sloper Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 Goodaye all l rip all my CD's to flac for use on my network and all my devices. Just got a new Dragon CD, ripped it and found the sound quility sooo good. Ripped at 44100 Hz and a bitrate of 1411kpbs. Blondie CD l ripped in 2007 sounds less detailed. As do some of my older rips. Ripped at 44100Hz and a bitrate of 1411kbps Is it just a better produced album or ?????? Better software operating system or encoders? Doesnt quite make sense to me. Would be a bugger ripping everything again as l know there are a lot missing. (Lost, damaged and stolen) regards Bruce
captainbooyah Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 I couldn't say for sure as I don't have any rips I did ten or more years ago (I ripped all my CD's to my hard drive during a lockdown last year, all 2000 plus of them!!) to compare my latest rips with. Your best bet might be to compare the CD's, if you still have them, on your CD player of choice, and see if you can hear the same anomalies that you described on the ripped CD's, 2
Jeddie Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) Most likely the Dragon CD is simply a better mastered album. I have albums that I have ripped using EAC & some downloaded. Some albums sound terrific on my system and some not so much. In fact I have some MP3's that sound better than some of my Flacs. Really it just comes down to the quality of the 'source'. Edited July 13, 2021 by Jeddie 4
anandpkumar Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 Once a CD has been ripped, there is no way that the quality changes. An in-efficient ripping process may result in a poor digital file, but once ripped, quality cannot change.
surprisetech Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 18 hours ago, sloper said: Goodaye all l rip all my CD's to flac for use on my network and all my devices. Just got a new Dragon CD, ripped it and found the sound quility sooo good. Ripped at 44100 Hz and a bitrate of 1411kpbs. Blondie CD l ripped in 2007 sounds less detailed. As do some of my older rips. Ripped at 44100Hz and a bitrate of 1411kbps Is it just a better produced album or ?????? Better software operating system or encoders? Doesnt quite make sense to me. Would be a bugger ripping everything again as l know there are a lot missing. (Lost, damaged and stolen) regards Bruce There's no point comparing two different CDs. Apart from the actual band & songs being completely different, you're also at the mercy of many other variables such as original recording quality, mixing, mastering and the pressing plant. Is there a CD that wasn't lost, stolen or damaged that you ripped back then and could rip again using your current method? 1
ThirdDrawerDown Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 Discogs has some comments about Dragon's discography and the pressings and remastering. I'm sad to report that the phrase "brickwalling" comes up far too often in their catalogue. The cynical among us would suggest their labels just pump out reissues designed to be radio-friendly on first listen, which is the whole point of brickwalling of course. Have you compared the dynamics of the two recordings using Audacity software? Even though the songs won't be the same, if there's a difference in dynamic range then that might answer your question about where the difference is coming from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war 2
audiofeline Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) A CD ripped in 2007 should produce the same file if ripped in 2021 (provided the ripping software is good quality eg EAC). All ripping software does is to read the digital info stored on the CD and copy it onto a hard disk, and save it as a WAV file. You could check by downloading the 2007 version of EAC, ripping a CD, and comparing it to a rip produced by a current version. They should sound identical. Edited July 13, 2021 by audiofeline
Dolphy Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 13 minutes ago, audiofeline said: A CD ripped in 2007 should produce the same file if ripped in 2021 (provided the ripping software is good quality eg EAC). Assuming that the same physical CD was ripped. Perhaps the CD Offset may have changed with different versions of EAC? I would suspect that maybe a different CD ROM drive was used between the RIPs. So many variables. Even a different PC might yield some minor differences.
bob_m_54 Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 Different CDs, different audio production, and different methods in the original analog to digital conversion before transferring to CD. There is no way of comparing the two.
audiofeline Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 1 hour ago, dolphy said: Assuming that the same physical CD was ripped. Perhaps the CD Offset may have changed with different versions of EAC? I would suspect that maybe a different CD ROM drive was used between the RIPs. So many variables. Even a different PC might yield some minor differences. Yes, the same physical CD being ripped was my assumption. The minor differences you mention could be feasible and result in minor differences in the final file, however if the extraction is accurate there should be no audible differences.
sloper Posted July 13, 2021 Author Posted July 13, 2021 Will report back when l get out my cd's regards Bruce
ThirdDrawerDown Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 [Thread digression to mutter about Dragon's labels releasing radio pap and not re-releasing Scented Gardens for the Blind nor "Rock'n'roll Ponsonby", one of the great Kiwi songs but lost on a B side. Cheapest Scented Gardens currently on Discogs is $318.00. Rant over.] 1
sloper Posted July 13, 2021 Author Posted July 13, 2021 Goodaye all Ok, ripped a cd ripped in 2007 and tonight. Big difference in sound. The only difference was the codec used, so.... So the change in codec and software are to blame. Maybe l could force Foobar to change codec, cant remember what l was using back then to rip cd's. Using EAC now. Could be a good excuse to replace the lost cd's but its going to be a bugger to rip the remainder. regards Bruce
was_a Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 There absolutely are differences between CD rips when different hardware / computers / operating systems / power supplies etc are used. Same with burning CDRs - which I still do on occasion. How picky we are is up to the individual, of course, and with rips in particular I personally don't sweat too much over variations in sound quality, especially since 75% of my library comprises downloaded files.
notsobitperfect Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 1 hour ago, sloper said: The only difference was the codec used, so.... So the change in codec and software are to blame. Not sure if you were only half joking ... but if it was a lossless codec there would be zero impact from the codec itself unless you were using a decoder that was very processor hungry on a processor that is otherwise occupied. 1
bob_m_54 Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 Are you using replay-gain to set gain level tags when encoding, and to interpret tags when decoding? 1
sloper Posted July 14, 2021 Author Posted July 14, 2021 l cant remember what l used to encode way back when. It was 3 PC's ago regards Bruce 2
bob_m_54 Posted July 15, 2021 Posted July 15, 2021 Well that's about the only thing I can think of that will give different rip results to flac, from the same disc, provided there weren't a heap of errors. And that would give you clicks strange digital glitch noises, or just not play. The actual audio quality will be the same as on the CD, otherwise. 1
agisthos Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 When I ripped my 2000 odd CD collection back in 09/10 I could not bear to use EAC and wait 1 hour each album rip. I subscribed to DBPoweramp CD ripper database. It would rip each CD to WAV at fast speed, but then afterwards do a file CRC comparison to other rips of the same songs in their database. Very rarely you came across a song or an album that was not an exact match to what others were ripping with their different hardware. If it did not match you would just re-rip that track at a slower speed and 95% of the time you would get a better rip that matched the database. Maybe EAC rips are more accurate and better sounding than DBpoweramp, but I hope not! DBpoweramp also would calculate an offset specific for the CD burner you were ripping from, based on how it ripped an initial CD that had lots of data in their database. I never understood how these offsets worked.
LogicprObe Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 On 7/13/2021 at 5:51 PM, sloper said: Goodaye all Ok, ripped a cd ripped in 2007 and tonight. Big difference in sound. The only difference was the codec used, so.... So the change in codec and software are to blame. Maybe l could force Foobar to change codec, cant remember what l was using back then to rip cd's. Using EAC now. Could be a good excuse to replace the lost cd's but its going to be a bugger to rip the remainder. regards Bruce In the olden days most people were using MP3 rippers, I'm guessing you were using one of those. Those of us ripping to wav were ridiculed as fools and wasteful audiophiles! In fact, there were a lot of 'audiophiles' saying that MP3 was great and they couldn't hear a difference.
ThirdDrawerDown Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 3 hours ago, agisthos said: DBpoweramp also would calculate an offset specific for the CD burner you were ripping from, based on how it ripped an initial CD that had lots of data in their database. I never understood how these offsets worked. EAC does the same. An explanation is here: Quote What is an read or write offset? When do they occur? During extraction or writing of the audio data, nearly all CD-ROM/CD-R drives will add an offset to the position. This is usually around 500-700 audio samples (ca. 1/75 second) on reading and around 0-18 samples on writing (ca. 1/1000 second). So if a program queries a specific sector, it will not receive exactly that sector, but shifted with the number of samples of the offset. 2
zippi Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 2 hours ago, LogicprObe said: In fact, there were a lot of 'audiophiles' saying that MP3 was great and they couldn't hear a difference. I remember having been 'blown away' the first time I played 128kbps mp3 on my Creative SoundBlaster16 and those ubiquitous 90s hefty oddly angled (4inch??? 5inch???) powered desktop speakers and WinAmp. The shock of being able to reproduce music at 'such a level' from the PC was too much, somewhat unreal. Then played a 160kbps about 2 years later during Napster times and the difference was obvious (as the novelty of mp3 wore off also). Eventually settled on 192kbps for all my CD rips due to disk space issues (and even 192 was pushing it), however always new 320 was where it's at for mp3's and really WAV was a shade better still (Of course goes without saying I also knew LP could be a few shades ahead of that, based on a friends system - however only had a grand total of 4 records and a $15 garage sale turntable Akai AP-X1 from the top of someone's 80s hi-fi stack - so really didn't have much to go on at home). However still remember the world of possibilities just opening up in front of my eyes and ears back in the late 90s when I listened to: 1. Foo Fighters - Monkey Wrench 2. Cranberries - Linger 3. Cranberries - Dreams 4. Marylyn Manson - Beautiful People 5. Jimi Hendrix - Over The Rainbow 6. Jimi Hendrix - Sunshine of Your Love 7. The Doors - Break on Through 8. The Doors - Riders on the storm on repeat on my first 90's PC in the full 128kbps mp3 . Really felt like a dawn of an era. 4
bob_m_54 Posted July 17, 2021 Posted July 17, 2021 Using EAC and setup as per these guides, and you should get perfect rips and reasonable speeds < 5 minutes per CD for discs in good condition. If the disc has a lot of errors, it can take a long time EAC Drive Config 1
LogicprObe Posted July 17, 2021 Posted July 17, 2021 19 hours ago, zippi said: I remember having been 'blown away' the first time I played 128kbps mp3 on my Creative SoundBlaster16 and those ubiquitous 90s hefty oddly angled (4inch??? 5inch???) powered desktop speakers and WinAmp. The shock of being able to reproduce music at 'such a level' from the PC was too much, somewhat unreal. Then played a 160kbps about 2 years later during Napster times and the difference was obvious (as the novelty of mp3 wore off also). Eventually settled on 192kbps for all my CD rips due to disk space issues (and even 192 was pushing it), however always new 320 was where it's at for mp3's and really WAV was a shade better still (Of course goes without saying I also knew LP could be a few shades ahead of that, based on a friends system - however only had a grand total of 4 records and a $15 garage sale turntable Akai AP-X1 from the top of someone's 80s hi-fi stack - so really didn't have much to go on at home). However still remember the world of possibilities just opening up in front of my eyes and ears back in the late 90s when I listened to: 1. Foo Fighters - Monkey Wrench 2. Cranberries - Linger 3. Cranberries - Dreams 4. Marylyn Manson - Beautiful People 5. Jimi Hendrix - Over The Rainbow 6. Jimi Hendrix - Sunshine of Your Love 7. The Doors - Break on Through 8. The Doors - Riders on the storm on repeat on my first 90's PC in the full 128kbps mp3 . Really felt like a dawn of an era. Yes..............and then storage became cheaper and along came the cloud........................MP3 is nearly dead! Although, I'm sure there are some still clutching to their stolen low quality collections. 2
zippi Posted July 17, 2021 Posted July 17, 2021 3 hours ago, LogicprObe said: Although, I'm sure there are some still clutching to their stolen low quality collections. Maybe, however I see the heyday of the MP3 era more as a catalyst, demonstration and a harbinger of the new era, heralding new unexplored potentials and modes of medium-less enjoyment of music - that in one way or another led to the streaming paradigms that are commonplace today. With all their positive and negative aspects and connotations. Including the various ways of local NAS streaming of ripped CD collections.
Recommended Posts