Attempting to rubbish me doesn't prove your point.
'Toddle off' definitely counts as disrespectful.
I make no claims regarding the validity of the 'tests' I performed. The fact that I can hear no difference proves nothing. Absolutely nothing.
I merely point out, that as suggested, I tried. You can hardly fault me for that. You can verify at least part of this by ripping The Beatles' Abbey Road, She's so Heavy to a .wav, taking the MD5 checksum and comparing it with the one I posted.
As regards my interest in music, here's a photo of some of my musical instrument amps and instruments. Again, this proves nothing, other than that I have a photograph of some instruments. That's my (dead) old man's Morse key you can see beside the film can in front of the Marshall.
You should be able to make out electric and acoustic guitars, keyboard, mouthorgan and pennywhistles. I don't really count the electric bass. In the past I played the violin, mandolin and flute although I no longer possess any of these. Of these the violin is the most difficult, as there are no frets to provide intonation.
w
Oh, BTW, what do you mean 'Live with this stuff'? You hardly sound like a music lover yourself.
Last edited:
On a lighter, but interesting note:
I'm ripping a CD I just got in the mail. It is a holiday CD give away from a restaurant chain we frequent. They must have made 1000s.
I'm getting secure rips, but it's slooow. Like 4X. This drive can do perfect rips at 24X or better. So my guess is that the CD is hard to read. Wonder why?
I'm ripping a CD I just got in the mail. It is a holiday CD give away from a restaurant chain we frequent. They must have made 1000s.
I'm getting secure rips, but it's slooow. Like 4X. This drive can do perfect rips at 24X or better. So my guess is that the CD is hard to read. Wonder why?
When you hear something that sounds different from something else, do you ever wonder why?
I'll keep this CD for a test. Wonder if my neighbors got the same in the mail? I could collect them and send them out as "drive difficulty" test CDs.
Stuart
In my experience, yes it does, however whether you hear a difference or not is highly dependent on the quality of the original rip to the HDD.
What I am saying here is that you would need to have ripped the original .wav file to the HDD using a better quality than average CD/DVD writer for starters, such as the LG BR writer, or some like the highly respected Plextor that many swear by.EAC should have been used too.Rips from my Pioneer DVD writer do not sound as good as those from the LG BR writer. There should also have been minimum PC processes running, and the PC should also have been optimised for audio, using noise and vibration reduction techniques such as used in the becoming more popular, media type PCs. In my case I get improved results when the front and rear add-on PWM controllrd fans are disabled during ripping,
presumably due to the large pulses reflecting through the PSU to some extent by whatever means.
I have only posted this because you specifically asked, NOT to engage in further arguments with members who use these types of threads for their own merriment, and to try and intimidate people who do not agree with them.
I will only respond further to those who are genuinely interested, even if they do not agree.
I have no problems with Michael passing on a recent personal message to you,
provided it is kept private.
Alex
P.S.
In response to a comment about ripping speeds, my LG BR writer is much slower than average, as it normally starts out at a little over 1 x speed, but often slowly increasing to as high as 2 x over the length of the rip, if the CD is in good condition and long enough.
Last edited:
Alex, suppose the file were one that you personally chose and ripped, then uploaded to the site we discussed privately. If I downloaded that file to a SSD (call this file A), then copied it to my HDD, ripped it to CD using the cheap burner in my laptop, copied it off the CD back to the hard drive, then copied it back onto the SSD (call this file B), would you be able to hear the difference between A and B?
I've got the same issue with one CD I was trying to copy to my HDD. Metallization looks fine, no pinholes or thin spots, the disc plays perfectly with no errors, I just can't get the damn thing to copy in less than 2 hours!
(fwiw, it's Bobby Watson & The 29th Street Saxophone Quartet "Your Move")
Stuart
I suggest that you ask Michael to forward you my PM. It will explain why I am unwilling to go there.The subject matter is too contentious to post in open forum, as it will attract too many sarcastic replies and further questions.
Also there are remarks quoted that I do not have permission to post.
Alex
Like I said elsewhere, sometimes there are consistent problems with a drive, an individual CD or a batch of blanks. If, however, the rip process completes without throwing an error, in the majority of instances the copy is satisfactory (bit perfect). In many (copying) software packages the default behaviour is to read the disk repeatedly if there are errors, until a satisfactory (by whatever criterion) read is accomplished. If a satisfactory read proves impossible, the write is generally abandoned, although the software may have an option to ignore errors.
Of course, CD players are not the same as computers and playback is not the same as copying. Consequently a copied CD or copy made to any other medium may actually deliver a better rendition of the original material than the disk from which the copy was made, particularly where the original and copy are compared side-by-side by playing on a CD player where the error correction (and read speed) is 'set in stone', so to speak.
Many (computer) players such as WMP have an option to turn error correction on and off. Tools/Options/Devices/ ... select the device ... Properties ... tick box ... 'Use Error Correction'.
CDs employ CIRC, Cross Interleave Reed-Solomon Code with 25% redundancy. This permits both error detection and correction, interpolation is also used for error concealment when errors are so extensive as to make correction impossible.
The situation is complicated by the wide range of hardware and software which can be used for playback. It is probably impossible to generalise extensively about the exact details of the process.
w
Oh, other than to say that most people can't tell the difference between one player and another.
Last edited:
Goods points. I've never seen a new, clean disc rip this slow. I think the ripping software slows down when it's having trouble. It still ripped at 4X on the inside, 8X on the outside. A CD player usually doesn't run that fast. 😉
Might be interesting to burn the files to a CD-R and see if that rips faster.
Might be interesting to burn the files to a CD-R and see if that rips faster.
Mike,
I think your last idea above is a good one. If there is a difference then that should be indicative of some problem in the original. The ideal would be to find what it was that caused the differing rip times.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Well the blanks are certainly cheap enough in bulk. Play both of them and check for any obvious differences in the sound and do a checksum. If both have a checksum match and yet the original takes longer than the burned copy for ripping, then you've proven...what?
🙄
These are the kind of things that are easy enough to perform, it's a bit of fun and you may find out something.
Best Regards,
TerryO
@ Mike, Terry..
I've had a couple of particularly bad CDs rip in EAC at 4X-8X, I also have some that play fine on CD players but I can't rip successfully even with EAC with the drive I habitually use. (The ones I can't rip any longer are all Mercury Living Presence Reissues, they are not copy protected, not that EAC really cares.. Very odd.)
Anyway a completely successful rip to HD regardless of speed and a subsequent write to a CDR has always resulted in a CDR that ripped at normal speeds of up to 24X or so on this particular drive.
OT?:
I have noticed that selected burn rate when writing a CDR with some drives may have a significant effect on the quality of the RF eye diagram during playback on any bogey player. I found with one of my older CDRW drives and the media I was using that writing at 8X resulted in much better patterns than the same exact material written to the same type/brand/batch of media at 24X. (I assume that this was due to a higher contrast ratio between the pits and reflective areas on the disk - that is as far as I took it.) This started because I had some disks burned at 24X that played erratically if at all in the cd player in the car I owned at the time, but played fine everywhere else - the same material burned on the same media at 8X played fine in the car. I also noticed the same effect when repairing one of my CD players some time ago, and I was using disks burned at different burn rates and noted some change in the quality of the eye as noted..
YMMV
I've had a couple of particularly bad CDs rip in EAC at 4X-8X, I also have some that play fine on CD players but I can't rip successfully even with EAC with the drive I habitually use. (The ones I can't rip any longer are all Mercury Living Presence Reissues, they are not copy protected, not that EAC really cares.. Very odd.)
Anyway a completely successful rip to HD regardless of speed and a subsequent write to a CDR has always resulted in a CDR that ripped at normal speeds of up to 24X or so on this particular drive.
OT?:
I have noticed that selected burn rate when writing a CDR with some drives may have a significant effect on the quality of the RF eye diagram during playback on any bogey player. I found with one of my older CDRW drives and the media I was using that writing at 8X resulted in much better patterns than the same exact material written to the same type/brand/batch of media at 24X. (I assume that this was due to a higher contrast ratio between the pits and reflective areas on the disk - that is as far as I took it.) This started because I had some disks burned at 24X that played erratically if at all in the cd player in the car I owned at the time, but played fine everywhere else - the same material burned on the same media at 8X played fine in the car. I also noticed the same effect when repairing one of my CD players some time ago, and I was using disks burned at different burn rates and noted some change in the quality of the eye as noted..
YMMV
And that is exactly what happened here. The new burn ripped at 24X+. I'll do checksums later. I assume that the freeby stamped disc was not great.
Back in 2000 when I set up a small duplication rig (12 at a time) we had a lot of trouble getting 4X burns. Only the most expensive media would do it. It got better quickly, tho. 8X was not far behind. The software would verify, so we knew what was good or bad. It was all Plextor SCSI drives in those days.
But as Terry says, we have proved... what?
Er...
Basically, what you've proved is that I knew what I was talking about when I made post #252.
Apart from the bit about all players sounding the same.
w
My 0.02
Burning / Ripping with optical media involves analog type processes, thus are not so perfect. ie laser power, servo loops , reflectivity surfaces, dyes , QA etc.
usually the technology of media and burners go hand in hand. New burners with the latest disks = less problems. FWIW Burners work best a notch or two below maximum speed with media that suits that maximum (CD freaks reviews). Problems occur when mixing new burned media with older (prized?) players/burners. New burners with older media or at the slowest speeds is less so. Technology just keeps moving along.
Burning / Ripping with optical media involves analog type processes, thus are not so perfect. ie laser power, servo loops , reflectivity surfaces, dyes , QA etc.
usually the technology of media and burners go hand in hand. New burners with the latest disks = less problems. FWIW Burners work best a notch or two below maximum speed with media that suits that maximum (CD freaks reviews). Problems occur when mixing new burned media with older (prized?) players/burners. New burners with older media or at the slowest speeds is less so. Technology just keeps moving along.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.