The Audiophile Thread

[Firth]

That table is so "steam punk"[emoji6]

[Jerjo]

I've came across a conversation on another forum about ripping CDs and vinyl to a higher resolution. To me, this sounds like twaddle, like converting MP3s to FLAC. Am I wrong on this?

[BobM]

I've came across a conversation on another forum about ripping CDs and vinyl to a higher resolution. To me, this sounds like twaddle, like converting MP3s to FLAC. Am I wrong on this?

You can't get back what was missing in the first place. However, some CD rip and burns can indeed sound somewhat crisper than the originals. This is very subtle. Certainly many CD rip and burs do indeed sound worse than the original, probably because they were done at high speed.

The theory behind this? Perhaps the quality of the burn is affected by the speed of the burn. More distinct 1's and 0's, meaning more easily read indentations in the physical CD so the CD player reading them doesn't have to do as much (or any) interpolation to fill in what it can't read perfectly. Just theory FWIW.

[rcarlberg]

You can't get back what was missing in the first place.

Not without some post- production anyway.

The theory behind this? More distinct 1's and 0's, meaning more easily read indentations in the physical CD so the CD player reading them doesn't have to do as much (or any) interpolation to fill in what it can't read perfectly.

Nope. Bits is bits.

[Plasmatopia]

Nope. Bits is bits.

What about tools like Exact Audio Copy? This implies there were other ways of ripping that were...less exact.

[rcarlberg]

What about tools like Exact Audio Copy? This implies there were other ways of ripping that were...less exact.

Marketing.

[Plasmatopia]

Marketing.

I thought EAC was free?

[Buddhabreath]

I thought so - I never paid for it.

[hFx]

From Wiki:

"Reed–Solomon coding is very widely used in mass storage systems to correct the burst errors associated with media defects.

Reed–Solomon coding is a key component of the compact disc. It was the first use of strong error correction coding in a mass-produced consumer product, and DAT and DVD use similar schemes. In the CD, two layers of Reed–Solomon coding separated by a 28-way convolutional interleaver yields a scheme called Cross-Interleaved Reed–Solomon Coding (CIRC). The first element of a CIRC decoder is a relatively weak inner (32,28) Reed–Solomon code, shortened from a (255,251) code with 8-bit symbols. This code can correct up to 2 byte errors per 32-byte block. More importantly, it flags as erasures any uncorrectable blocks, i.e., blocks with more than 2 byte errors. The decoded 28-byte blocks, with erasure indications, are then spread by the deinterleaver to different blocks of the (28,24) outer code. Thanks to the deinterleaving, an erased 28-byte block from the inner code becomes a single erased byte in each of 28 outer code blocks. The outer code easily corrects this, since it can handle up to 4 such erasures per block.

The result is a CIRC that can completely correct error bursts up to 4000 bits, or about 2.5 mm on the disc surface. This code is so strong that most CD playback errors are almost certainly caused by tracking errors that cause the laser to jump track, not by uncorrectable error bursts."

[rcarlberg]

Gee, that's better than the error correction on my turntable!

[hFx]

Gee, that's better than the error correction on my turntable!

...you just don't try hard enough

[Jerjo]

Another thing that I'm seeing is 24 bit vinyl? WTF? 24 bit depth is strictly ones and zeroes so what does that have to do with vinyl that is supposedly coming from an analog source? Or are they saying that the source is a 24/96 digital file? If that's the case, why bother given the limitations of vinyl as opposed to CD or HD digital files?

[Plasmatopia]

From Wiki:

"Reed–Solomon coding is very widely used in mass storage systems to correct the burst errors associated with media defects.

Reed–Solomon coding is a key component of the compact disc. It was the first use of strong error correction coding in a mass-produced consumer product, and DAT and DVD use similar schemes. In the CD, two layers of Reed–Solomon coding separated by a 28-way convolutional interleaver yields a scheme called Cross-Interleaved Reed–Solomon Coding (CIRC). The first element of a CIRC decoder is a relatively weak inner (32,28) Reed–Solomon code, shortened from a (255,251) code with 8-bit symbols. This code can correct up to 2 byte errors per 32-byte block. More importantly, it flags as erasures any uncorrectable blocks, i.e., blocks with more than 2 byte errors. The decoded 28-byte blocks, with erasure indications, are then spread by the deinterleaver to different blocks of the (28,24) outer code. Thanks to the deinterleaving, an erased 28-byte block from the inner code becomes a single erased byte in each of 28 outer code blocks. The outer code easily corrects this, since it can handle up to 4 such erasures per block.

The result is a CIRC that can completely correct error bursts up to 4000 bits, or about 2.5 mm on the disc surface. This code is so strong that most CD playback errors are almost certainly caused by tracking errors that cause the laser to jump track, not by uncorrectable error bursts."

Soooo....it looks like there is no value to something like EAC at all?

[BobM]

There is a distinct difference ripping something on Windows media player, or EAC, or J River. And there is a distinct difference ripping and burning at 4x speed vs 64x speed (or faster). If you think bits are bits then try it yourself and you will hear the difference. All will be bit perfect, but they will sound different, which means bit perfect isn't the perfect measurement, or the only measurement, that matters.

[rcarlberg]

If you think bits are bits then try it yourself and you will hear the difference. All will be bit perfect, but they will sound different, which means bit perfect isn't the perfect measurement, or the only measurement, that matters.

If you think "bits" are not "bits" you'll have to come up with some scientific explanation for that nonsensical view.

[Firth]

From Wiki:

"Reed–Solomon coding is very widely used in mass storage systems to correct the burst errors associated with media defects.

Reed–Solomon coding is a key component of the compact disc. It was the first use of strong error correction coding in a mass-produced consumer product, and DAT and DVD use similar schemes. In the CD, two layers of Reed–Solomon coding separated by a 28-way convolutional interleaver yields a scheme called Cross-Interleaved Reed–Solomon Coding (CIRC). The first element of a CIRC decoder is a relatively weak inner (32,28) Reed–Solomon code, shortened from a (255,251) code with 8-bit symbols. This code can correct up to 2 byte errors per 32-byte block. More importantly, it flags as erasures any uncorrectable blocks, i.e., blocks with more than 2 byte errors. The decoded 28-byte blocks, with erasure indications, are then spread by the deinterleaver to different blocks of the (28,24) outer code. Thanks to the deinterleaving, an erased 28-byte block from the inner code becomes a single erased byte in each of 28 outer code blocks. The outer code easily corrects this, since it can handle up to 4 such erasures per block.

The result is a CIRC that can completely correct error bursts up to 4000 bits, or about 2.5 mm on the disc surface. This code is so strong that most CD playback errors are almost certainly caused by tracking errors that cause the laser to jump track, not by uncorrectable error bursts."

If you read a CD into ITunes, you won't get EDAC unless you specifically choose it. I need to try this on my new IMac because with my old windows laptop, it took much longer to do the import with EDAC.

[Plasmatopia]

If you read a CD into ITunes, you won't get EDAC unless you specifically choose it. I need to try this on my new IMac because with my old windows laptop, it took much longer to do the import with EDAC.

I'll have to check out how my iTunes is set up. I bought a couple of used CDs recently that did not import well resulting in glitchy files. I probably should have returned the discs, but they were only a couple bucks each.

[rcarlberg]

I bought a couple of used CDs recently that did not import well resulting in glitchy files.

Generally speaking, IMPORTING a damaged CD works better than PLAYING it because the software will attempt multiple times to read the damaged sections -- something it can't do in real time. If the damage cannot be overcome, then error-correction comes into play, and I wouldn't be surprised if some softwares have better E/C than others.

[Plasmatopia]

Generally speaking, IMPORTING a damaged CD works better than PLAYING it because the software will attempt multiple times to read the damaged sections -- something it can't do in real time. If the damage cannot be overcome, then error-correction comes into play, and I wouldn't be surprised if some softwares have better E/C than others.

So sometimes bits isn't bits.

[rcarlberg]

Sometimes bits is missing.

If you have an undamaged CD, bits is bits. And for a lightly damaged CD, bits is bits.

For a HEAVILY damaged CD, well "no bits is good bits."

But there's no such thing as reading an undamaged CD with Exact Copy and getting a more exact copy than "Dirty Dan's Dastardly CD Copier."

[Plasmatopia]

But there's no such thing as reading an undamaged CD with Exact Copy and getting a more exact copy than "Dirty Dan's Dastardly CD Copier."

Okay, that makes sense to me. Thanks.


Sent Via PE's Mobile App

[BobM]

If you think "bits" are not "bits" you'll have to come up with some scientific explanation for that nonsensical view.

Actually, no I don't. What you have to do is perform an experiment ripping and burning a CD at high speed using Windows Media Player, and compare it to a properly set up version of JRiver or EAC ripped and burned at a slow speed. I don't pretend to think that everything we hear can be measured, or even that we are measuring the correct things. I do hear the differences because I have performed those experiments. If you demand a scientific explanation then go find one, after you do the experiment.

[Jerjo]

JRiver is kind of frustrating to me. Like Foobar, Winamp, etc it has ridiculous issues with recognizing existing music files on my PC, especially in cases where of ROIOs, box sets where there may be more than one artist listed (the Allman Brothers and Clapton boxes give these programs shit fits), or anything where the tags are incomplete. Windows Media Player, for all its faults, rarely has an issue with this stuff or is the easiest to correct. Given that the audio setup in my office is just a computer feeding ones and zeroes through a RCA chord into a Yamaha receiver, I just don't think the benefit to ripping on JRiver or Pono or Media Jukebox or EAC is going to be audible. I'd rather just do it on WMP where there's far less hassle.

Maybe some day when I upgrade this office system to better components and speakers, then I'll be switching to a better digital system as well (DAC with proper connections and using a high end media player). But until then I just don't see the point. If I want crystalline sound, I'll go to the living room and play my CDs or vinyl.

[Edit] Another issue I have with these players - stay the fuck out of files I tell you to stay the fuck out of. That iTunes library of lo-fi shit. Stay out of it. You aren't even supposed to be in that external drive but you go for that crap every time, like a dog seeking out of a rotting raccoon corpse to roll in. Use the media library I choose. Another point in the plus column for WMP.

[rcarlberg]

I don't pretend to think that everything we hear can be measured, or even that we are measuring the correct things.

Fine, just say "it's magic" and admit that SCIENCE doesn't enter into it.

That's a valid viewpoint, one that cannot be successfully torn down by logic or reason. Millions of people believe impossible things, sometimes as many as six before breakfast.

What you have to do is perform an experiment ripping and burning a CD at high speed using Windows Media Player, and compare it to a properly set up version of JRiver or EAC ripped and burned at a slow speed.

If you want to get to the heart of the matter however, here's an "experiment" for you to perform: Burn a CD using crappy Windows MP, and then the same one using JRiver. Now look at the files side-by-side in a digital editor. Zoom into the bit level and see if you can find where that magical gooey goodness is hiding in the bits.

There are even software packages which will compare two digital files to pull out the differences automatically. Do that, and report back.

Chances are -- I'll speculate on two possible scenarios you might find -- either the files are identical and it's all in your head, or possibly JRiver and EAC actually add some compression and level-matching which your ears hear as improvement.

[hFx]

Everything that hits our eardrums is measurable - very simple physics behind it. Furthermore, the sound coming out from one and the same sound system (D/A-to-transducers) will be the same if the bits are identical. Ergo - the difference must be that different bitstream are rendered from the same digital source - be it overloaded error correction or more or less covert algorithms in the software. If it's the same hardware, I'd go for the latter...