I don't understand high dollar CD players...

[guiller]

I don´t get the point of these arguments: some people like to use computer files to listen to their music, some people prefer CDs. Everybody has personals reasons to choose one or another format. Why there should be a winner, in a sort of 8 year-old argument? Personal preferences are just that and living with differences is the best thing that could happen to everybody.

 

[RocknRum]

Well there is no point. But there are egos to consider.

 

[jazzgene]

Hard drives crash. What do you then? Re-rip 3400 cds again? I suppose you can get yet another 2 TB drive to make a backup of the backup, etc.

And what software and drive are you using to rip full length CDs in uncompressed PCM in 2 minutes? I have a post production recording studio and even a pro level CD burner can't do that.

 

[Duffinator]

Hard drives crash. What do you then? Re-rip 3400 cds again? I suppose you can get yet another 2 TB drive to make a backup of the backup, etc.

And what software and drive are you using to rip full length CDs in uncompressed PCM in 2 minutes? I have a post production recording studio and even a pro level CD burner can't do that.

If you really have a post production recording studio then what do you do? I suppose you never back up your files?

 

[jstang]

A CD-Pro is never cheap....but it does not have to be supper high dollar either.... Roll you own and you will understand what a hi-end transport can do for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ae5brwUKY

 

[Mr. Lin]

I don´t get the point of these arguments: some people like to use computer files to listen to their music, some people prefer CDs. Everybody has personals reasons to choose one or another format. Why there should be a winner, in a sort of 8 year-old argument? Personal preferences are just that and living with differences is the best thing that could happen to everybody.

The problem is when those of us who have made the choice to stick with physical media and integrated CD players are treated as if we're naive because we haven't switched over to server-based systems. For some of us, the pros of the former clearly out-weigh the cons of the latter.

 

[poppachubby]

The problem is when those of us who have made the choice to stick with physical media and integrated CD players are treated as if we're naive because we haven't switched over to server-based systems. For some of us, the pros of the former clearly out-weigh the cons of the latter.

Well said Mr. Lin. I use both, but I think I will pursue a server based file system down the road. I am set up quite nicely right now with soundcard, dac, etc. The reason for this need stems from my love of vinyl, and ripping vinyl into digital.

Eventually I would like to pick up a high end Marantz CDP.

Anyhow...

 

[OldJBL]

Hard drives crash. What do you then? Re-rip 3400 cds again? I suppose you can get yet another 2 TB drive to make a backup of the backup, etc.

If that is a big concern, hard drives are cheap and a backup can be made or you can setup to have two hard drives where one is a mirror of the other. The odds two drives going bad at the same time is low. IMO, the best way to backup is with a USB or eSATA drive and then it can't be taken out by a bad power supply etc. and can be powered down when not in use.

And what software and drive are you using to rip full length CDs in uncompressed PCM in 2 minutes? I have a post production recording studio and even a pro level CD burner can't do that.

By today's standards a CD's capacity of 650 MB is small. Most newer CD/DVD drives can read CDs at 48X speed (7.2 MB/sec) maximum. This speed isn't constant across the disc but an average read speed across a disc is closer to 4 MB/sec. Divide 650 MB by 4 MB/sec and you get 163 seconds or 2.7 minutes for a CD filled to capacity. Even if you decide to use a compressed file format the rip time isn't that much longer for a dual or quad core based computer.

 

[OldJBL]

The problem is when those of us who have made the choice to stick with physical media and integrated CD players are treated as if we're naive because we haven't switched over to server-based systems. For some of us, the pros of the former clearly out-weigh the cons of the latter.

I don't think anyone is judging anyone else for their methods. My intent here is to give options that some might not have considered. If you think I am implying that those people who want to load media are naive then you have misread my motives.

 

[guiller]

I don't think anyone is judging anyone else for their methods. My intent here is to give options that some might not have considered. If you think I am implying that those people who want to load media are naive then you have misread my motives.

The OP asked about CDPs and CDs were mentioned. However, I´ve seen that in the vast majority of threads similar to this one that somebody mentions that server-based systems are the way to go, etc. I would say that most people are aware of those alternatives, and it would be healthy for the discussion to turn back to the subjet proposed by the OP, IMHO. Perhaps the ideal for discussing CD versus file storage systems would be to open a new thread devoted this subject, and keep discussing here about the process of producing sound out from a CD in a CDP and why pricing is so much spread among gear that seems to be similar.

 

[jstang]

A dedicated music server with precision clocking and 192k/24bit play back is my next build. This will end up receiving tons of mods/upgrades.... the DAC and clocking are the critical items.

My CD-PRo transport has a very clear edge on my current 44.1K/16bit music server. And that was testing using the same High End DAC for both.... The CD-Pro is an incredible transport....

In my opinion.... a High End transport & DAC that has been fully tweaked will out perform a 44.1K music server that has not been tweaked.

I am taking my time to plan the 192k/24bit music server and DAC....it will end up fully tweaked. My guess is it will out perform the tweaked CD-PRO, BUT ONLY WITH HD Source Material.... The CD-Pro has been known to hold its own against 44.1k Music Servers....if not better them....

But the CD-PRO will remain in my system, along with my TT, the old 44.k Music server (it will move to the family system) and finally the 192k Music server.

Assuming the same high quality DAC and same low Jitter Clock source.... A music server has the theoretical advantage of no mechanical jitter associated with the Drive...CD-Pro are known for very low mechanical jitter. But poor electronics in the music server can be a source of Jitter too.....

Junk is junk and good stuff is good stuff....


jk

 

[OldJBL]

The OP asked about CDPs and CDs were mentioned. However, I´ve seen that in the vast majority of threads similar to this one that somebody mentions that server-based systems are the way to go, etc. I would say that most people are aware of those alternatives, and it would be healthy for the discussion to turn back to the subjet proposed by the OP, IMHO. Perhaps the ideal for discussing CD versus file storage systems would be to open a new thread devoted this subject, and keep discussing here about the process of producing sound out from a CD in a CDP and why pricing is so much spread among gear that seems to be similar.

I see the discussion of music servers and use of computers as being very applicable in a thread of this nature. The OP questioned the value of high dollar CD players when transferring a digital signal. Giving alternatives to a CD player that is very affordable and may have better quality/functionality, or information about using a computer that many people already own, is very applicable, IMO. I think there has been a respectful and useful transfer of information between participants in this thread which is the very reason I frequent here.

 

[jazzgene]

If that is a big concern, hard drives are cheap and a backup can be made or you can setup to have two hard drives where one is a mirror of the other. The odds two drives going bad at the same time is low. IMO, the best way to backup is with a USB or eSATA drive and then it can't be taken out by a bad power supply etc. and can be powered down when not in use.



By today's standards a CD's capacity of 650 MB is small. Most newer CD/DVD drives can read CDs at 48X speed (7.2 MB/sec) maximum. This speed isn't constant across the disc but an average read speed across a disc is closer to 4 MB/sec. Divide 650 MB by 4 MB/sec and you get 163 seconds or 2.7 minutes for a CD filled to capacity. Even if you decide to use a compressed file format the rip time isn't that much longer for a dual or quad core based computer.

Yes, that is my point. You do need to get a whole system organized and set up as drives eventually will crash. 2TB is a lot to lose in an instant. I suppose you can set up a RAID 1 and double your drive cost. Not every music listener is so tech savvy though.

As for importing audio from red book cds using your everyday consumer cd-rom/cd-r drives:

There are a number of different and not very well standarized protocols for retrieving audio. Depending on the ripping software, your experience will vary and in no way can a 48x ripping speed guaranteed. Like I've said, I have yet to see a drive rip a full length audio cd in 2 minutes or less. If you have a set up that does, please give exact hardware and software specs as I will test it myself.

Some drive brands might even cause problems with some cds and not another.

Depending on the quality of the cd drive, small bit of a CD track will be improperly retrieved as well. This results in clicks and pops. Most consumer ripping software does not have an option to use a safer mode in which the track is read several times until the same exact result is found by using check sums. Again, this slows the ripping process considerably.

For myself being a critical listener to audio, when I retrieve an audio cd, I need an exact copy. I need to retrieve all index and sub-index markers and pauses. This includes audio-in-pause information as well. CD-text, ISRC, and UPC codes need to be retrieved as well. This mode necessarily creates 1 file for the whole CD. Most consumer drives can not do this. And the ones that do will do so at a very slow rate where 10 to 15 minutes is not uncommon to rip a cd EXACTLY as it is.

 

[OldJBL]

Yes, that is my point. You do need to get a whole system organized and set up as drives eventually will crash. 2TB is a lot to lose in an instant. I suppose you can set up a RAID 1 and double your drive cost. Not every music listener is so tech savvy though.

I would backup my library to a stand alone USB drive. Then it can be powered down and not used (i.e. no wear accumulating to the drive) and will be immune from any power surges hitting the computer. One doesn't have to be too tech savy to backup to a USB hard drive if they already know how to use a computer. Heck, I would recommend they backup their entire hard drive(s) as well.

Like I've said, I have yet to see a drive rip a full length audio cd in 2 minutes or less. If you have a set up that does, please give exact hardware and software specs as I will test it myself.

I just ripped a copy of Nirvana's MTV Unplugged CD to the hard drive in two minutes exactly using Windows 7 (64-bit) Media Player. It was done in WAV format to the Music Library. It even labeled all the tracks properly and stored the album art in the directory.

Here is a list of hardware in my computer:

CPU Type: DualCore Intel Pentium E5300, 3600 MHz (13 x 277) - overclocked
Motherboard Name: MSI G41M4-F (MS-7592) (2 PCI, 1 PCI-E x16, 2 DDR2 DIMM, Audio, Video, LAN)
System Memory: 2048 MB (DDR2-800 DDR2 SDRAM)
Audio Adapter: Realtek ALC888/1200 @ Intel 82801GB ICH7 - High Definition Audio Controller [A-1]
Disk Drive: SAMSUNG HD154UI ATA Device (1500 GB, 5400 RPM, SATA-II)
Optical Drive: LITE-ON DVDRW SHM-165H6S ATA Device (DVD+R9:8x, DVD-R9:4x, DVD+RW:16x/8x, DVD-RW:16x/6x, DVD-RAM:5x, DVD-ROM:16x, CD:48x/24x/48x DVD+RW/DVD-RW/DVD-RAM)

This hardware is nothing fancy and by today's standards is considered low end. If I had faster hardware it would have completed in about half the time.

Depending on the quality of the cd drive, small bit of a CD track will be improperly retrieved as well. This results in clicks and pops. Most consumer ripping software does not have an option to use a safer mode in which the track is read several times until the same exact result is found by using check sums. Again, this slows the ripping process considerably.

I have yet to hear a click or pop from any CD I have ripped to a hard drive. I can also set the rip speed for the hard drive from maximum down to 1X and even verify the results to ensure a good copy has been made. I find that a waste of time though. Others may want to do it to feel secure. I am doing this all with the software provided in Windows 7. There is far more complex software for ripping if one wants more bells and whistles than they would ever need or want. A lot of high end sound cards come with their own hardware.

For myself being a critical listener to audio, when I retrieve an audio cd, I need an exact copy. I need to retrieve all index and sub-index markers and pauses. This includes audio-in-pause information as well. CD-text, ISRC, and UPC codes need to be retrieved as well. This mode necessarily creates 1 file for the whole CD. Most consumer drives can not do this. And the ones that do will do so at a very slow rate where 10 to 15 minutes is not uncommon to rip a cd EXACTLY as it is.

This is all possible and it can be done in a very fast manner. Besides, when ripping a CD this information isn't drive dependent as much as it is software dependent.

Also, the amount of data that could be lost when ripping a CD, even at maximum speed, is so minute compared to the vast amount of data correctly transferred that human hearing and our brains can't detect it. With everything else being equal, I would bet 99.9999999999% of people could not consistently tell the difference in sound quality between a CD and a ripped copy of it played from a hard drive.

I am just curious. Why would you need CD-text, ISRC, and UPC codes just to listen to a CD? If you keep the actual CD then you have that information available if you ever need it.

 

[jazzgene]

I would backup my library to a stand alone USB drive. Then it can be powered down and not used (i.e. no wear accumulating to the drive) and will be immune from any power surges hitting the computer. One doesn't have to be too tech savy to backup to a USB hard drive if they already know how to use a computer. Heck, I would recommend they backup their entire hard drive(s) as well.



I just ripped a copy of Nirvana's MTV Unplugged CD to the hard drive in two minutes exactly using Windows 7 (64-bit) Media Player. It was done in WAV format to the Music Library. It even labeled all the tracks properly and stored the album art in the directory.

Here is a list of hardware in my computer:

CPU Type: DualCore Intel Pentium E5300, 3600 MHz (13 x 277) - overclocked
Motherboard Name: MSI G41M4-F (MS-7592) (2 PCI, 1 PCI-E x16, 2 DDR2 DIMM, Audio, Video, LAN)
System Memory: 2048 MB (DDR2-800 DDR2 SDRAM)
Audio Adapter: Realtek ALC888/1200 @ Intel 82801GB ICH7 - High Definition Audio Controller [A-1]
Disk Drive: SAMSUNG HD154UI ATA Device (1500 GB, 5400 RPM, SATA-II)
Optical Drive: LITE-ON DVDRW SHM-165H6S ATA Device (DVD+R9:8x, DVD-R9:4x, DVD+RW:16x/8x, DVD-RW:16x/6x, DVD-RAM:5x, DVD-ROM:16x, CD:48x/24x/48x DVD+RW/DVD-RW/DVD-RAM)

This hardware is nothing fancy and by today's standards is considered low end. If I had faster hardware it would have completed in about half the time.



I have yet to hear a click or pop from any CD I have ripped to a hard drive. I can also set the rip speed for the hard drive from maximum down to 1X and even verify the results to ensure a good copy has been made. I find that a waste of time though. Others may want to do it to feel secure. I am doing this all with the software provided in Windows 7. There is far more complex software for ripping if one wants more bells and whistles than they would ever need or want. A lot of high end sound cards come with their own hardware.



This is all possible and it can be done in a very fast manner. Besides, when ripping a CD this information isn't drive dependent as much as it is software dependent.

Also, the amount of data that could be lost when ripping a CD, even at maximum speed, is so minute compared to the vast amount of data correctly transferred that human hearing and our brains can't detect it. With everything else being equal, I would bet 99.9999999999% of people could not consistently tell the difference in sound quality between a CD and a ripped copy of it played from a hard drive.

I am just curious. Why would you need CD-text, ISRC, and UPC codes just to listen to a CD? If you keep the actual CD then you have that information available if you ever need it.

That Nirvana CD must be very short. A 79 min audio Cd took 9 minutes on my end using Windows 7 with Media Player. A 40x cd reader and Intel Dual Core 2.8ghz. Are you sure it ripped in lossless wav?

I wouldn't call your pc the low end. Although not an i7, it is still faster than what many folks use. There are still alot of P4 machines out there with Win Xp. And really, aside from a handful of computer geeks, who overclocks their cpu or even knows about it?

Try headphones and music with less compression and more dynamic contrast than rock music usually allows. The clicks and pops are not loud but with headphones, it can certainly be heard in very quiet passages.

I would need to have all the info from the CD if I am to replace the CDs with a server. If you are just going to use the server as a back up to your cd collection, well, that is not what I am talking about. And liner notes provide important information on many classical and jazz cds. I can't see myself tossing the CD after ripping it to the server.

Again, to read all the information and provide an exact replica of the audio cd, it is not so much dependent on the software but hardware. Most consumer drives simply can't do it. Just to see, I even attempted to do so on a Matsushita reader and although it will read the audio file, it failed to read the markers along with the correct silence space between tracks. This process is different from downloading the track name and the cover jpg off the internet like Media player can be set to.

 

[OldJBL]

That Nirvana CD must be very short. A 79 min audio Cd took 9 minutes on my end using Windows 7 with Media Player. A 40x cd reader and Intel Dual Core 2.8ghz. Are you sure it ripped in lossless wav?

The two minute time was a direct rip in WAV format. I did a couple other rips. One was Windows lossless format at the highest quality setting and it took 1:55. The second was a 320k MP3 rip and it only took 1:45. The Nirvana CD was 474 MB which isn't out of character with many CDs that only contain music. Even if it were a full CD I don't think the rip time would be appreciably longer. Maybe if I had ripped to a lower quality (i.e. more compression) the rip would be longer but I don't think it would be much longer.

And liner notes provide important information on many classical and jazz cds.

What can you obtain from these notes that improves the quality of sound that reaches your ears? I am not trying to be argumentative. I just want to know if I am missing something I should be considering.

Again, to read all the information and provide an exact replica of the audio cd, it is not so much dependent on the software but hardware. Most consumer drives simply can't do it. Just to see, I even attempted to do so on a Matsushita reader and although it will read the audio file, it failed to read the markers along with the correct silence space between tracks. This process is different from downloading the track name and the cover jpg off the internet like Media player can be set to.

Even without going the server route, based on what you say you will never get 100% musical accuracy with playback directly from a disc. For me, the server is a way to have very high quality with a great degree of flexibility/convenience while being very cost effective. If I need to read something from a CD then I have it in storage to access.

It would be interesting to have you do a blind test to see if you could consistently tell the difference between original disc playback verses a ripped copy played from a computer using digital signal transfer for each playback method.

 

[Mr. Lin]

I don't think anyone is judging anyone else for their methods. My intent here is to give options that some might not have considered. If you think I am implying that those people who want to load media are naive then you have misread my motives.

My comment wasn't aimed at you.

 

[jazzgene]

The two minute time was a direct rip in WAV format. I did a couple other rips. One was Windows lossless format at the highest quality setting and it took 1:55. The second was a 320k MP3 rip and it only took 1:45. The Nirvana CD was 474 MB which isn't out of character with many CDs that only contain music. Even if it were a full CD I don't think the rip time would be appreciably longer. Maybe if I had ripped to a lower quality (i.e. more compression) the rip would be longer but I don't think it would be much longer.



What can you obtain from these notes that improves the quality of sound that reaches your ears? I am not trying to be argumentative. I just want to know if I am missing something I should be considering.



Even without going the server route, based on what you say you will never get 100% musical accuracy with playback directly from a disc. For me, the server is a way to have very high quality with a great degree of flexibility/convenience while being very cost effective. If I need to read something from a CD then I have it in storage to access.

It would be interesting to have you do a blind test to see if you could consistently tell the difference between original disc playback verses a ripped copy played from a computer using digital signal transfer for each playback method.

Now you are being a bit facetious. The liner notes may not improve the quality of the listening experience but it certainly adds a ton to the Hearing experience. Many people listen to music but not everyone hears it.

I realize rock records probably don't come with any liner notes but many great works of music documented on recordings do. Check it out yourself.

 

[JohnVF]

I readily admit that better sound might be possible from a server, without all the physical moving parts of a disc spinning in a transport.

Yet I still want and use CD players exclusively (at least at home) because I like to have a physical item, that I remember buying...that has been with me through 10 moves, 8 girlfriends, whatever. I'm a sentimental bloke and that's just how I am. And a digital file doesn't bring back all of those memories when I play it. It just 'is'. And I want something that is more than that.

 

[OldJBL]

Now you are being a bit facetious. The liner notes may not improve the quality of the listening experience but it certainly adds a ton to the Hearing experience. Many people listen to music but not everyone hears it.

I realize rock records probably don't come with any liner notes but many great works of music documented on recordings do. Check it out yourself.

I thought there might be recording information in the liner notes you used in some fashion to adjust your equipment during playback. I hardly ever read the inside of a CD so I thought maybe I am missing something.