? Sounds like your everyday music "download" to me

[jeffc]

Come on Will, broaden your musical tastes horizons .

TBH this Emmylou Harris CD isn't on my high rotation list but I'm partial to a little mid-US country from time to time and Dave Alvin does a very nice version of this song on his fantastic 'West of the West' CD. Have a listen to some song samples at Amazons.

However, back to my point, I mainly selected this CD as it really highlights very clearly the "PERCEIVED" differences in the sonic presentations of EAC vs dBpoweraqmp rips that I, and at least Alex, seem to be able to pick. My last ditch effort. If feedback comes in from others that they sound the same I'll be dumbfounded.

cheers.. jeffc

[jeffc]

Mike,

Listen to the way the electric piano is presented. With the EAC rip, to me its almost as thought the keys have been hit harder/cleaner, better clarity. Get any impression whatsoever of differences here?

cheers.. jeffc

[Deleted]

Jul 13, 2009 22:38:52 GMT PinkFloyd said:

I downloaded both the supertramp files.... what exactly am I supposed to hear? Sounds like your everyday music "download" to me

Mike
I can't speak for what other people will hear,especially JeffC who posted these files, but with one version I hear far better separation between instruments and voice, as well as the sound having a much greater width, instead of mainly , but not completely between the L and R earpieces. To me, her voice sounds a little more natural too, among many other differences. Perhaps the DACs that some of us use with our PCs are making the differences far more obvious ?
Let's see what Jeff finds different between the 2 different rips of the same track ?
Alex

[Sol]

POTENTIAL SPOILER INFORMATION FOR OTHERS TAKING A LISTEN and NOT WANTING BIAS OR POINTERS

OK I admit it .... I hear a difference.

Supertramp - nada for me ... but to be honest wasn't engaged into listening to it. I detest Supertramp!

The Em Lou Harris track vocals sounded more natural to me, the separation is better, and there's a definate "sparkle" to the whole affair. By sparkle I mean it's as if I looking at polished mirror as opposed to a slighlty dusty one. The information is all there, but somehow a little dulled. It's not night and day, and it is only marginal .. but it is there. Also feels like perhaps micro dynamics are better, with headphones confirming to me that there's small nuances in dynamics that differentiatte the two versions. What is interesting is that I get more involved in the better presented track, but blindly choosing one at random I find it hard to be definate which I'm lsitening to while I'm listening until I can switch back to the otehr if that makes sense. Then only if I really focus on one element of the track and do a quick compare. Even then I'm fifty fifty sometimes, requiring a couple of switches back and forth.

I did find a couple of areas which helped me decide:

There's the opening part of the duet which for me has better separation and slightly diffeent positioning of the two voices. There's a right channel quiet guitar lick and strum far right just after a steel slide guitar, which to my ears is much clearer and has it clearly discernable as acoustic guitar whereas in the other verison is less easy to pull from the mix and sounds less interesting and muffled in comparison.

The Gone track is less well recorded over all, but opens an interesting element because of it - the opening bars have a "master tape" type hiss which is definately different in one over the other. It sems strange to say that the hiss is better presneted in one - but what i mean is that it's obviously recording studio hiss! The bass line shows the biggest difference for me - has much better timbre, with it sounding more natural, and acoustic bass like in the one track. With volume turne dup on my main speaker rig, it's obvious my speakers are able to control the bass better, with less chance of bloom Overall the bass feels far more like it was recorded. There's a small bend in the bass line, a single note that differs during the repetition of the bass lick, and this is more easily followed to me.

Again not night and day differences, and I reckon I'd be challenged to do blind testing without being able to switch quickly between tracks several times.

Of course all this assumes I like the same tracks as you! I only displayed track names as I didn't want to get any potential bias from any tagging information that may be on the track. After some time once I was clear which I thought was better, turned tags back on, and I can report that the Em Lou H track was labelled approprirately ) The others I liked were tagged with a naming convension which supports they were ripped the same as the EM Lou Harris.

BTW ... that auld lang track was to die for Alex! Though I was less keen on the Knopfler - but it would be a strange world if we all liked the same thing.



Edited in error! Haven't had a coffee yet !

[Deleted]

Sol
Nice writeup. Interesting comment about those 2 singers. Personally, I enjoyed both, but somebody else 's preference was the other way around.
Seeing that you are hearing and appreciating the differences between rippers, you will certainly be also able to hear differences between rips made with your DVD writer, and another made after your DVD/CD ROM used for ripping was sound dampened , and after chassis dampening and playback HDD dampening is done. Why not go to the next step, where I feel sure you will hear even bigger differences, both with normal playback of CDs using your DVD/CD ROM, and those played from your HDD?
Miguel very kindly sent me a roll of the 3M (2552) space age vibration dampening tape.The 2 tracks that you heard were ripped before dampening the remaining drives. Much to my surprise, I heard a further improvement in SQ when playing back the previous rip of the same, but the latest rips sound even better when played back from the HDD. The 2 uploaded tracks from "Best Audiophile Voices" referred to were the previous rips, which aren't quite as revealing as the new rips done the following day.
Alex

P.S. My musical and Instrument knowledge, as well as hearing, isn't good enough to give detailed reports like yours, but yours may give pointers to other members about the differences to listen for, which should eventually, after practice, become further refined, and the improvements found to enhance listening enjoyment without trying to be analytical.

What is interesting is that I get more involved in the better presented track,

Sol
That is exactly what both Jeff, and myself find !!!
Alex

[jeffc]

Great reviews Sol,

Sad though that you've now joined the club .
That SQ sparkle and engrossment in the recording event, recording tape hiss enhancement and all, is what has got Alex and I so excited about the potential of PC-based audio since getting Blu-ray writers and getting serious about vibration damping of hardware.

I've just compared a couple of tracks sent by Alex, being his previous best and latest with that 3M 2552 tape plastered more liberally and my PERCEIVED listening enjoyment jumped another notch. Baring PSU upgrades, the limiting factor now must be the player software, which I've been playing with a bit but now need to assess more thoroughly.

Here's comments on the tracks emailed to Alex, he didn't let on which was which. ;D

"Download impressions....the California Girls titled .wav sounds very nice to me, detailed with delicateness/sweetness and more finesse and openness/soundstage size as well as a more 'open window' transparency I don't quite PERCEIVE, my favorite word now, in Track04. That's putting my system and hearing credentials on the line, still in the club or banished ?"

Alex's response

"Jeff, 04. was ripped on 12th June, and California Girls was ripped on14th July. The California Girls track was immediately AFTER 3M tape was placed on all remaining drives, including the Pioneer, where even before reripping, the previous 3M version sounded better on playback than before, and I didn't imagine it !
Alex"

And I should note that I have no affiliations whatsoever with 3M, except for a drinking mate who heads the aerospace division in Brisbane who got me some of the 2552 tape to demo for audio applications a couple of years back.

cheers..jeffc

[Sol]

I like being part of the club

I have to admit being doubtful .... I figured the resolution on my equipment wasn't up to it ... but playing either:

a) PC>SB3>X-DAC V3 (Modded)>X-10 V3 Modded>biamped speakers

or

b) PC>SB3>X-DAC V3 (Modded)>X-10 V3 Modded> Solo Green aped headphones

showed the differences.

Interesting for me - I find the speaker system is floating my boat again after sorting out the left bias problem. Loose connection! The speakers have it and the musical involvement is way betetr than with the headphones - which remain the analytical tool!

So ... for messing with my playback system ... guess I need to play with damping the HDD, and my CD/DVD writer. Perhaps then I'll re-rip the entire collection to wav, and ignore FLAC, which is uncompressed on the fly by the SB3.

Another option I'm looking is using the PS3, which can stream music, need to do a compare using it as the streaming source! Lots to consider!

So guys .. well done on the research ... still can't understand the mechanism why two indentical checksumed files can sound different - can only assume it's jitter reduction, with the playback mechanism allowing easy reading of the digital information, giving theclock an easier time or some such - though I don't know enough about the mechanism's involved to be factual or hypothetical! Would need someone far brainer than I! I can only suspect it's jitter which I do know can cause artefacts in the digital stream if the clock timing is foobar'd - potentially can vibration lead to jitter?

I'm also interested in the potential of using a netowrk drive, and a small silent computer locally to the system! I came across a mini PC that about 300 quid, which can sit behind the TV. It's only about 6 inchces square, totally silent!

[clint]

Is it me or....sometimes i have a better sound from a cd-r than the original cd. I bought the other day the LG - GGC-H20L, not the 20W ( BTW, is it only different from the 20W on the firmware...?) and from the ripps i'd made using DBpoweramp i have better sonics than much of the original cds.
Any thoughts?

[Deleted]

Jul 18, 2009 11:04:06 GMT clint said:

Is it me or....sometimes i have a better sound from a cd-r than the original cd. I bought the other day the LG - GGC-H20L, not the 20W ( BTW, is it only different from the 20W on the firmware...?) and from the ripps i'd made using DBpoweramp i have better sonics than much of the original cds.
Any thoughts?

Yes, don't tell Allen or Greg, or they may send the chaps in white coats around to your place !

Clint
This subject was discussed in the thread at the attached link.
See especially, my reply 14. I believe that the LG Blu Ray readers/writers most likely have a better optical subsystem than most DVD writers.

rockgrotto.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=talk&action=display&thread=3687

However, I would recommend that you change to the slower E.A.C. as a ripper. As your system is further improved, you will find as Jeff,Sol, and myself have done, that the resulting SQ is markedly better with EAC, especially with soundstage, and separation between instruments and voices. Because of the seemingly poorer stereo separation, dBPoweramp ripper may give the impression that the rip is a little louder, but it loses out on subtlety. Some people mistake the extra apparent loudness, as an improvement. It isn't. It may also result in low level detail being less clearly defined.
I deleted dbPoweramp Ripper from my PC about an hour ago, as it was annoying me by giving information on every file that my mouse hovered over. I wouldn't have minded so much, if the information was correct. It was plain bloody wrong much of the time. As an example, it said that a Lady Gaga music video recorded from ABC HDTV was MP3 128KBS, when it was DD 2.0 @ 384 KBS.

Alex

[robertkd]

Jul 18, 2009 11:40:27 GMT @sandyk said:

As an example, it said that a Lady Gaga music video recorded from ABC HDTV was MP3 128KBS, when it was DD 2.0 @ 384 KBS.

Alex

Alex that sounds about right for 2.0 in a 384Kbs mpeg audio stream ;D