XXHighEnd

Hi Folks,

First post here but I may have something of interest. I recently purchased an LG BD-RE GGW-H20L Blu-ray writer. The reason being that CD-Rs burned using the BR writer have much smoother pits (from scanning electron micrograph images) and sound far superior to stamped CDs or to CD-Rs burned using a CD/DVD writer. Here the reasons for the better SQ are explainable.

Now for the twilight zone. With my headphone system, CD .wav files written to HDD using EAC from the Blu-Ray writer sound different, and to my ears dare I say better, than the same .wav files written to HDD with a CD/DVD writer when played back using XXHE or for that matter even Foobah or XMplay. And .wav files from a Blu-Ray written CD-R ripped to HDD using the Blu-Ray writer seem to sound a little better again, weird stuff.

If anyone has a Blu-Ray writer, it would be great it you could confirm what I'm hearing. Certainly playback systems you guys shave should be well up to the task in proving this.  :smile:

And if anyone has any idea whatsoever how this could occur with exact same sized files with identical checksums, I'd love to hear. :scratching:

I'm not that computer savvy and you can say that this is a figment of my imagination, but that's why it would be good for anyone with a Blu-Ray and CD/DVD writers to test this out with XXHE. I think you'll be as pleasantly surprised as I was. There is a DIYaudio thread on this, with my friend SandyK, who came across this interesting find first, who is also of the clear opinion that .wav files ripped to HDD with EAC using the LG Blu-Ray writer simply sound better.

cheers.. Jeffc

If that's true....wow!
Peter, any idea why,? any speculation?
Ava

G'day Jeffc, and ... :welcome: to the voodoo club !
Although I see that you're around for a long time already. :) Long enough to have seen this come by : Burning audio CD while XX playing (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=265.0;all).

But you are (a.o.) saying that just ripping a normal CD from your BR drive improves, correct ?

One of the big secrets is (though not for much longer I estimate) that I'm currently working on ripping software with extensive "uncommon" analysis with the objective of, well, getting the job done better. It will be the subject of the 0.9y sequence. Although the analysis features won't show much of what you're observing, the ripping itself should be able to improve on jitter anomalies, that being the only thinkable reason for the differences we may perceive on these matters.

The only BR device I own myself is in a PS3, and I'm not sure I can use it for ripping (over Ethernet). But throughout the process I will try, and otherwise I will buy one.

Great stuff Jeffc !
Peter

PS: Ava, see the link I referred to. Part of the answer is in there I think.

Peter,

Thank you indeed for the very warm welcome. :)

Yes and yes, what I'm saying is that a .wav file played from HDD written using the BR writer sounds better, and maybe better still if the .wav file is written from a BR burned CD-R.

Great if this can be investigated by anyone out there, and your insights will be most welcome to figure out the reason why.

cheers.. Jeffc

Looks like that I cannot delay buying a BD-rom player ;)

Pity I have a BD in the livingroom and 0 disks lol, long story with the tv.

Telstar,

Make sure its a BluRay writer, not just a reader, see the model number above.

Below is a post from radtech this morning at the DIYaudio thread on this

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=141902&perpage=25&pagenumber=4

"After reading this thread I went out and bought an LG BluRay drive. Last night I used it to rip Debbie Gibson's 'Out of the Blue' album, the results were phenomenal, much better than with my NEC CDR-84 drive. For example on 'Shake Your Love' the soundstage really opens up, and the bass on 'Only in my Dreams' is tight without being boomy. The only downside was that after using it I found that my watch had stopped and all of my house keys were bent. Tonight I'm going to rip all of my Tiffany CDs..."

cheers.. Jeffc

PS. There is quite some angst/sarcasm on the validity of Blu-Ray rips to HDD sounding better than CD/DVD rips over at the DIYaudio forum and unfortunately I cannot vouch that the post of radtech above is genuine.  My apologies for this, but I’m not used to folk being so closed minded on something they believe can’t be true, but have not actually investigated it for themselves.

PPS. The radtech post was a prank.. the smart a*se

Yes, of course. I'll try to get the same model.
BTW, I think this LG has some special cache algorithm, 2mb cache IIRC. The caching can be influencing the rip?

I wont read that thread, i have too many subscriptions already at dyiaudio and there are way too many skepticals around there.

Hooray!

Now I just have to climb my loft, move down 2,000 CDs in storage and spend my summer vacation ripping all my music all over again. I feel so happy now! (My wife too).

Hi Pedal,

Don't rush just yet, the jury is still out on this until more ears have substantiated that there are indeed SQ differences between .wav files ripped to HDD using a BluRay writer compared to a CD or DVD writer. Might be a greater differences still if the .wav file has been made from a CD-R written using a BluRay writer.

There are several .wav files for comparison available for download at VIPeers. If you, on anyone else for that matter, is interested in comparing them for subjective SQ, PM me and I'll send you the download URLs. The more that test files like these, or get a BluRay writer and test it directly for themselves, the sooner this apparent phenomenom can be confirmed or debunked.

cheers.. Jeffc

Some more interesting impressions about HDD files sounding different that are relevant to the above findings on BluRay ripped .wav files also possibly sounding different/better. Copied from a DIYaudio forum thread on flac files, hope this is OK. Cheers.. Jeff

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1812731#post1812731

alain_online

FLAC vs WAV  Post #13 
After converting some FLAC to WAV and WAV to FLAC, I've made some listening with 24/192, 24/96 and 16/44, playing successively the different files. Of course, this test setup does not allows me to draw solid conclusions.
I was expecting no difference, and I was wrong.
The music seems to be slightly improved in many ways: less sparkle (yes Sandy), a more analog presentation, better dynamics, ambiance feeling more there, better timbre accuracy, a more involving music. I can't say the difference was bigger with HD tracks.
Does anyone has same results, and even better, an explaination ?
Before ordering bigger hard disk drives, I'll repeat the tests after making some upgrades.
All the best,
Alain

This is not related to the ripping method. It depends on cpu usage and the realtime decompression that flac requires.
On my E8400 with xxhe I do not hear differences between flac and wav (both 16.44k1).

Hi Telstar,

Thanks for that insight. However, can I suggest that you try something? Take a track that you're very familiar with, rip it to HDD with EAC as a .wav file, make a lossless .flac file conversion of this, and then remake a .wav file (using a different name) from the .flac file. Listen to the original .wav in comparison to the .wav file remade from the .flac file. The md5 checksums of the 2 .wav files will still be identical but do they still sound identical? A few folk, including myself, have perceived differences in SQ. If this is so, it seems to challenge whether .flac is indeed lossless. And it appears that PeterSt might now have a means of examining this empirically based on what is output from, rather than input to, the receiver and DAC chips.  Very cleaver guy.  :thankyou:

cheers.. Jeffc

Hi Jeffc,

You won't get many complaints in here for hearing these tings, although by now people may think you live in a tree. :)
But ok, once there was a time I came up with "software makes a difference", and at last that can be proven now.

Right now I don't see how your FLAC procedure can make a difference. At least not with XXHighEnd. But if it does, I think copying a WAV from one place to the other already will.
Btw, this has nothing to do with FLAC being losless or not, because it just is and it can easily be checked.
But give it a week or so, and you can test it yourself. :yes:

Peter

I will try. But i use EAC for wav-flac conversion, which is exactly the same flac version, so I believe that the two files will sound identical.
I try to find time to check this over the weekend.

Hi Peter,

Double story house, timber floors, some green leaves and tree branches outside the windows, big mop of hair until yesterday, maybe you're right.  :grin: Or as Pink Floyd - Brain Damage lyrics say,  "The lunatic is on the grass...
Got to keep the loonies on the path".

TBH I don't know how .wav > .flac > .wav can make difference either. I just listened on behalf of a friend that essentially asked 'see what you malke of these 2 files,' which I did and perceived SQ differences. The same 2 .wav files I compared I beleive are still available for download at VIPeers. (Anyone wanting the URLs to these, PM me). And if I have this right, the original .wav was ripped to HDD using EAC and an LG BluRay writer from a commercial Bluspec CD. This Bluspec CD was purchased with the standard CD of the same to highlight the improved SQ of a CD written using a BluRay writer, which they wouldn't promote if this is not so. From my and friends assessments of normal CD/DVD and BluRay written CD-Rs, they are chalk and cheese, BluRay CD-R wins easily.

My HDD file testing has been done using  a WinXP Dell D630 laptop (XXHE demo engine #1 mainly or Foobah/ASIO4ALL - will get to test this with Vista XXHE engine 3# soon too) via USB to a Trends UD10 DAC with an OK Burr Brown PCM2704 chip that also accommodates a headphone output direct from the chip. The UD10 is powered by a 4.8V 3700mAh 4 x subC battery pack designed for a model helicopter that has a equivalent inernal resistance <15 mohm. This designed for very current delivery needed for its purpose and sounds way better than usng the power supplied by USB. Headphones used are Alessandro MS1s and both the Trends UD10 and MS1s have been tinkered with to improved SQ futher.

Anyway, I've got thick skin and am compared to cop flack about the various claims made here, as long as folk don't discount them as complete bunk with a closed mind and without testing for themselves. And Peter, if you do get a chance to compared the files subjectively, please do, and empirically also using your new fan-dangled all singing all dancing test setup  :good: , that could be very informative too.

And Hi Telstar, will be very interested to hear you findings and might be best to test the same files I downloaded from VIpeers. I'm off for a long weekend away thought so might be next week before I can contact anyone.


cheers.. Jeffc

G'day Jeffc,

Bailing out, right ? just joking  of course ...

But is my conclusion right that you are using Engine#1 (and other players) to compare ? I think that is dangerous ... Or maybe just not for your purpose. E.g. :
Flac is known to (possibly) sound different because of the real time processing it takes to decompress it. Not exactly your example of course, but Engine#3 is known to take distance of that, because it pre-decompresses, and after that it's just wav-wav comparison.
The real merits are up to you here.

Just wanted to let you know before climbing from your laundry and join the lunatics on bailing out for another Woodstock. :)

Peter

G'day Peter,

Thanks for keeping this light hearted.  ;)  Almost packed and ready to chuff off to stay with my folks. Friends are camping nearby so we’ll be hanging with them quite a bit too. My elderly mother has recently slipped into dementia, which based on the symptoms, seems most likely the type described as Binswanger's disease. Could make a joke about this being genetic, in the context of what’s being discussed here, but it's not that funny when you see a loved one go this way, and as there is unfortunately no treatment.

Back to comparing .wav files, I have nothing to gain in attracting flack about this but thought here might be a good place with open-minded folk with top notch HDD playback audio equipment that could pick possible SQ differences perceived by several folk in other circles that have taken the time to listen.

Must fly.

Cheers.. Jeff

I'm back  :smile:

Nice weekend away but I was kind of hoping that while I was, someone here might have taken up the challenge of comparing the .wavs available for download at VIPeers. I would post some links here but that could get me into trouble with the copyright police. Best message me.

Surely you guys comparing .wav files played from SSD Vs HDD, for example, and hearing SQ differences, should be able pick the same if they exist between .wav files written to HDD with a BluRay writer compared to a CD/DVD writer. Simple test. Might get a reputation as Mr Pushy, sorry :pardon:, but I am interested in knowing whether others perceive differences too.

cheers.. Jeffc

Hi Jeffc,

For my part ... constantly working on it. But, not on the listening;
As you can imagine I can spend my time better on just proving it by measuring, and when I don't measure a difference, these is no difference.
Note that I measure the DAC output, so that really will tell it all.

You really don't want to know all the problems I run into, but I guess that comes along with doing things which officially can't be done. Or weren't done before anyway.

But push as you please; it may even help ... :derisive:
Peter

Sooo... my trusty (ahem) samsung dvd-w of my main pc broke. There is where i do all my ripping (i gave up on doing on the dedicated pc since the offline freedb database do NOT WORK at all).

I did some search and the model in the first post is discontinued in the US but still available in Europe (costs around 170€).
My question would be if a similar model (even from the same brand) would rip with the same quality.
It seems being able to write BD disks is the key (and maybe large cache). I wonder if writing hd-dvd is also important.

Spec sceets (in the german site there are all models and more specs):
http://www.lge.com/de/it-produkte/optische-laufwerke/LG-blu-ray-intern-GGWH20L.jsp
http://www.lge.com/de/it-produkte/optische-laufwerke/LG-blu-ray-intern-BH08LS.jsp

The main difference of the new model is the lack of HD-DVD and the faster (8x vs 6x) BD-writing speed, the latter is absolutely irrelevant to me.

Advice is welcome :)

Hi everyone,
i can affirm this finding. I was one year away from audio, sold everything because I was nerved by this neurotic feeling you get if you care too much about sound ;) In this time I listened to my Tivoli Model Three most of the time. CD-Playback was done with PC, using Vista and A WASAPI Player. Speaker and Amp was the Tivoli Radio fed by my RME Soundcard. I bought the LG Blueray writer and just threw in a cd without ripping it. I used direct playback. Better highs was my first impression. I was happy and forgot about it because I didn't cared much in that time. Now I am back ;) and build a nice pair of Speakers (Hobby Hifi Platino Highend Version) using a Jungson JA-99C Poweramp a van Look passive pre, a Chord DSC1100 DAC and a Pioneer PD-S06 CD Transport. My computer is connected via Hoer-Wege USB-SPDIF converter (which is far better than my old rme Hammerfall HDSP 9632 SPDIF-out). Now I testet again, with an old file I ripped with my Plextor DVD Burner and now ripped again with the LG Bluerayburner. It is obvious sounding better. Clearer and cleaner highs, more dynamic sound.
It probably might be not only the LG Burner making the difference. Also I used IDE cable on my Plextor, the LG is connected with SATA. Ripping technique still the same (EAC without any hooks in the CD-Drive reading menue). Now I am using windows 7, which is an improvement in playback compared to vista. If it makes a difference if you rip the CD's in w7 I don't know, but it is possible (nothing is impossible in this hobby ). Even the mediaplayer sounds better than the old WASAPI player I used bevor. For XX I can not tell the difference.
Greetings Adrian

I have to take my statement back. I compared the two files ripped with a plextor dvd-rom and the lg blueray with a software called hex comparison. The files are indentical. There is no difference. So I fooled myself, sorry.
Greetings Adrian

Adrian - But that is the whole point ... they *are* identical, but *do* sound different.

I am far away part of this, but what I just said is the base. So nothing new by itself, but the biggest challenge of .. well, all.
And I don't want to talk you into anything. I do want to say though that your argument is no argument. Maybe later is is ...

Peter

Try to rip the same track from your new drive again - it may be possible that it sounds different too. I don't ever tried to find the reason, but I'm shure it's not the drive but it's the harddisk. If the specialists are able to recover files even when data are overwritten by special patterns - what could happen with music data if they are stored at different locations on the harddisk? Another aspect are the algorithms for data correction. With ever growing data capacity there are more complex highly specialized algorithms which try to compensate the increasing error rate. There could be an experiment: Rip the data to a NOS harddisk and a modern high capacity harddisk. Will there be a sonic difference? It's speculative but reported sometimes.

Mystical greetz  :innocent:
Georg 

So now we have NOS harddisks, right ?
I must be running behind ... :smirk:

I got one build in an old IBM pc - but DOS and Micropro software occupies 80% of its capacity (10 MByte). Additionally I got a spare one, it's really New Old Stock  ;)

Georg

I burned the tracks on a cd. They repeat in the form A.B.A.B.A.B.A.B on the disk, so that the influence of the region where the track is burned has no influence in mean. So I sat on my listening position and changed the tracks without moving at all by using my remote. I could not hear any difference. And in the moments when I thought there could be one, I should have checked blood preshure and pulse to compare the tracks scientifically. I think they sound identical. It  makes perfect sense now ;)
Greatings Adrian

Just to add the information: The LG BlueRay Burner I use is not recomended by me to rip cd's. It is slow (1,2x max!). I bought an old Plextor CD burner (PX-5224A)(1,50€!) and it can rip cd's at 5-7x ( in secure mode ). It also sounds better if the cd is played directly with the cd-rom (closer to the sound of the ripped file).