About ripping

[juanpmar]

Trying always to improve my system, now it has been the time to dig more deeply in to the ripping process.
Whatever is the quality of the original cd, issue being discussed in some other threads, it is easy to understand that it is of a major importance to pass that original material in the best possible way to the PC/XXHighEnd system. This post is about it.
I want to put here clearly that it´s not my intention to go through the abrupt paths of the technical issues, far from my ability to deal with the technical stuff. The only tools I have are the same ones all of you have: the ears. Of course I´ve tried to use as much tests as possible in as much as "scientific" possible way. Testing as been done using several cds I know very well and listening the tracks in the same condition of listening environment (position, volume...).

I´ve been testing basically two different  software and two ways of ripping cds.

Software: EAC: http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/resources/download/
EAC is free but if you want a GD3 plugin to get better metadata you have to pay $7,99

and

dBpoweramp Reference: http://www.dbpoweramp.com/dmc-power-register.htm
dBpoweramp cost is $38 but it is a suite and has 5 meta data providers and FUA capability if your DVD/CD-Rom supports it, FUA is a command that can quickly remove the cached audio. That helps to find errors while ripping.


Both need to be connected to Internet in order to take full advantage of Meta Data and AccurateRip (a technology that verify ripped tracks against an Internet database): http://www.accuraterip.com/



I used basically two different ways of ripping that I would call indirect and direct:

Indirect way of ripping: That means ripping first the cds to an usb card or an usb hdd from a laptop (in my case) to pass the files later to the music PC.

Direct way of ripping:  Ripping it directly in the hhd of the music PC putting even the ripped files in the final folders from where they are going to be played.

Before I continue let me say that I understand (more or less) the logic of "bit perfect" and that if a rip is bit perfect it shouldn´t matter if you rip it directly to the final hdd or rip it first to an usb card. As Peter says only matters where it is played from (in XXHighEnd) besides other things (I don´t know about those other things).  That means that using bit perfect ripping I shouldn´t notice differences, but...I did.
Also let me point out that my NOS1 USB is still breaking in, now around the famous 20th day, but I think that the conclusions are still valid. The only thing that could change in the next future is an improvement in sound but I guess that the differences still will be maintained.

As I said, I´m not going to go into the technical basis so let me share with you my findings:

- The differences are subtle but noticeable

EAC v. dbBpoweramp Reference:

I used EAC with the caché unticked (Peter suggestion, if I understood well) and ticked (Mani suggestion, if I understood well) and couldn´t find audible differences.

The dBpoweramp I used is the complete Reference one with the Ultra Secure ripping enabled, also enabled are "Clear Read Cache with FUA" (more about it later) and "C2 Error Pointers for Error Detection"

These are my conclusions on this regard:

- EAC: seems more lay back and smoother at first glance.

- dBpoweramp Reference: seems more in front, more edgy at first glance but at the end is that it is just more detailed and the scene is reacher. The highs are smoooooth and beautiful. The sound seems a little louder than with EAC, I guess that it´s due to a fuller soundstage with a perception of a wider and deeper 3D space.


Indirectly ripped v. directly ripped

At first I used the indirect method because I´m kind of maniac with the PC from where I play music, I wanted to keep this PC as free as possible from any software other than the OS and XXHigEnd, I was not using antivirus and neither Internet on this music PC.
I tried the direct ripping after reading some posts from Mani, Peter, and others and now I´m glad that I did it.

Conclusion on this issue:

Directly ripped with the software installed in the music PC and ripping choosing the path to the folder where the file is going to stay I perceive a more defined sound with a more delineated scene. Kind of a palpable relief.

I also tested to rip all the cd in only one file and I couln´t find it sounding better, on the contrary the sound seems to me a little duller.


Of course all these observations are due to a combination of all the parts involved and not only to one, I´ve just tried to choose the best possible combination: software, the way to use it and also the hardware involved on it.

About the hardware let me tell you that I was surprised when I saw that the CD-ROM driver that I had without use in the music PC, it supports FUA and rips quite fast the cds. So I can recommend it to the ones interested in getting a CD ROM with FUA capability. Price: 8,50 GBP in Amazon uk:http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002IST634. I bought a second unit to have it as spare. Btw, I updated my PC post to show that CD ROM capability: http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1673.msg16893#msg16893


So, here it is my final choice: dBpoweramp Reference, with the mentioned settings and ripping directly to the final folder in XXHighEnd (Galleries).

Of course I could saved a lot of time following other´s advise (Mani) but I wanted to get here, as I said, by my own ears. Thanks though, Mani.

All of these appreciations are subjective, as I stated above, and are observed in my system, that means that in your case could be, as always, different, but there is also here some objective information that I hope will be useful for the ones that are interested in the ripping process.

Regards,
Juan

PS. Music used for testing:

- Jazz a Saint Germain. Various Artists. Virgin (7243 8452622 1). 1997
- ELIS. Sadao Watanabe. WEA. 1988
- Words. The Tony Rich Project. LaFace. 1995
- Klavierkonzert No.5 "Emperor". Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli. Giulini. W.S. (D.G. 419 249-2). 1982
- Akiko Suwanai. Max Bruch. Philips (454 180-2). 1997
- Raya Yarbrough. (CD-83658). Telarc. 2007
- Alicia Keys. Songs in A minor. BMG. Arista Records. 2001
- Kari Bremnes. Norwegian Mood. HDCD. Kirkelig Kulturverdsted. 2000
- Lluís Llach. Un Pont de Mar Blava. Picap (B-20289-93). Recorded 1993
- Tarres/Serrat. Cansiones. BMG. 2000
- Buika. Niña de fuego. Casa Limón. 2008
- Nina Simone. The 60´S Vol. I. Mercury. (838 543-2). (1964-1965). 1990

[PeterSt]

Another of your superb posts Juan !
Great thanks from me and I'm sure on behalf of many others.

Peter

[juanpmar]

Thank you Peter, I appreciate your kind words

Juan

[christoffe]

......., besides I don´t use antivirus and don´t need internet because I don´t want windows updates.

Hi,

nice article.

If I read your post correct , the disadvantage is that without an internet connection you will not have any access to the databases and no confirmation from AccurateRip within dBp for a "bit perfect" rip.

So I use one PC with an internet connection for dBp and then I have to transfer the files with an USB stick to the music PC. I see no other route to get the files to .............. .

Joachim

[juanpmar]

Hi Joachim,

In order to get full advantage of dBp or EAC you need to have an Internet connection in the computer you have the ripping software installed, it´s needed to get the Meta Data and to use AccurateRip.

What I wanted to say is that when I was using my laptop to rip the cds the internet connection was in this laptop. In such a case I was using the music PC just for playing music and I wanted to keep this music PC as "clean" as possible even without internet. This is what I called the "indirect" way of ripping because I used an usb card to transport the ripped cds from the laptop to the music PC.

Now that I use the "direct" ripping method I have the internet connection in my music PC. No other software in this PC other than XXHighEnd and dBpoweramp. Neither antivirus.

Sorry if I was confusing
Juan

[Flecko]

- EAC: seems more lay back and smoother at first glance.

- dBpoweramp Reference: seems more in front, more edgy at first glance but at the end is that it is just more detailed and the scene is reacher. The highs are smoooooth and beautiful. The sound seems a little louder than with EAC, I guess that it´s due to a fuller soundstage with a perception of a wider and deeper 3D space.

Hi juan and thanks for your post. What I do not understand is why the programs should lead to a different sound when the files they produce are bit by bit identical. At least when they are correctly set up they should produce the same files. Shouldn't the sound difference be introduced by other things like were they are stored or something else?
You could try hex compare to compare the files. If they are different then there is a wrong setting in one of the programs. If they are identical there can not be a fingerprint of the ripping program. The sound differences must come due to something else.

[boleary]

Thanks Juan.  I've often thought of doing this same comparison and now find its unnecesary--either dbPoweramp is better or they are identical, I can live with that!

I manage "direct ripping" with a Vista partition that has antivirus and internet enabled (Belkin wireless usb adapter--no internal wireless card.). Music is ripped to a second internal HD that's automatically backed up to an external drive whenever I plug the external drive in, usually in the morning when I'm in Vista, cruzing the internet and listening to my totally not optimised vista version of xxhighend. My W7 partition has no antivirus or internet enabled, just the OS- minimized- and XXhighend.   

[CoenP]

Hi,

I also experienced some strage phenomena wrt bit identical files. My theory that sound differences are due to the different ways the bits are stored on the harddisc. As shown above both the ripping software as the hdd it is stored (and transferred to) seem to matter. Ultimately we should verify if the files end up the same way in the memory.

Furthermore any sampling to a higher rate may 'remember' any wrong sample for quite some time. Theorethically a few dropped or wrong bits are not audible. I wonder if you hear any difference just playing plain nos (no ap or any sampling enabled).
In this light padded 'zero' samples could very well influence the sound as they might influence the memory allocation as well.

Interesting stuff indeed!

Regards, Coen

[juanpmar]

Shouldn't the sound difference be introduced by other things like were they are stored or something else?

Hi Flecko,

This is what Peter said in a previous post about this issue:

"Two identical files should not bring any difference that I can think of.
The processing coming along with it (like rip - play after 5 minutes or so), does.
The location where it is played from ? does.
There's some more."

As I said in my post I´m not a technical guy, so I can´t help on this regard, sorry. What I can say is that ripping with the two different methods (direct/indirect) and with the two different software (EAC/dBpoweramp) and locating the ripped files in the same directory, even in the same final folder, the sound is different. Why?, some other could explain it better. What I did is to choose the method I liked more or sound better for my taste. Something absolutely subjetive and I can uderstand perfectly that other person could choose other different method/software. This is why I´d recommend to test it in your own system.

Thanks Juan.  I've often thought of doing this same comparison and now find its unnecesary--either dbPoweramp is better or they are identical, I can live with that!

I manage "direct ripping" with a Vista partition that has antivirus and internet enabled (Belkin wireless usb adapter--no internal wireless card.). Music is ripped to a second internal HD that's automatically backed up to an external drive whenever I plug the external drive in, usually in the morning when I'm in Vista, cruzing the internet and listening to my totally not optimised vista version of xxhighend. My W7 partition has no antivirus or internet enabled, just the OS- minimized- and XXhighend.  

Hi boleary,

I know your post about it:

"Anyone ever done an analysis of dbpoweramp v EAC? Is one supposed to be better than the other?"

That pushed me to make this test, so the idea was yours and I thank you for it. I encourage you, however, to do a test and thus have more points of view.

If I understand well you have two partitions in one hdd, one with Vista and other one with W7. The partition with Vista has internet/antivirus/dBpoweramp. The partition with W7 has the OS and XXHigEnd. You have also another internal hdd where you send "directly" the ripped files. That files are backed up to an external hdd automatically when you plug it in.
Is that correct?. If so I think that´s a similar way to rip as mine. Could it be even better than mine because I have dBp in the same drive as XXHighEnd and the OS and I don´t know if it could have any influence in sound.

Hi,

I also experienced some strage phenomena wrt bit identical files. My theory that sound differences are due to the different ways the bits are stored on the harddisc. As shown above both the ripping software as the hdd it is stored (and transferred to) seem to matter. Ultimately we should verify if the files end up the same way in the memory.

Furthermore any sampling to a higher rate may 'remember' any wrong sample for quite some time. Theorethically a few dropped or wrong bits are not audible. I wonder if you hear any difference just playing plain nos (no ap or any sampling enabled).
In this light padded 'zero' samples could very well influence the sound as they might influence the memory allocation as well.

Interesting stuff indeed!

Regards, Coen

Hi Coen,

Very interesting, I don´t know if I would be able to make correctly that test, maybe others could enlight us about it.

Juan

[PeterSt]

An old one, but one of the very best in here : Burning audio CD while XX playing.

[juanpmar]

Some of my older cds have errors when ripping, that´s due to some scratches because of the use.

The problem is that when I rip this cds in my Sony laptop with a Blueray/dvd/cdrom driver using EAC or dBpoweramp they are ripped correctly with no errors detected but if I rip these cds in my music PC with the LG driver either with EAC or dBpoweramp the errors are detected.

What does it mean? that the Sony driver is a bad driver because it doesn´t detect the errors or is the LG driver in the music PC that is a bad driver that can´t read correctly some cds in bad conditions?.

After I read the thread mentioned by Peter in the previous post I took other path. I made a copy of one of those cds using Nero in a cdr and after that I ripped directly this cdr in my music PC. The result: perfect files with no errors at all and correct AccurateRip results in all the tracks.

I´d like some help though on the previous question about which one is the bad driver

Juan

[PeterSt]

I´d like some help though on the previous question about which one is the bad driver

A first quick response : you need a third drive, and hope it shows the same results as one of the others.
This is just the general rule.

[juanpmar]

A first quick response : you need a third drive, and hope it shows the same results as one of the others.
This is just the general rule.

Thanks Peter,

Well, then it´s a matter of probability.

Thinking again about it, if I get Accuraterips with the laptop that means that they are correctly read. If the music PC can´t read that files could means that the laser or whatever in the driver is not as good for reading.
Juan

[PeterSt]

What does it mean? that the Sony driver is a bad driver because it doesn´t detect the errors or is the LG driver in the music PC that is a bad driver that can´t read correctly some cds in bad conditions?.

You can go two directions here :

1.
The LG drive is the bad boy. Possibly you can proove this by means of reripping and check for the positions where the errors are. You can see this happening during ripping (with EAC anyway), and when the errors are at different spots per rip, throw out the drive.
Notice that for such a situation the "Glitch" functionality in XXHE has been created. Rightclick on a track - Analysis - Glitching. I hope it still works, because I didn't use it in ages. Somewhere a log file will come from it (don't even ask me where or how it is called). Works with .WAV files only.
It will give you insight in where the errors are, and how severe they are. But, foir *glitching* which means that values "stick" for a number of samples (while they should be different always).

2.
The Sony works with a cache and doesn't allow to see the errors. This is strange reasoning when AccurateRip tells all is OK, but think something like it always needs more than one read (of a portion) to ever detect a second time is different from a first. *This* would be denoted as errors, and what's most read will be put to disc (at least this is how EAC works). This means that a first time reads coincidentally OK (because AccurateRip tells you that), while a second time which could have been different won't be different ever because of the cache.

Of course #1 will be the logical answer (and culprit).

If the music PC can´t read that files could means that the laser or whatever in the driver is not as good for reading.

Again, of course.

Also :
I created that Glitch Analysis because my (ever back Plextor) drive clearly showed errors by looking at the process of ripping (EAC) while no single error was reported from it. This was without AccurateRip though. I'm only saying that things can go wrong with reasons beyond you (or plain bugs in EAC), and in this case the glitches were audible all over.
I had dozens and dozens of CDs ripped before I noticed they were all wrong.

Peter

[juanpmar]

Ok, thank you, I need some time to check it with Glitching in XXHigEnd and today is time to start thinking a little about tonight dinner and all those kind of things.

Happy Christmas to all of you!!