Will ripped CDs really equal the musicality of a great CD player?

[Echolane]

Recently I talked with an audiophile friend about my pending move to add streaming capability to my stereo systems. He threw a bit of a wet blanket on my enthusiasms for streaming by suggesting I would be disappointed in the sound of my own ripped CDs. That five minutes spent ripping a CD would be unlikely to lead to better sound.

I have read that different ripping algorithms do make a difference in the way the copy sounds. Comments anyone?

 

[Al M.]

A copy of a CD should be a copy of a CD. I don't see how different ripping algorithms have anything to do with that. The only thing you need to do, if I remember correctly from a seminar about computer audio, is to set the computer to 'no error', which means it will read any problematic spot (scratch, dust etc.) so many times until it gets it right bit for bit. This can take somewhat longer at times.

Having said that, I have yet to hear a server that equals or beats the quality of a good CD transport; I have heard side by side comparisons of mine with a carefully set up server configuration (ethernet etc.). And I have been told about friends' side by side comparisons of servers that sounded very different, which is scary. Theoretically they shouldn't. Yet I assume it must be possible. I would expect, for example, that an expensive Baetis server via AES/EBU connection, and provided that external storage is done right (which may take some serious effort), might beat my CD transport.

But if anyone claims that any computer set-up will beat your CD transport, don't believe them. It's nonsense. Yes, theoretically a server has less jitter (that's the lazy standard argument), but unless done in an impeccable manner, it also has a good chance to introduce more RF noise than a transport, which is also a source of degradation of the digital signal.

 

[audioguy]

Contrary to Al M's experience, my ripped CD's sound at least as good as the shiny disc played on a top of the line player (in this case, dCS), and many times better. All of the tests we have done in those comparisons have been blind. Since we initially did these test, it is entirely possible that transports have gotten a lot better. On the other hand, the servers to play these files have gotten a lot quieter, more refined and much better well. Many/most/all (?) of the the classic WBF members don't believe in blind tests, but I do.

But for me, at the end of the day, the sound is "close enough" (regardless of which side you fall on) that convenience FAR FAR outweighs any potential differences. I am OK if my server is not quite as "perfect" as the very best transport (though I don't believe that).

YMMV

 

[dalethorn]

I've had a few bad CD's that wouldn't play perfectly in any of several transports I tried, but when ripped to "bit perfect" files, they played perfectly in digital players. It seems from this discussion that a lot of what is being said here is comparing the designs and electronics of various servers and CD players, rather than the methodologies and what their limitations are.

My opinion is that freeing the digital data from the physical disc is a great advantage, to eliminate the mechanical components of the CD player. But again, if we're comparing the designs and electronics of existing servers versus CD players, then I think we're not giving as much attention to the mechanical issues with CD players.

 

[Mdp632]

A copy of a CD should be a copy of a CD. I don't see how different ripping algorithms have anything to do with that. The only thing you need to do, if I remember correctly from a seminar about computer audio, is to set the computer to 'no error', which means it will read any problematic spot (scratch, dust etc.) so many times until it gets it right bit for bit. This can take somewhat longer at times.

Having said that, I have yet to hear a server that equals or beats the quality of a good CD transport; I have heard side by side comparisons of mine with a carefully set up server configuration (ethernet etc.). And I have been told about friends' side by side comparisons of servers that sounded very different, which is scary. Theoretically they shouldn't. Yet I assume it must be possible. I would expect, for example, that an expensive Baetis server via AES/EBU connection, and provided that external storage is done right (which may take some serious effort), might beat my CD transport.

But if anyone claims that any computer set-up will beat your CD transport, don't believe them. It's nonsense. Yes, theoretically a server has less jitter (that's the lazy standard argument), but unless done in an impeccable manner, it also has a good chance to introduce more RF noise than a transport, which is also a source of degradation of the digital signal.

I'm also in agreement with you. Based on my personal experience. Way too many variables in computer/network audio. Not only are you dealing with your transport/server but, don't forget about home networks wifi etc.. Noisy switches etc...

Some of these computer audiophiles go to insane lengths to improve the sound. Look at the computer audiophile forum and audiostream. USB gimmicks, expensive RJ45 cables coupled with Fiber modules etc to name a few.

 

[microstrip]

I'm also in agreement with you. Based on my personal experience. Way too many variables in computer/network audio. Not only are you dealing with your transport/server but, don't forget about home networks wifi etc.. Noisy switches etc...

Some of these computer audiophiles go to insane lengths to improve the sound. Look at the computer audiophile forum and audiostream. USB gimmicks, expensive RJ45 cables coupled with Fiber modules etc to name a few.

We are not dealing with the transport, we are just accepting its sound signature, all qualities and defects included. People in the computer audio are much more logic - they try to get rid of jitter and noise. And it seems to me that going to insane lengths to improve the sound is the best accolade we can write on WBF concerning people!

 

[Empirical Audio]

We are not dealing with the transport, we are just accepting its sound signature, all qualities and defects included. People in the computer audio are much more logic - they try to get rid of jitter and noise. And it seems to me that going to insane lengths to improve the sound is the best accolade we can write on WBF concerning people!

I would not have retired my CD transport if the SQ of ripped files played back with the right hardware and software was not significantly superior. There is no CD transport in my rack.

Before I retired my CD transport, I applied several things to the CD that improved it, all of these reducing the jitter, including:

1) coating the top surface with a rubbery coating that reduces vibration while spinning
2) coating the read surface with a good treatment to make the reads more accurate
3) rewriting the disk using a good CDROM drive powered by battery and using a good media like Mitsui Gold Master Audio Disks

All of these were eventually replaced with my USB interface playing files from my Mac Mini using Amarra. This is better than ANY transport, period. Show me any transport that delivers 10psec of jitter at the end of a 4 foot coax cable. Does not exist. Jitter is the ONLY thing that matters with a digital feed, assuming no lossy compression.

I also have an Ethernet interface with the same low jitter. I can use either. They both sound amazing and can play up to 24/192 hi-res tracks.

The amazing thing is the sound quality that I get simply streaming Amazon Prime music through my USB interface. Never heard ANY CD transport sound like this either and this is probably compressed and lossy.

You must understand that I modded CD transports for more than 10 years and offered some of the best on the market. If I used one now, it would have my Synchro-Mesh reclocker between it and the DAC to reduce jitter to 8 psec. This is much more effective than treatments or re-writing disks.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

 

[still-one]

If there are any differences I am well past worrying about missing out missing the minutia. I have the option of playing discs via the transport section but haven't found a need in a long time.

 

[cjfrbw]

I long ago gave up 'state of the art' digital as being redundant. However, playing Redbook level material seems to sound better being played through solid state USB chip directly into pre/pro usb slot than either Airplay streaming from mac mini or disc from disc player. Disc through coax cable seems to sound a bit better than Airplay streaming, but pretty close.

I have been recording my CD stuff to chip for this reason. Why this is the case I don't know. Compressed music also sounds better through USB SS chip.

 

[John Dyson]

Regarding 'jitter'. The data on the CD is reclocked to be whatever is in the playback device, it is not clocked by the medium. So, if there is a jitter issue, it is because of jitter in the player itself. If there are any bit errors or changes, then they are simply errors. CDs do NOT drive the clock, but are read on an as-needed basis, and any delays or errors that might be caused by jitter would be errors. IN that case, the error correction mechanism helps to fix those. So, as long as you get an error-free read from the device (or any errors are corrected due to the redundant recording mechanism), then there is no difference. IF there is real timing jitter (which seems to be almost impossible, because the audio is clocked through and any retiming is as precise as the clock), it is in the timing clock inside of the HW or computer reader. It would seem that the timing on computer devices is so jitter free that it would be inaudible, but even then the jitter is in the electronics, not in the CD. (There could be jitter in the recording electronics used to make the CD, but that is even more unlikely than in a PC.) Again, CDs/DVDs and BlueRays are read on an as-needed basis, based upon the clock of the containing electronics HW.

 

[Empirical Audio]

Regarding 'jitter'. The data on the CD is reclocked to be whatever is in the playback device, it is not clocked by the medium. So, if there is a jitter issue, it is because of jitter in the player itself. If there are any bit errors or changes, then they are simply errors. CDs do NOT drive the clock, but are read on an as-needed basis, and any delays or errors that might be caused by jitter would be errors. IN that case, the error correction mechanism helps to fix those. So, as long as you get an error-free read from the device (or any errors are corrected due to the redundant recording mechanism), then there is no difference. IF there is real timing jitter (which seems to be almost impossible, because the audio is clocked through and any retiming is as precise as the clock), it is in the timing clock inside of the HW or computer reader.

This would really nice, if it were only true. The reality is that the PLL oscillator that controls the rotation of the disk is affected by the spacing of the pits on the disk, and how well these are read by the optical read head. The other disadvantage of a PLL control system like this is that it is not simply a free-running clock that is buffering the data. It must sync with the data coming off the disk. It is well-known that anything other than a free running clock will have higher jitter. It's just physics.

On the other hand, if the transport is a CDROM, which a few are, then at least it has a chance of delivering really low jitter because large amounts of data are buffered in RAM at high speed before spooling out at sample-rate speedX64, hopefully with a free-running clock.

It would seem that the timing on computer devices is so jitter free that it would be inaudible, but even then the jitter is in the electronics, not in the CD. (There could be jitter in the recording electronics used to make the CD, but that is even more unlikely than in a PC.) Again, CDs/DVDs and BlueRays are read on an as-needed basis, based upon the clock of the containing electronics HW.

This would also be really nice if it were true. The reality is that all electronics and power subsystems add jitter, as well as cables. If the wrong logic family is chosen for the design for instance, this can add thousands of picoseconds of jitter to the resultant S/PDIF output. If the wrong power decoupling caps are chosen or the voltage regulator does not respond fast enough, this can add hundreds of picoseconds of jitter.

Here are some jitter plots showing high levels of jitter of typical computer interfaces, transport interfaces and cables, showing how my products reduce this jitter (jitter can never be eliminated):

https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=154408.0

https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=154310.0

https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=154425.0

I am a EE and I have been designing digital systems for 35 years and reducing jitter of digital audio for over 20 years. Reducing jitter is the main goal of most of my products. Other products do not compete with mine because their jitter is much higher. This is truly a black art, reducing jitter to extremely low levels. It's not just a matter of selecting a low phase-noise, low jitter oscillator. This is only the starting point. Hundreds of design decisions have to be optimized in order to end up with 10psec of jitter at the end of the coax cable. Many of these decisions are trade secrets.

The other thing to realize is that jitter can never be too low or inaudible. As systems become more transparent and resolving, jitter is always audible, even at picosecond levels. I recently made modifications to my Synchro-Mesh reclocker that reduced the jitter from 22 picoseconds to 8 picoseconds. This change was clearly audible, as echoed by my customers in their feedbacks on my audiocircle forum.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

 

[John Dyson]

This would really nice, if it were only true. The reality is that the PLL oscillator that controls the rotation of the disk is affected by the spacing of the pits on the disk, and how well these are read by the optical read head. The other disadvantage of a PLL control system like this is that it is not simply a free-running clock that is buffering the data. It must sync with the data coming off the disk. It is well-known that anything other than a free running clock will have higher jitter. It's just physics.

On the other hand, if the transport is a CDROM, which a few are, then at least it has a chance of delivering really low jitter because large amounts of data are buffered in RAM at high speed before spooling out at sample-rate speedX64, hopefully with a free-running clock.






I am a EE and I have been designing digital systems for 35 years and reducing jitter of digital audio for over 20 years. Reducing jitter is the main goal of most of my products. Other products do not compete with mine because their jitter is much higher. This is truly a black art, reducing jitter to extremely low levels. It's not just a matter of selecting a low phase-noise, low jitter oscillator. This is only the starting point. Hundreds of design decisions have to be optimized in order to end up with 10psec of jitter at the end of the coax cable. Many of these decisions are trade secrets.

The other thing to realize is that jitter can never be too low or inaudible. As systems become more transparent and resolving, jitter is always audible, even at picosecond levels. I recently made modifications to my Synchro-Mesh reclocker that reduced the jitter from 22 picoseconds to 8 picoseconds. This change was clearly audible, as echoed by my customers in their feedbacks on my audiocircle forum.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

But the playout clocking rate has nothing to do with the CD timing, but rather from a crystal. If the CD drive doesn't have enough buffering to handle the variations in the rotation (which might or might not be controlled by a PLL), then there is an error -- NOT JITTER. If the data falls behind or gets too far ahead, the result is an error that needs to be corrected, and it is a flaw in the design or the CD or drive -- it is not a matter of 'kind of' or a little better or a little worse WRT the quality. It is all or nothing, but the ECC can cover your b*tt. If the quality of the CD is poor, or the drive has real troubles, then there can also be errors. Jitter only happens in the worst, worst case situations that should NEVER be even in the cheapest consumer gear.

All jitter comes from the master clock in the drive -- whether or not there is massive buffering (like on a PC drive) or just enough to maintain the proper data rate considering the speed variations of the drive. The way that you describe the more primitive drive design to be is similar to the old TBCs on video decks that didn't have full frame memory. The only resulting jitter from that design or the CD drive designs is from the clock. There can be certain kinds of time base errors that aren't corrected on an analog system like a tape deck, but those kinds of errors are just not operative on a CD -- unless, again there iis an ERROR. That is not the same as casual jitter as in an analog system. (Sure the system is analog at the lowest levels, but at the VERY lowest levels, the data is self clocking and so there is no effective jitter in the data relative to its own clock.) The same is not true of analog video tape decks, but the concept is otherwise the same.

It is all effectively the same however -- the clocking rate comes from the master clock crystal in the drive (whether or not also being the reference for the PLL -- maintaing the buffer fullness depending upon demand in a similar was as a big buffer.) And, except for an ECC type correction the data doesn't 'jitter'. The data rate is not directly driven by the rotating media like on a vinyl LP. The CD is effectively fully 'time base corrected' in the sense that the flow is maintained no matter the method. THE DATA DOES NOT JITTER UNLESS THERE IS A DESIGN FLAW or there is a horrible crystal oscillator in the drive.
(It is possible to misdesign a CD player as a full analog device, but that would be a mistake, and such travesties could jitter... However, an all analog time base correction wouldn't likely have the technology for ECC either.)

BTW -- I am an analog EE, DSP, operating systems and audio person along with being one of AT&Ts Video and Satellite TV people with over 40yrs experience and expertise in Analog design, Computer OS software (I wrote big parts of the FreeBSD kernel0, and also doing a DolbyA decoder right now. I am a 'swiss army knife', but maybe more accurate a Forrest Gump of technology -- touchiing within one degree of seperation at work starting with Thomas A Edison -- and always close to near-fame, but never really achieving it myself. It is awfully hard to believe all of the peoople who I have had contact with.

John

 

[Empirical Audio]

But the playout clocking rate has nothing to do with the CD timing, but rather from a crystal. If the CD drive doesn't have enough buffering to handle the variations in the rotation (which might or might not be controlled by a PLL), then there is an error -- NOT JITTER. If the data falls behind or gets too far ahead, the result is an error that needs to be corrected, and it is a flaw in the design or the CD or drive -- it is not a matter of 'kind of' or a little better or a little worse WRT the quality. It is all or nothing, but the ECC can cover your b*tt. If the quality of the CD is poor, or the drive has real troubles, then there can also be errors. Jitter only happens in the worst, worst case situations that should NEVER be even in the cheapest consumer gear.

Just rewrite your CD to a Mitsui Audio Master disk and treat it with Ultrabit. Play these and you will hear a difference in the original and the copy, even though there is no correction taking place and no difference in the data. The difference is the accuracy of the pits and how this affects the jitter at the output.

All jitter comes from the master clock in the drive -- whether or not there is massive buffering (like on a PC drive) or just enough to maintain the proper data rate considering the speed variations of the drive. The way that you describe the more primitive drive design to be is similar to the old TBCs on video decks that didn't have full frame memory. The only resulting jitter from that design or the CD drive designs is from the clock. There can be certain kinds of time base errors that aren't corrected on an analog system like a tape deck, but those kinds of errors are just not operative on a CD -- unless, again there iis an ERROR. That is not the same as casual jitter as in an analog system. (Sure the system is analog at the lowest levels, but at the VERY lowest levels, the data is self clocking and so there is no effective jitter in the data relative to its own clock.) The same is not true of analog video tape decks, but the concept is otherwise the same.

Do the experiment and then report back. It's a PLL, so the pit accuracy affects the oscillator. Everything else is locked to the oscillator, so the jitter is relayed to the output.

It is all effectively the same however -- the clocking rate comes from the master clock crystal in the drive (whether or not also being the reference for the PLL -- maintaing the buffer fullness depending upon demand in a similar was as a big buffer.) And, except for an ECC type correction the data doesn't 'jitter'. The data rate is not directly driven by the rotating media like on a vinyl LP. The CD is effectively fully 'time base corrected' in the sense that the flow is maintained no matter the method. THE DATA DOES NOT JITTER UNLESS THERE IS A DESIGN FLAW or there is a horrible crystal oscillator in the drive.
(It is possible to misdesign a CD player as a full analog device, but that would be a mistake, and such travesties could jitter... However, an all analog time base correction wouldn't likely have the technology for ECC either.)

Great in theory, broken in practice. It's like saying that asynch USB would eliminate jitter from USB interfaces and any USB output from a computer and USB cable will work fine. Think again. It's like saying that Ethernet because of packetization will eliminate jitter and any Ethernet cable will be fine, any router will be fine. Think again. None of these things were true. There are mechanisms that get you in every case, like leakage and common-mode noise.

BTW -- I am an analog EE, DSP, operating systems and audio person along with being one of AT&Ts Video and Satellite TV people with over 40yrs experience and expertise in Analog design, Computer OS software (I wrote big parts of the FreeBSD kernel0, and also doing a DolbyA decoder right now. I am a 'swiss army knife', but maybe more accurate a Forrest Gump of technology -- touchiing within one degree of seperation at work starting with Thomas A Edison -- and always close to near-fame, but never really achieving it myself. It is awfully hard to believe all of the peoople who I have had contact with.

John

There is a big difference being a digital audio designer whose goal in life is minimizing jitter. Completely different bag of tricks and knowledge base. I could teach you a lot about this squirrely subject. Things that are not in ANY textbook or college lecture. My bio:

http://www.empiricalaudio.com/about-empirical-audio/

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

 

[BlueFox]

I suspect the DAC being used is going to be the biggest variable with how it will sound. Is your external DAC better than your CD DAC? If you are going to use the CD DAC via digital in then the digital cable is another big variable in how it will sound. Don't forget to get a great power cord for an external DAC, since that is another factor in how it will sound. Also, don't waste time with a general purpose computer being used as a server. Get a dedicated file player that has been optimized to play these files.

Personally, I love my Lumin, and use my CDP only a few times a year.

 

[John Dyson]

I suspect the DAC being used is going to be the biggest variable with how it will sound. Is your external DAC better than your CD DAC? If you are going to use the CD DAC via digital in then the digital cable is another big variable in how it will sound. Don't forget to get a great power cord for an external DAC, since that is another factor in how it will sound. Also, don't waste time with a general purpose computer being used as a server. Get a dedicated file player that has been optimized to play these files.

Personally, I love my Lumin, and use my CDP only a few times a year.

The DAC would be the biggest difference except for error recovery in the CD handling unit itself (the buffering and ECC not handling disk errors as efficiently as another unit -- and the SNR&precision of the reading mechanism is also important for minmizing errors..) But, outside of actual data errors, the DAC would be the next most likely source of differneces.

However, if you do a direct read of the ECC data (and/or do a very intelligent/aggressive ECC handling in software), then data is data. Each data item has a slot where it goes, and the data does NOT skew because on the disk it is essentially self clocking. It is impossible to really seperate the clock from the data so that there is extra jitter (except in the case of error handling, then all bets are off-- it can do it correctly, or make mistakes and skew the data.) Jitter in a real design is not possible unless the timing clock itself jitters (or is a real error.)

A long time ago, I had believed that a 16bit or 24bit DAC (or ADC on the other side) are just that. But there can be sources of errors in there, and sources of error/distortion in associated electronics. So, the quality of the DAC or ADC is paramount.

I have an anecdote for you. I have been studying DolbySR schematics for a new project that I might be starting, and I was taken aback by the kind of opamps being used.... No, it isn' tsome kind of super performance high slew rate op amp -- they are mostly LF442s in the signal path. For fun (make sure that you have a bucket to puke in next to you), take a look of the specs of those things!!! Any idea about needing esoterically high performance devices and the fact that much material was encoded/decoded (or only encoded ) by DolbyA or DolbySR, and knowing what is iniside of those things -- don't worry about using the $5 TI super op-amps in designs unless it would REALLY be beneficial. It is an engineering decision to determine if super high performance is really needed -- and perhpas one of the biggest issues nowadays is the ability to drive moderately high currents and moderate voltages without distortion (which does require a pretty good op-amp). Normal usage is not very challenging given using the parts within spec and watching the loop gain/and simple distortion characteiistcs. I have a magical document that has extensive distortion curves for numerous kinds of op-amps, and it is very illuminating.

The bottom line of my long message -- a lot of 'golden ears' stuff is specious or right on the edge of being real. Anyone who listens to something that has been processed by any of the traditional analog Dolby devices doesn't necessarily need perfection -- they aren't getting it anyway. (My dolbyA decoder is perfect in a lot of ways, but the encoded material has already been touched by 2 or 3 transistor, simple deisgned utliity amplifiers in DolbyA or LF442 op-amps in DolbySR.)

John

 

[John Dyson]

> There is a big difference being a digital audio designer whose goal in life is minimizing jitter. Completely different bag of tricks and knowledge base. I could teach you a lot about this squirrely subject. Things that are not in ANY textbook or college lecture. My bio:



Okay -- I am not going to argue -- just remember that the data on disk is self clocking (which means that the data format contains the clock along with the data), and seperating the data time base and the clock isn't really something that can be done withiout a design flaw. The data and the required time based upon the sample rate is tightly coupled and not a good idea to seperate. I guess that jitter could be artificially created, but I don't see the advantage.

 

[Echolane]

I confess I expected a simpler answer to the original question. I think the responses can be summed up by saying “It’s complicated!”

I had not realized how complicated the issue of jitter is. For those interested, here’s a couple of interesting articles addressing the complications of jitter pulled from the OPPO website as it pertains to their UDP-205 product and how they addressed the complications of jitter and HDMI audio.

“About Jitter - Digital Audio’s Weakest Link”
http://www.esstech.com/files/4614/4095/4305/about-jitter.pdf

“Understanding the HDMI Audio Jitter Reduction Circuit in the Oppo UDP-205
https://www.oppodigital.com/KnowledgeBase.aspx?KBID=129&ProdID=UDP-205

 

[John Dyson]

I confess I expected a simpler answer to the original question. I think the responses can be summed up by saying “It’s complicated!”

I had not realized how complicated the issue of jitter is. For those interested, here’s a couple of interesting articles addressing the complications of jitter pulled from the OPPO website as it pertains to their UDP-205 product and how they addressed the complications of jitter and HDMI audio.

“About Jitter - Digital Audio’s Weakest Link”
http://www.esstech.com/files/4614/4095/4305/about-jitter.pdf

“Understanding the HDMI Audio Jitter Reduction Circuit in the Oppo UDP-205
https://www.oppodigital.com/KnowledgeBase.aspx?KBID=129&ProdID=UDP-205

There be lots of snake oil in certain pseudo-technical subjects!!!
Just be skpectical of those who can benefit from others being confounded. The technology is NOT all that complex, it is just the terminology can make things seem more complex than they really are. Part of being an expert is having a large vocabulary of truly technical language, but also there is the confusing language of marketing speak. Mixing each together can make it seem complicated even to those who understand what is going on.
A good example is the religion of the 'harsh digital sound'. There are real reasons for it, but little of it (very little) are due to 'stair stepping' and things like that. Much of the time (for example) the reason for the 'harsh digital sound' is either human error, misunderstanding of what is needed for mastering during the transition to digital, and probably other even more simple reasons like bad EQ or not decoding the noise reduction.

So, when you hear a certain defect or difference, it is too easy to point to the metaphysical reason of the day.

I have to say that from the stand point of the data being decoupled from it's timing (which could allow jitter to happen) -- that kind of jitter just doens't happen tp tje extemt that it is sometimes talked about. There can be timing problems due to errors forcing ECC, but those errors usually manifest as audible clicks or other kind of distortion that are more obvious than fuzziness of some kind. If such simple systems were liable to have that much jitter, then the mathmatically challenging GPS would be off by miles instead of feet. GPS and CDs were designed in the same kind of timeframe, and the engineers were not that silly-in-the-head to let it happen in the way it is commonly described.

If spending more money for op-amps better than what you really need (sometimes expensive op-amps are really needed, however), or some kind of magic tweak or tune makes the sound seem better -- go for it!! But, please be careful about those who benefit directly from the field making a description that seems technical but just doesn't match reality. Also, some 'defects' can sound good also -- in my project, if I tune the decoder differently, I can make the HF regions sound very 'sweet' -- but that would usually be wrong from an accuracy standpoint. The 'aural exiciter' causes another kind of defect that some people might feel that is pleasing. Lots of recordings have had the aural exciter applied, and any ideas of accuracy are LONG, LONG gone after usting that.

Audiophile quality matters are a complicated study in psychology, and I just not an expert in psychnolgy mysel -- but I do know engineering at a level where it becomes much simpler again -- the divide and conquer approach works for most technical things (except, for example, neural nets.) Some things ARE complicated at the low levels -- like the ECC mathematics, but the matter of data and the clock having mutual timing differences (could be jitter) just doesn't significantly manifest.

Again, there is the matter of the connection between the CD timing and the system/output clock on the CD player, but that buffering keeps the sync and the rate of rotation is managed along with the buffering. A FIFO or more flexible larger memory design is very old, tried and true technology. We were doing things like that in the 1950s with vacuum tubes, let alone the much more precise, easier, and more digital methods of today.


John

 

[853guy]

Just rewrite your CD to a Mitsui Audio Master disk and treat it with Ultrabit. Play these and you will hear a difference in the original and the copy, even though there is no correction taking place and no difference in the data. The difference is the accuracy of the pits and how this affects the jitter at the output.
...

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Hello Steve,

After much experimentation, I personally settled on Delkin Devices Archival Gold CD-Rs for making copies of existing CDs and bounced recording sessions for evaluation on other systems.

Eventually, I came to prefer the sound of any CD when re-written in real-time to those discs over all other discs I tried (Taiyo-Yuden, HBB, Verbatim, etc), even in as much as I admit the variables involved in copying digital data to a spinning disc inside an electro-mechanical device cannot be fully controlled, and the results not always replicable.

Of course, it’s fully possible I was delusional, and I think we’re all aware the fact that the data is identical suggests those of us who claim such things may indeed be worthy of suspicion or derision. Did I just hear what I wanted to hear? Maybe. Would I have been able to choose which was which under double-blind conditions? Maybe not.

All I can say is I liked the copy more than the original. And that I found shiny gold discs in clear cases to be aesthetically pleasing in a way conventional discs were not.

Best,

853guy

 

[John Dyson]

Hello Steve,

After much experimentation, I personally settled on Delkin Devices Archival Gold CD-Rs for making copies of existing CDs and bounced recording sessions for evaluation on other systems.

Eventually, I came to prefer the sound of any CD when re-written in real-time to those discs over all other discs I tried (Taiyo-Yuden, HBB, Verbatim, etc), even in as much as I admit the variables involved in copying digital data to a spinning disc inside an electro-mechanical device cannot be fully controlled, and the results not always replicable.

Of course, it’s fully possible I was delusional, and I think we’re all aware the fact that the data is identical suggests those of us who claim such things may indeed be worthy of suspicion or derision. Did I just hear what I wanted to hear? Maybe. Would I have been able to choose which was which under double-blind conditions? Maybe not.

All I can say is I liked the copy more than the original. And that I found shiny gold discs in clear cases to be aesthetically pleasing in a way conventional discs were not.

Best,

853guy

You are NOT diluded -- whether or not there are technical reasons for this or that, or there might be some subtle real technical differences, it is YOUR enjoyment of the music that is important. When I put my engineering hat on, then I am a very precise and logical engineer. When I am doing something to enjoy mself, as long as it is ethical -- I will enjoy myself. Don't get confused and conflate physics/engineering with enjoying your music. If it sounds better to you -- then it sounds better.

I am not just saying what will make you feel good or whatever, but simply it is a fact that the environment (or restaurant) is just as important as the entertainment (food) itself...

John