2. digital
  3. 1148225641

Differences with CD ripping speeds audio folklore?

I have often wondered why people claim that lower CD ripping speeds produce a higher quality resulting WAV file. After all, wouldn`t people avoid using CD-ROM`s that routinely produce errors? Computer data demands high accuracy, or else programs may not work correctly or data may be inaccurate. In addition, CD`s are encoded with redundant data that allows the drives to automatically correct many errors, and detect those that it cannot correct. So why should reading an audio CD be any different?

So I conducted a test this morning. I used one of my old machines which had an older CD ripping program that allowed me to choose the speed of the rip. I chose 1x. On my newer machine, I used MusicMatch Jukebox to rip it, which averaged at about 25X. I transferred all the files over to my Unix machine and did a bitwise comparison on them. As expected, they are IDENTICAL.

So could the theory that lower CD ripping speeds sounding better be yet another example of audio folklore?

Michael
128x128Ag insider logo xs@2xsufentanil
10 responses Add your response
cwlondon
1,210 posts
 
That does not surprise me, provided you are using a CD which is in very good condition and decent equipment.

Add some dust, scratches or mechanical difficulties and I am not sure that the 25x file would be identical.

But I am just guessing and may be totally wrong. After all, I am an audiophile so I like tweaky folklore.
audphile1's avatar
audphile1
4,922 posts
 
Sufentanil, how about this - is the copy and original identical?
sufentanil's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
sufentanil OP
782 posts
 
I can't comment on whether the copy or the original are identical because the usual way of assessing the original CD data is to extract it onto a hard drive.

Since two different drives produced bit-identical results, I can say with a high probability that the copies also match the original.

CD's have encoded ways of detecting and correcting data errors, and for detecting when the errors are too extensive to be corrected. So if there is considerable disc damage, shouldn't there be an error message?

Michael
kthomas
911 posts
 
I've always been convinced that there is a lot of folklore around the handling of digital data, including the burning of CDRs at differents speeds. There's plenty I quite possibly don't understand or know, but I've always been satisfied that I can prove that I can get bit-perfect copies, something which you can do with freeware or shareware programs.

I'm also convinced that if we can't handle digital music "perfectly", that the audio industry is dropping the ball. We can do much higher data rates basically "perfectly" in any number other applications, so if we can't do it in the audio environment, we're not trying hard enough
elevick
2,636 posts
 
From personal experience: Many beat up CD's don't seem to rip well at higher speeds. If I get write errors, I will slow down the speed and usually it will go.
audphile1's avatar
audphile1
4,922 posts
 
If the original recording was really good, I can tell the difference between the original and the copy.
I never tried comparing copies of different speeds though
sufentanil's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
sufentanil OP
782 posts
 
Audphile1, you say that you can tell the difference between an original CD and a copy. How is this possible? After all, if, when copying a CD, it routinely made mistakes, we would not be using CD's for computers. We'd still be using floppies or zip discs or whatever, since high data accuracy is a must for computers.

My experience in burning CD's for computers has been that it either works fine, or it doesn't work at all (in which case it becomes a coaster). I've never had it be somewhere in between, with scattered data flaws.

Can someone explain this to me?

Michael
audphile1's avatar
audphile1
4,922 posts
 
Michael, if you want me to explain it to you scientifically, I can't. I do hear the difference between copy and original. Although the difference is very subtle in most cases. In some cases, actually, a copy sounds better. Depending on the sonics of the original recording. Why don't you try it. And try this in both your stereo system and headphones if you have a good, high resolution pair.

How do they make originals? Do they copy them?
XRCD for example has a limited run of every recording. Because the original from which they press is only giving you capability to produce so many samples. Otherwise, they'd be burning CDs, don't you think?
dazzdax
599 posts
 
It's probably not about the bit for bit precision of computer hard disk drives. It's likely more about jitter content. The faster ripping speed introduces more jitter. In my experience ripping with high speeds always sounds worse (flatter soundstage, less air en warmth).

Chris
dilly
113 posts
 
Hi,

Don’t mean to hijack the thread, but similar topic. I have personally made & compared copies made using the Yamaha F1 burner ( Verbatim blanks ) .
They are superior to some original CD’s. The differences are quite noticeable. Only thing Yamaha has stopped producing this audiophile burner. Any suggestions on audiophile grade burners?

Thanks
Log in to respond
More to discover
80x80
Prism Sound Callia
80x80
Naim Audio NDX 2
80x80
MSB Technology THE SELECT