Challenging hiend cd player/transport result

[Flecko]

Some people told me he tried putting drive on stuff like symposium or woodblock and archive different result too

I have my CD-Ripping drive mounted in an external enclosure with usb connection (btw. still the same results as build in the pc enclosure). Sometimes I put it on a book (=wood) or sometimes I put it on a pillow to silence it. It seems to sound more educated when the drive is standing on the book, while standing on the pillow, the musicians get a little lazy

[Josef]

Claim 100% the same files, while they sound different - and then we'd have a rather normal case. Not that we understand much of it, but it is recognized and known to exist.

Are you saying you have bit-identical tracks that 'sound' different?

An example would be most welcome....

[Quest]

Unfortunately I have to put in my 2 cents on WindowsX's side on this one.

1. Power cord/conditioning is proven to enhance benchmark speeds on my PC and friends' PC compared to stock cord (I urged everyone who own these products to do this test). Not huge but like maybe 10%. IMO I also take this as sign of better stability which can only be better.

2. Power cord does alter the sound of the PC during playback. Big difference. It's as sensitive as a power cord to cd transport. Details and dynamics can get choked otherwise. I also believe in importance of low ripple PSU.

3. For ripping, we did not test via different power cord, but the tweaks found to work are:
   - de-static and de-mag (biggest difference)
   - footers and weights does work as well, for external drives, but i prefer internal
   - usb cable for the external drive (i did not verify this - but based on friend's testimonial)
   - external power supply for external drive
   - add cd-mat

Someone even told me if ripping fresh (after reboot) it sounds better.

However, at the opposite end there are users who claim no difference, including Kent Poon. When asked about the Plextor Premium2 drive which he feels is very good, what he actually said was it makes a difference for direct playback. However, for ripping, he felt that it makes no difference as software should sort it out. He did however, note that some drives give poor ripping, but that is an exception. Of course, I feel if a drive is good for playback, it should be more stable for ripping which can only be good - so up to you if you want to part with the money! And put it this way, this is a small cost.

About the tweaks used, I had discussed this in another forum extensively. One interesting point was that sometimes these tweak result in measurably more errors that are within correctable margins, but the reviewer heard an "improvement" in the sound. So the forumer then said this "leads back to the age-old question of "what kind of errors sound good"."

Maybe I don't have very high-end system, I feel the differences for ripping are there but rather small (other than power related or static). I can't tell what method result in better rip either.. if a power cord can influence sound of the rip, that is actually worrying cos I find each power cord has different character!

My last comment is on the comparison which makes this even tougher to note if there is really a difference or not. I personally find there are many variables on playback and therefore even if you playback 2 identical files (just copied), there is possibility you can hear a difference (e.g. in different drive, or even in different directory ). Give it a try. Of course, with ram buffering/drives I guess this issue is less now.

[Suteetat]

Unfortunately I have to put in my 2 cents on WindowsX's side on this one.

1. Power cord/conditioning is proven to enhance benchmark speeds on my PC and friends' PC compared to stock cord (I urged everyone who own these products to do this test). Not huge but like maybe 10%. IMO I also take this as sign of better stability which can only be better.

2. Power cord does alter the sound of the PC during playback. Big difference. It's as sensitive as a power cord to cd transport. Details and dynamics can get choked otherwise. I also believe in importance of low ripple PSU.

No argument there. I am a big believer in power supply, power cord etc. Power cord I use for my computer costs more than the computer itself. The way power is supplied to Weiss INT202, switching power supply, battery, linear power supply, power cords themselves all have audible effect, at least when I tried them in my system.

3. For ripping, we did not test via different power cord, but the tweaks found to work are:
   - de-static and de-mag (biggest difference)
   - footers and weights does work as well, for external drives, but i prefer internal
   - usb cable for the external drive (i did not verify this - but based on friend's testimonial)
   - external power supply for external drive
   - add cd-mat

Someone even told me if ripping fresh (after reboot) it sounds better.

This is now the tricky bit. I have not experiments much with this myself but will in the future but there does not seem to be a good
locical explaination that I could tell why this should make a difference. Ripping CD should be no difference from reading data from a CD-ROM.
There is nothing mythical or magical about audio file there. If there is that much error when ripping CD, I would expect the same thing when
reading files from CD-ROM. May be I am missing something here.

I am all ears for things I can do to improve the sound quality. Something that may improve drive performance like this will be relatively cheap
in comparison to buying other stereo equipments but before reconsidering reripping my entire CD library, I would like to hear more about why
this should be the case.

About the tweaks used, I had discussed this in another forum extensively. One interesting point was that sometimes these tweak result in measurably more errors that are within correctable margins, but the reviewer heard an "improvement" in the sound. So the forumer then said this "leads back to the age-old question of "what kind of errors sound good"."

Maybe I don't have very high-end system, I feel the differences for ripping are there but rather small (other than power related or static). I can't tell what method result in better rip either.. if a power cord can influence sound of the rip, that is actually worrying cos I find each power cord has different character!

My last comment is on the comparison which makes this even tougher to note if there is really a difference or not. I personally find there are many variables on playback and therefore even if you playback 2 identical files (just copied), there is possibility you can hear a difference (e.g. in different drive, or even in different directory ). Give it a try. Of course, with ram buffering/drives I guess this issue is less now.

This is interesting. Personally, I listen to vinyl as well as digital. I have to say that I prefer the sound of turntable much more than CD. There seems to be something that analogue does
so well that digital cannot match. Personally I think that there is certain artifact there that happens to sound good that make LP superior to CD to my ears. Even digitally recorded master transcribed to LP still sounds better than CD and that certain quality that I find desirable in LP is still there in those digitally recorded album.

As far as external and internal drive. This is what I found in my system (I cannot explain why that should be the case but it is what I consistantly heard).
I prefer internal sata connection to hard drive where my music library reside. My window OS is on SSD and xxHighend on RAMdisk. To my ears, music library on NAS sounds the worse.
External USB2/3, esata are better but not as good as internal sata directly to mobo. Could it be the cable or shorter connection? May be? I don't really know. In an effort to have no moving parts in my computer (recently I managed to disable all my case fans),now my hard drive is outside the case but with sata cable connecting directly to mobo inside and powered from PSU that sits outside the computer case.

[Quest]

This is now the tricky bit. I have not experiments much with this myself but will in the future but there does not seem to be a good
locical explaination that I could tell why this should make a difference. Ripping CD should be no difference from reading data from a CD-ROM.
There is nothing mythical or magical about audio file there. If there is that much error when ripping CD, I would expect the same thing when
reading files from CD-ROM. May be I am missing something here.

I am all ears for things I can do to improve the sound quality. Something that may improve drive performance like this will be relatively cheap in comparison to buying other stereo equipments but before reconsidering reripping my entire CD library, I would like to hear more about why this should be the case.

Totally agree with you here. I can't understand it so personally I have avoided it. I tend to do this alot with tons of audio tweaks. The whole 'confusion' starts because it is supposed to be digital and bits are bits..

Let's take a step back. Looking at CD playback, I think it is more accepted that different CDs can sound different and demag/destatic and other tweaks do make a difference. Now, think about it - what is really altering, given that the CDP is also reading digital bits? If the bits are read wrongly, then no sound or static should come out - but sound IS coming out, just altered in some way. If we are 'reading the bits in a different way', who is to say this is considered an error or more accurate?

To look more into detail - what exactly is the change? Is it information (e.g. missing notes/details), or is it something else like openness, liveliness, dynamics? Is this really additional bits being read, or the same bits being read differently/more clearly? Or something else?

The 'something else' to think about it is if the tweaks are actually affecting the CDP differently, rather than allowing it to read CD better. If destatic works, it does not only make the CD easier to read but maybe lowers static effects on the CDP which may give better sound. Onto ripping, this means what information is being read could be transferred better to the harddisk? Just a hypothesis.

Hope someone more experienced can chime in on this.

This is interesting. Personally, I listen to vinyl as well as digital. I have to say that I prefer the sound of turntable much more than CD. There seems to be something that analogue does
so well that digital cannot match. Personally I think that there is certain artifact there that happens to sound good that make LP superior to CD to my ears. Even digitally recorded master transcribed to LP still sounds better than CD and that certain quality that I find desirable in LP is still there in those digitally recorded album.

I think the answer is simple. There is no conversion involved and it is more direct. Even the best DACs are still trying to piece together what was originally analog. I too prefer vinyl. Resolution is also higher than CD. Of course as usual this depends on the press.

As far as external and internal drive. This is what I found in my system (I cannot explain why that should be the case but it is what I consistantly heard).
I prefer internal sata connection to hard drive where my music library reside. My window OS is on SSD and xxHighend on RAMdisk. To my ears, music library on NAS sounds the worse.
External USB2/3, esata are better but not as good as internal sata directly to mobo. Could it be the cable or shorter connection? May be? I don't really know. In an effort to have no moving parts in my computer (recently I managed to disable all my case fans),now my hard drive is outside the case but with sata cable connecting directly to mobo inside and powered from PSU that sits outside the computer case.

Thanks for sharing. Is there any audible benefit from placing your harddisk externally this way?
I too prefer internal but have done it the other way - by just damping the casing which is already quite heavy.

[PeterSt]

I too prefer vinyl. Resolution is also higher than CD. Of course as usual this depends on the press.

That's an interesting one. Can you reason that out ?

If you like it ... I can. That is, I did somewhere, some time. So I'd have to dig it up.
But the result is the opposite.

Waiting for yours first ... haha

Peter

[Suteetat]

Totally agree with you here. I can't understand it so personally I have avoided it. I tend to do this alot with tons of audio tweaks. The whole 'confusion' starts because it is supposed to be digital and bits are bits..

Let's take a step back. Looking at CD playback, I think it is more accepted that different CDs can sound different and demag/destatic and other tweaks do make a difference. Now, think about it - what is really altering, given that the CDP is also reading digital bits? If the bits are read wrongly, then no sound or static should come out - but sound IS coming out, just altered in some way. If we are 'reading the bits in a different way', who is to say this is considered an error or more accurate?

To look more into detail - what exactly is the change? Is it information (e.g. missing notes/details), or is it something else like openness, liveliness, dynamics? Is this really additional bits being read, or the same bits being read differently/more clearly? Or something else?

The 'something else' to think about it is if the tweaks are actually affecting the CDP differently, rather than allowing it to read CD better. If destatic works, it does not only make the CD easier to read but maybe lowers static effects on the CDP which may give better sound. Onto ripping, this means what information is being read could be transferred better to the harddisk? Just a hypothesis.

Hope someone more experienced can chime in on this.

Difference between CDP and benefit of destatic and all the tweaks on CDP at least could be explained away by blaming jitter
since we are playing CD on the fly, something that is unique to CD playback as far as I know (at least in comparison to
the other usual computer usage).  However, ripping CD to hard drive should be more similar to computer CD-ROM usage
rather than playing CD on the fly like CDP. At least that is the way I understand it and may be someone can tell me if this is a
misconception.

As far as external and internal drive. This is what I found in my system (I cannot explain why that should be the case but it is what I consistantly heard).
I prefer internal sata connection to hard drive where my music library reside. My window OS is on SSD and xxHighend on RAMdisk. To my ears, music library on NAS sounds the worse.
External USB2/3, esata are better but not as good as internal sata directly to mobo. Could it be the cable or shorter connection? May be? I don't really know. In an effort to have no moving parts in my computer (recently I managed to disable all my case fans),now my hard drive is outside the case but with sata cable connecting directly to mobo inside and powered from PSU that sits outside the computer case.

Thanks for sharing. Is there any audible benefit from placing your harddisk externally this way?
I too prefer internal but have done it the other way - by just damping the casing which is already quite heavy.

I am still evaluating the hard drive bit but it may take awhile as my system is in a middle of some major changes so I have to wait for everything to settle down
a bit. At least I think it would not hurt anything

[Flecko]

I just can repeat myself. Use EAC and set it up like audiodidakt did, except the offset must be chosen for your drive. Then rip a non scrached cd. Change what EVER you like (if you change the drive, you have to set the offset for this again). Then rip the same cd again. Compare those files with hexcompare. It will show you every single bit and you will find, that every single bit is the same. If you still feel, that there is some difference, it is NOT the file!

[Suteetat]

I too prefer vinyl. Resolution is also higher than CD. Of course as usual this depends on the press.

That's an interesting one. Can you reason that out ?

If you like it ... I can. That is, I did somewhere, some time. So I'd have to dig it up.
But the result is the opposite.

Waiting for yours first ... haha

Peter

I don't know about resolution as in measurement wise but vinyl always seemed to have more air and dimensionality than CD.
Dynamic range and bass at least on paper seems to favor CD but I have yet to find CDP/DAC that has better bass (quantity and quality)
and perceived dynamic range and transient response than LP. I have no idea why this should be though.

[GerardA]

Quote
I too prefer vinyl. Resolution is also higher than CD. Of course as usual this depends on the press.

Well Peter, is it not the infinite samplingrate, that's making the difference?

[Klinnilk]

"Even digitally recorded master transcribed to LP still sounds better than CD and that certain quality that I find desirable in LP is still there in those digitally recorded album"
This is often said by people who love the sound of a turntable.
Going back to the technical side: you add overtones and distortion to the signal when you play a record . On the playback process of a record, the stylus is resonating, the record is resonating(remember you can listen to a record without an amplifier and speakers because of the enormous mechanical energy you generate by playing records with a pick up system). These effects lead to this warm analog sound airiness and so on.
The information of a digital master tape must be converted to an analog signal, then you have the pressing of the mother record and from this mother you get the record you can buy for your turntable, all these processes lead to a loss of information not to more information.
Comparing the sound of a turntable to a classical live concert is very interesting, turntables generate their own sound, live music is very unspectacular no extra airiness or transparency. Music is just there.
So we are with this statement on a more interesting point: What is better music reproduction and how important is sound for good music reproduction?

[GerardA]

@ Klinnilk,
I call this Stereotypes in Stereoland.
Distortion and resonances in speakers are a lot of times stronger than those in good vinyl recordplayers.
Nobody complaining about that?
Even on not to expensive speakers you can clearly hear the effect people here are talking about.
The funny thing is XXHE is so much better then digital replay some years ago and to a lot of people getting closer to the analogue sound.
Still I enjoy analogue better but with a mixed mood since digital has some strong points too.
At Peter's demonstration it was easy to hear that the higher sampling rates sounded closer to what I like from vinyl.
The naturalness and the true colours and timing of the sound.
In part it reminds me of the difference of analog and digital photography which is (or will be?) won by the latter..

[Suteetat]

"Even digitally recorded master transcribed to LP still sounds better than CD and that certain quality that I find desirable in LP is still there in those digitally recorded album"
This is often said by people who love the sound of a turntable.
Going back to the technical side: you add overtones and distortion to the signal when you play a record . On the playback process of a record, the stylus is resonating, the record is resonating(remember you can listen to a record without an amplifier and speakers because of the enormous mechanical energy you generate by playing records with a pick up system). These effects lead to this warm analog sound airiness and so on.
The information of a digital master tape must be converted to an analog signal, then you have the pressing of the mother record and from this mother you get the record you can buy for your turntable, all these processes lead to a loss of information not to more information.
Comparing the sound of a turntable to a classical live concert is very interesting, turntables generate their own sound, live music is very unspectacular no extra airiness or transparency. Music is just there.
So we are with this statement on a more interesting point: What is better music reproduction and how important is sound for good music reproduction?

This is exactly why I said that there is this vinyl artifact. It is certainly not better in absolute term as far as accuracy, truth to source etc but heck, it sounds a lot nicer with it.
I agree that hearing live classical concert is a very different experience. It sounds a lot duller at first. In less than ideal hall, it could sound down right annoying.
I think I long ago stop thinking of getting my stero to sound like the real thing as far as classical concert is concerned. Perhaps small jazz band and such may be a bit easier to achieved as it is often performed amplified and we are listening through some kind of speakers anyhow. But hearing acoustic live band in small venue is still elusive. Now I pay attention to tonal balance and density, color, musicality and not neccessarily neutrality, whatever make me listen to music more and think about the equipment less and less, that's good music reproduction.

[Klinnilk]

@GerardA
My statement is especially for the argument that digital recorded music sounds better on vinyl. It´s not a statement to the discussion Analog versus Digital. What i wanted to explain is simple that you loose  information on the way from Digital Master to Analog Record and therefore it is less accurate  .

[GerardA]

@Klinnilk,
Yeah, that's true, I miss some things from vinyl, but also from digital!
I made a digital rip of a 50's record some time ago, and playing it back on XXHE the thing I missed the most was the distortion!
With higher samplerate it was closer to the original, but that subject has been discussed before.