In Case you Were Wondering.......

[wkhanna]

So.....
I guess we can all throw our SeeDee players away........

http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com - Good Bye Optical Disc Drives

Actually, now that I use a server feeding directly to my DAC, my SeeDee player is the basement in its original box. But I still need the Disc Drive on my PC to burn FLAC files. Don't see that changing anytime soon.

Guess I should put that Cambridge Audio 640 v2 CDp in the 'Pawn Shop' classifieds?

[madmac]

Apparently you can watch a movie or listen to music from a USB dongle!!??. That baffles me because in my mind, I always see something moving to make that happen........Like a spinning disc for example. But then again, maybe I'm just old school!!??.

[wkhanna]

Dan.....that is so funny!

You sound just like a vinylphile!

In a few years you can take my place.
Just work on your 'grumpy' a little bit & you will be ready.

[JonMarsh]

Yeah, adopt ThomasW's slogan-

Put the "NO" in "inNOvation"!

I have been using music servers for years, (mainly Macs since 2005), but still have a disk player hooked into one of the system/DAC inputs- lately it's been a Tascam pro CD transport, running on the AES/EBU output, which sounds pretty decent. There's still lots of times I need to toss a CD on the barbi and see how it sounds...

High end music servers these days are basically just a big USB stick hooked up to an ITX based Linux system, usually running iOS software on a remote for control... but with a lot of details, like how the clocks are developed or controlled via external word clock. Even Aurender has quite a price gap between the S10 and the new W20.

[Ovation]

I have 2 HD DVD players, 3 BD players, one Wii, one PS3, two DVD-V/SACD/DVD-A players, one DVD-V/DVD-A player and one DVD/VHS combo player. I have an optical disc drive in my laptop and two external disc drives (optical). I make use of all of them (not with equal frequency, of course, but still, more than just once every six months). I'm not abandoning optical drives anytime soon.

[PewterTA]

I'd say throw that up in the classifieds... I'm sure someone will enjoy the CD player. It's a heck of a player!

It is sad though... I agree I have barely used my CDP for actually playing CDs anymore. Unless I get a new one and don't feel like waiting for it to rip before listening to it. By the second time I play it though it's onto the server.

[madmac]

I'd say throw that up in the classifieds... I'm sure someone will enjoy the CD player. It's a heck of a player!

It is sad though... I agree I have barely used my CDP for actually playing CDs anymore. Unless I get a new one and don't feel like waiting for it to rip before listening to it. By the second time I play it though it's onto the server.

Call me old school but.....there is something very unromantic and un-musical about listening to music that way. I WANNA SPIN STUFF!!! :P

[BWLover]

Madmac, I agree. For me I'd just rather listen to the original file. Be it cd or vinyl. I worry about uncompressed or FLAC files on a server. It seems like more steps are involved in this method. How do I KNOW that nothing went wrong in the ripping process? You know?


Sent from my iPhone using the Tapatalk app

[PewterTA]

That's why you have accurip and various other forms of CRC checks to verify you're getting good data.

Truthfully... there's no guarantee that the CD has the correct data on it... I mean in the stamping process, it's very easy for the cutters to wear out and I'm sure a few of the "not-so-pristine" versions made it into various hands.

I was one that never could get the audio off my PC to sound as good as the same disc played in my player.... that's why I went with the Cambridge Audio 840c. I love it and still do. However, the nice feature is being able to use the DAC in it via other sources. Until recently, through a lot of work and researching and figuring out exactly how to make my computer sound the best, I never got the audio played through it to sound like the CD. NOW... via settings and using the Musical Fidelity V-Link 192, I can really say that when I rip a disc to the server and play it through the PC, it does sound as good and most times sounds better than the CD in the player using it's transport. This has been a good year long process for me to figure out how to best it. So you guys are right, it's not a simple and easy thing to do and requires testing and changing and making things different to figure out how to get it done.

Now that I've gotten it done though... it's a pretty simple process and I can repeatedly set it up and get the same results (though I should write down the process of everything as I'm sure the next time I do it I'll forget). But it's neat hearing a disc played and then re-listening to the same thing on the computer and going, yep it sound better, more clear and precise representation of the disc. More accurate.

So it can be done, does it take the romance out of it... somewhat, it's often times way to easy to just "jump" to the next thing I want to listen to. But that's where the patience comes in and just going and enjoying the music.

Heck... if I can get Bill to adopt it and validate that it does in fact sound as good if not better than a $1400 CDP and use it on a regular basis... it's not alllllll that bad.

I do wish I knew more about programming and writing software, I'd love to make a killer app for listening to music, none, (imho) are all that great and are missing a couple of keep things to make any of them spectacular.

[impala454]

I still use my Oppo bd player to play CDs pretty frequently and would much rather purchase a CD than a file. But the article seemed to be referring more to computers. I have to say I still like using optical on computers because I like the ability to burn backup discs. Whether it's blurays or what, I can cram all my photos onto them and stick them in a firesafe box. No moving parts or electronics to go bad (I'm a little baffled as to how the author of the article claims hard drives or USB sticks are more reliable), and just an extra layer of backup (in addition to using Google Drive and an external hard drive). I've also gotten into a kick lately of ripping all my movies so I can easily transfer them over to my android phone or ipad.

[wkhanna]

I remember a while back when Dan (PewterTA) told me he was getting superior performance from a FLAC file ripped from a redbook 16/24 SeeDee played through the very same DAC used to play the actual SeeDee.

At first this seemed like wishful thinking, or hearing, to me.

However, after some listening I found it to be true. It seems the transport in even the best of CDp’s is a weak link, inducing audible artifacts (jitter). Eliminating the transport from the signal chain delivers a more bit-perfect product to the DAC, provided the implementation of the play-back platform is configured properly. Getting that configuration right can prove to be a significant htask, but the time Dan has invested in trial & error testing has proven worthwhile.

[madmac]

I remember a while back when Dan (PewterTA) told me he was getting superior performance from a FLAC file ripped from a redbook 16/24 SeeDee played through the very same DAC used to play the actual SeeDee.

At first this seemed like wishful thinking, or hearing, to me.

However, after some listening I found it to be true. It seems the transport in even the best of CDp’s is a weak link, inducing audible artifacts (jitter). Eliminating the transport from the signal chain delivers a more bit-perfect product to the DAC, provided the implementation of the play-back platform is configured properly. Getting that configuration right can prove to be a significant htask, but the time Dan has invested in trial & error testing has proven worthwhile.

There's only one thing I don't understand about this theory?. In order to get the data to your computer, you have to SPIN the disc first to get it there no?. By doing this, you are getting the famous 'Jitter' effect and transferring that 'jittery' data/ sound to the hard drive?. Plus, it is common sense to me to realize that ANY transfer cannot be better than the original!!??. It can be the SAME....but not better. You can 'process' a Red book CD to 'sound' somewhat better but it would be exactly that.....Processing (ie...Like equalizing).

[PewterTA]

Well, here's where the understanding of jitter comes into play...

You don't get jitter from just reading the disc. That's not what happens with Jitter. Jitter is a timing issues of getting the 1s and 0s to the destination at precisely the correct time. When a disc reads at "normal" speed (ie 1x) there is a timing that happens that requires each bit to be either a 1 or a 0 at that exact time. If it's not, then the error correction has to request a re-read of that bit and that is where you get the jitter from. To help eliminate this problem the first line of defense is a buffer. It gives the optical drive and CRC calculations time to correct the error if being read off the disc.

When you rip the disc down to your computer. You are allowing the computer to just simply read the data and put it down onto the HD. The use of CRC checks and others (like accurip) then can verify the data and make sure you're getting exactly what it should be. There's no timing required by this process, it's just a raw data copy from one medium to another.

Basically think of it this way... ripping the disc to the HD is like having a map with all the roads on it, you can see where you're going and you can see what's up ahead... Reading the CD during normal playback, is like the display on your GPS... you can't really see much more than what it's displaying (maybe less than a half mile!?) If that screen fails to refresh and show you your new location... your not going to know where to go or how to get to your destination. You would have to pull off and let it catch up and then you could continue on. That of course is if you were a slave to the simple process of driving and looking at the GPS and couldn't actually think for yourself.

What Bill was more referring to is that he feels that we are getting a better representation of the data as it was to be. Not that we are making things sound better.... that's not what's happening. It's more we are getting a more accurate representation of the data. In effect eliminating the jitter potential coming from the transport.

For the CD vs Lossless download. The lossless file *should* be an identical representation of the what the master files are (well as close as to what the mastering person puts out). When converted to a physical format, such as CD, the data is represented by peaks and valleys... Well who's to say those are accurate in and of themselves. The cutting machine that stamps the film eventually wears down and some of those peaks and valleys end up becoming jitter upon playback. That's when the device has to figure out and calculate the correct CRC to verify if it's a 1 or a 0.

Basically when ripping down you are basically removing one layer of reading the data (well one time read then multiple times from that single read -- like cloning). HDs are so much faster and more precise than an optical transport that you are basically getting a perfect representation each and every time.

[PewterTA]

Any medium usb stick, hd, cd has roughly the same ability to fail. My thing has always been that if you have it in at least 2 or 3 copies in 2 or 3 locations... you should be safe. Which is why my 40TB raid (24 drives supporting it) has a backup of another 40TB on another physical server. At least all the data is in two locations. So the weak point in my server (Raid Controller Card) is the only real single point of failure.

Make me able to sleep at night with all the time I've taken to rip my movies and CDs and lossless vinyl rips... it's a lot of time and effort put into getting it all on there, so it's not much to me to spend the money to make sure I should be good.

[madmac]

Very interesting Pewter!. It's not that I am a non-believer in this copy sounding better than the original concept. The reason why I say this and, I will admit this........for whatever reason, I find that a ripped CD somehow sounds better than the original.

It's still a CD being played on a cd player but it's a burn of the original but.....somehow.....I find it sounds better. Go figure!!

[mjb]

mmm, not to nit-pick, but I think some lines are getting crossed - Red Book CD's can exhibit jitter through playback timing errors as you're decoding a simple digitised audio stream. Anything else (newer) is packetised DATA, and so it adheres to a Protocol of some sort, with CRC checksums, etc, etc. There is no "re-reading", but error-correction, which is kinda guessing what it should have been in the first place. In either case, a decent clock is essential. Probably this is whats improved since my gramophone days. Red Book CD's are 31 years old - sure technology has improved since then!

[wkhanna]

All other things being equal, a copy of a redbook SeeDee to a digital file then 'burnt' to another SeeDee could at its V best be no more than an exact duplicate. Depending on the software used to copy & burn, the potential for filtering & or 'smoothing' can be present in the application. This alteration, or as I see it, 'adulteration', of the original data may in fact sound 'different’.
Whether or not it sounds better is a personal (subjective) observation.

But this is off topic. What we (I) am concerned with is the preservation of the original data.

For example, it is possible to up-sample a 16/24 file to a 24/96 file. You may have increased the resolution, but you have also added data that was not in the original. Again, whether or not the up-sampled version sounds better is a bit subjective in evaluation. And again, the result will be affected by any filtering, apodizing, smoothing or any number of other things that can happen to the signal during the up-sampling process dependent on the algorithm of its author. Also, the quality of the original can have a significant effect on the outcome. If the original had a Dynamic Range of 7, the up-sampled version will still have a Dynamic Range of 7. Some may feel the up-sampled version sounds better. It may in fact cause less fatigue due to the process, but it is not a higher quality version of the original.

My personal philosophy is one of truth to the original.
This is why I made sure the DAC I purchased did not up-sample.
Do not sugar-coat my music.
Don't put lipstick on pig.
Give it to me straight.
The last thing I want or need is Big Brother ( or some producer or HD-Download.com or anybody else) messing with my music, too.

For example, I have 16/24 redbook SeeDee's ripped to my server which put shame some 24/192 Hi-Res files.

Why?
Because the quality of the original is better to begin with.

There is no "re-reading", but error-correction, which is kinda guessing what it should have been in the first place. In either case, a decent clock is essential. Probably this is whats improved since my gramophone days. Red Book CD's are 31 years old - sure technology has improved since then!

I agree that the clocking is being addressed to higher degree in newer equipment.
I also agree that precise clocking is essential to achieving results equivalent to analog.
While the SeeDee may be 31 + years old, getting the very best from what was put on it all those years ago is still a work in progress.

[mjb]

If you up-sample, you haven't "added data that was not in the original", you've just changed your interpretation of it. eg, made more samples of the same thing, to a greater bit depth. If this sounds better, its probably because as you say, its been messed about with in the process. You can never improve on a first generation copy in terms of data integrity - in the analog world - but perhaps you can improve the interpretation of it

What we (I) am concerned with is the preservation of the original data.

Nice discussion Bill

[wkhanna]

You can never improve on a first generation copy in terms of data integrity - in the analog world - but perhaps you can improve the interpretation of it

But, at what cost?

For example, let us say I am the artist (OK, you can all stop laughing now).
And I produce my work.
I then release my work in the exact form it was created.
And let us not confine this thought experiment to audio alone.
Say for example, my work of art is a sculpture, or a poem, or a painting or photograph.
Then someone comes along, and changes it to what 'they' proselytize as a 'better' or 'improved' version.

If someone else makes a change to the original work, then it is no long my work of art, but rather my art as 'described' by someone else.

At some point, it will no longer convey the intent of its creator.
Who decides?

[madmac]

Based on my last comment, I will assume for the sake of argument that the software I am using to 'burn' a cd to a blank one is 'altering' the original sound somewhat. What other explanation could there be to it sounding different (ie...better to my ears)??

[wkhanna]

Based on my last comment, I will assume for the sake of argument that the software I am using to 'burn' a cd to a blank one is 'altering' the original sound somewhat.........

What are you using rip & burn, Dan?

[PewterTA]

Probably what Dan is experiencing is that his player reads more easily the burnt copy. That'd be my guess. As there some laser pickups that respond better to the dye in the CDRs than they do to the metallic pressing in the original discs.

I know this one fact for sure. There's not a consumer grade CD/dvd/bluray burner out there that can make perfect identical image of a disc burned at anything beyond 1x. There's always errors when looking at the quality of the burn the drives do. I know I've seen how finicky the firmware guys are that mod the firmware of all the drives out there in their pursuit to get the best possible copy they can. Some drives will only write perfectly on certain media only... so most likely... anyone making a copy of a disc, there is very very very very slight degradation to the disc.

I even saw someone (been a couple years now), made 100x copies off of each copy...so each time making a copy of the copy. By the roughly 40 or 50 time he found out the disc were bad enough that there would be pauses and read issues. I believe around the 80th or 90th disc he could no longer get the discs to play.

[Ovation]

The only disc player I've ever had to throw away for failure to operate properly (my first CD player, a Kenwood from 1985, is still going strong in my buddy's bedroom system--he bought from me in 1988 ) was a 1990 model Denon, and that was three years ago. It began to have problems reading newer CDs (those with a painted, heavily coloured, "label" side, especially, along with certain discs with slightly different thicknesses than most commercial CDs). If I burned a copy, it would read the copy just fine, so did that for a while (about six months--maybe 30 discs in all). Then it wouldn't read those either. But otherwise, I have been remarkably well-served by disc players.

Three of my former players (the 1985 Kenwood, a 1988 Technics, a 2002 Panasonic DVD player) are still in regular use in other people's homes (friend and relatives). My 2004 Cambridge Audio DVD player still works fine (I use it as a CD player in a secondary system). My 2004 Marantz DV6400 is my living room DVD-A/SACD/CD player and occasional DVD-V player (remarkably robust error correction--will play scratched rental DVDs that no other player in my house will play). My PS3 is from 2007--no issues. My Cambridge Audio DVD99 is my DVD-A/SACD/region-free DVD-V player in the HT (2007? model--I'd have to look it up). A 2009 Samsung BD player and two Toshiba HD DVD players (A2 and A3) also continue to play without issues.

I've had several hard drives fail during the past decade though, and while that hasn't stopped me from putting most of my audio in ALAC in iTunes (for convenience), I remain leery of the notion of abandoning physical media and optical drives. They have proven more robust and reliable to me, thus far.

[madmac]

What are you using rip & burn, Dan?

Normally I use 'Nero' smart software.

[Finleyville]

Normally I use 'Nero' smart software.

That is part of your problem right there. There are free programs out there that will create a bit perfect copy of your original. I have auto body icing on my hands right now or else I would help you more...

[wkhanna]

......I have auto body ic`ing on my hands right now or else I would help you more...

Ha!!
Sounds as though someone is doing some final detail work on some V special DIY speakers! :W

And yes. I agree there are many options that will deliver superior performance.
EAC is a free-ware app that is V good IMHO, & though it can be somewhat difficult to set-up initially, there is a lot of information on line & many helpful folks who will lend a hand.

Also, dBpoweramp, which I use, is quite affordable (~ $40) & V good at providing bit perfect performance & manages the metadata & cover art really well.

[PewterTA]

Obviously.... ya gotta have the dBPoweramp..... ha ha

I have to admit it's a great piece of software.

[Hdale85]

Just to put it out there for thought, Vinyl could be considered lossy on some level as well, I mean you gather dust dirt and debris on it, and then you use some kind of brush to clean it off which vinyl is pretty soft so it's going to inflict some small level of damage over time. I'm not saying I'm anti vinyl, I'd actually love to get a TT personally lol. I'm just saying that it's easy for information to get lost just like on CD or in a server, it's not a completely inert medium although with care it can last a very long time.

As for accurate rips I use accurip software and DBpoweramp mostly. Accurip keeps an online database of a reference copy and compares yours to it and makes corrections based on errors. CD has the same flaws as vinyl really, any sort of scratch or dust or debris can cause read errors.

[PewterTA]

Accurip does not make corrections to your rip... all it does is verify via its database that the CRC calculation you get per track off your disc matches. If it doesn't... it just lets you know, it doesn't correct. It's database is built upon people that use it and verifies if you match everyone else. That's where the ratings when finished come from to let you know how many others got the same thing as you.

It also corrects (adjusts) the read offset which is where the drive starts reading the disc as every drive is different (well each model). This make sure that what you're reading from the disc accurately matches what is in the databases.

[madmac]

That is part of your problem right there. There are free programs out there that will create a bit perfect copy of your original. I have auto body icing on my hands right now or else I would help you more...

What do ya' mean???......Like I said, my burns typically sound better than the original ??. Who can argue with a result like that??.

[wkhanna]

Just to put it out there for thought, Vinyl could be considered lossy on some level as well, I mean you gather dust dirt and debris on it, and then you use some kind of brush to clean it off which vinyl is pretty soft so it's going to inflict some small level of damage over time. .

It is true that cleaning could cause some small level of wear or degradation to vinyl. Its exact impact would be dependent on the specific process & cleaning agent/chemicals being used. However, the act of playing the record will induce far more wear than simply cleaning it. The stylus, or 'needle', exerts a force on the surface of the record groove & thus causes friction as it travels along its path. The force or 'weight' of the stylus is a critical adjustment, one that should be performed carefully at regular intervals. A typical stylus force as recommended from a cartridge manufacturer might be 2.0 grams. This may seem quite insignificant at first. But let us use the example of a woman’s high heel shoe. In a flat sole shoe, the weight is distributed over a large area & one could walk easily over a piece of Styrofoam. But the same person in a high heel shoe would experience quite a different result. The resultant force of a 2 gram load for a typical spherical stylus calculates to roughly over 2000 psi. There are some OCD vinylphiles who keep close track of exactly how many plays are on a particular LP. I have some older high-quality pressings that have a chart printed right on the paper album sleeve for documenting the history of when, where & on what, the record was played.

Getting back to the issue of wear & degradation, each time an LP is played there is a minute loss of signal quality or ‘data’. For most practical purposes it is imperceptible, but over multiple playbacks the album will begin to sound poor. This is one reason for keeping one’s rig in good adjustment & checking it regularly. Insuring that a record is clean & the turn table properly adjusted will go far to minimize this degradation & provide many, many years of optimal performance. In reality, it is most often negligence, mishandling or accidents which cause the most harm to vinyl.

Preservation is also one of the main reasons I am digitizing my LP’s.

[Hdale85]

Yeah I thought about that after my post as well Bill lol.

[wkhanna]

...... my burns typically sound better than the original ......

Then you must have found the answer to the age old riddle of how to turn lead to gold???

[PewterTA]

There is a practice out there where some people definitely claim if you rip the original CD at 1x and re-record that disc at 1x on some Plextor and Pioneer burners (those are the ones I know of...) that you actually get a more accurate copy of the disc and they claim it's a decently noticeable difference.

I personally feel it's a lot along the line of Japan's SHM-CD where the material that is used to form the peaks and valleys of the data is a much better product, but results in sharper and more easily distinguished "1s" and "0s". At first I sort of doubted that there was really a difference. After getting Melody Gardot's - The Absence in SHM-CD... well I'm convinced. There's enough of a difference that while not perfect, the detail on the disc is better than the original CD (which the SHM-CD shares the same master) and far superior to HDTracks.com's version (which I'm pretty sure is the same master, but not positive on that). It's enough that I'm now wanting to find some other CDs in the format and get them.

Amazing what accuracy can do.

[wkhanna]

...... There's enough of a difference that while not perfect, the detail on the disc is better than the original CD

Well, I stand corrected.

Now how about that lead to gold thing ?????????

[Hdale85]

I don't understand how you can read an imperfect disc and somehow get something better afterwards?

[madmac]

I don't understand how you can read an imperfect disc and somehow get something better afterwards?

Well......that's because the burn cleans it up dude!. Makes all those bad errors go away!. Ya know what I mean??!!. Hehehe!!

[Hdale85]

How can the burn clean up what you're reading?

[madmac]

How can the burn clean up what you're reading?

Hehehe!! Dunno!!. Also, If I put Amour All on the disc and a green marker around the inner perimeter, it sounds soooo much better!!! Hehehe!!.

[wkhanna]

FYI -

link to info on SHM-CD's

I think what Dan is saying is;

the original SeeDee has less errors when manufactured & will have less errors when 'read' or 'ripped'.

[Kevin P]

How can the burn clean up what you're reading?

If your ripping software or PC drive does a better job of error correction than your transport, a rip & burn can sound better due to fewer errors to correct. Also, it's possible your transport is able to read the burned copy more accurately than the original.

IIRC, there are two levels of error correction in the CD audio format. One is a lossless correction that corrects minor errors with no loss of data. More serious errors (usually caused by scratches etc.) result in the player having to interpolate (or "guess") what the missing bits are based on the surrounding data. Some players do a better job of this than others, and its possible some cheaper players don't do it at all, so all errors result in clicks, pops, or other inaccuracies in the signal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Hdale85]

Ok, but that's not really making the CD better, it's just making your transport more compatible I guess.

[madmac]

I personally think it's all in our heads really and that there really isn't any difference at all. If anything, I think a burn sounds sweeter because I got the music for free!!. Hehehe!!.

I was so mesmerized by this 'better sound' on a burn experience that I had my wife play sections of the original and then the burn with my eyes blindfolded and in reality after the experiment, I really could not tell the difference.