Nocompression

I've had "limited" success getting JRMC 24 to play anything higher than 176 or 192 khz 64bit (& it really isn't clear to me how to access anything higher than 4x DSD encoder setting in the JRMC DSP studio) Any insight on my misunderstanding of "what is what" would be greatly appreciated . Thanks , Steve A.

I think how you feel about ripped CDs may be dependent on the kind of results you've had doing so. Had I never used EAC (& eventually dBPoweramp) as my rip utility I might also be inclined to regard rips as nothing more than mediocrity. High quality rips played from a drive through a good DAC in my experience doesn't bear a lot of resemblance to what is heard from the RBCD it is sourced from. When I first started ripping the CD layer on SACDs I always worried that I was leaving some resolution "On the table". I stopped obsessing about this when I realized I much preferred the sound of the ripped layer (played back through my Auraliti) to the sound of the DSD SACD. I might think differently if my SACD player/s had DACs that were as detailed sounding as my Metrum Hex,but I have a lot of nice sounding discs (Hyperion,Decca, EMI ,early DELOS,Lyrita, etc.) that sound every bit a good as most SACDs for the music I listen to

Hmm.... My question is this ! Who amongst the "Stooges" were the Objectivists or the Subjectivists ? ( I base all my important decisions on "What would Moe think about this ?") On a more serious note I think it's more important to put information in perspective based on whatever your own personal experiences have taken you . You can either trust your intuition or occasionally take a "Leap of Faith" & go against what you "think" you know !Objective , Subjective ... really isn't that important in the scheme of things.

I think that unless you grew up in an era where most (If not all) the music you listened to was already in the Analog domain you may not hear the effect of Jitter on the recorded sound. That old adage of digital "perfect sound forever" was poppycock as far as I'm concerned. Digital to myself errs on the negative side of information we should be hearing just being altered to a different artifact. To some these types of artifacts are automatically dismissed, to others..... Yeah, we notice the "digital patch" .

I have been pretty satisfied using my Auraliti PK100 into a Metrum Hex DAC for several years now . I have on a few occasions tried to see if trying the HQPlayer interface on the Auraliti would be "better"/different. I remain undecided as to how the player is even working in my setup I think I "may" be noticing some differences, but I'm really not sure.. Other than seeing the confirmation that the "HQPlayer Interface has started" on my iPad, I'm unable to see any differences taking place when looking at my MPad controller ! What am I missing ? (The Signalyst start-up manual is a bit beyond me at explaining how things are working). It's not a big deal, due to how well PK100 regular interface has worked, but I'm curious . Thanks

Has anyone reported being a "Curmudgeon ; Master Level" if not, I'd like list this as mine, Being retired , this is a pretty natural fit for my second career as I have had many years of practice

You may very well be right about much of the perceived differences in rip quality my be due the upgrades I've made to my playback system . I had'nt considered that , but on the other hand have you actually tried some of this software ? I seem to recall many of my upgrades were made after I changed the ripping techniques I was using. When I first started using EAC I re-ripped quite a few of the same discs I had ripped using iTunes as my ripper . I did this for a few weeks, until one day I said to myself " This is nuts, I know what works for me" It was'nt iTunes ! Does iTunes work better on Mac than PC ? (& the funny thing is I don't think EAC "works" nearly as well for me a dBPa does!) Shhh!, let's not let too many people that "I am laboring under a misconception" as I plan to continue to follow the "path of the unenlightened" as long as my results continue to be this enjoyable . Alright, now Chris can move my status back to newbie for not conforming to the suggestions made by my more learned brethren here !

Well, I don't think "ignorance" has much to do with what any of us does or does'nt do to find more satisfaction in our "Audio" hobby. When it comes to Computer processing issues I can only go by a "trial & error" process that me closer to the sound of dimensional music being played in a dimensional venue (a long winded way of saying "Live Perspective" sounding music If you are not using a ripping program that does'nt take into account that CDs are not "bit perfect" & just rips whatever bit errors as they exist on the disc it is unlikely you're hearing what Redbook can sound like. You're hearing the "CD version" of what Redbook sounds like. Expensive CD players have the processing ability to account for those errors most ripping programs do not. You know the (probably) most widely used program, it's very convienent,easy to use, works hand in hand with your iDevices or other media sources,but it does'nt give you the ability to listen to high level Redbook playback. To be fair it is no more guilty of being mediocre than any of the other ripping software options from the PC factions. Let's be honest here, the Computer Industry will only ever care so much about the level of audio playback end users can attain (I make no apologies for my opinions about the CI, I'm an "Audio Guy") The good news is that with a little effort you can find "audio quality" oriented software that performs at a much higher level to "correct" some of the disc errors during the rip process. There is a freeware program called EAC (Exactaudiocopy) that will work in a pinch , but the program I use is called dBPoweramp (not free however) due to the fact that it has a much more comprehensive Accurate Rip database. Upon the initial run of dBPa(or EAC) you will go through a set-up process whereby you are asked to input your rip drive information & other system parameter questions particular to your system. At one point ,after you loaded three CD that are recognized as being in the Accurate Rip database & ripped these disc you will receive an "offset setting" for your particular rip drive that will be used for that drive for all subsequent rips that you will make using this drive. Rips using these software programs are a whole "different animal" as far as I'm concerned. Another reason I like dBPa is that I can encode my rip to a Flac level (uncompressed lossless) I did'nt know existed. I like having metadata & album art on 99.5% of my rips on my Hard Drives. I probably have'nt described the set-ups of this software are clearly as I could , but you can find this information on-line Everything I've talked about assumes that you are somewhat particular about the recorded level of the music you listen to & care somewhat about the equipment you use to listen to it. I hope this explains my appreciation of Redbook a little better. High Resolution is better, but "Red is not Dead" or it's not as far from HR as you might think. ("Post Quick Reply" is pretty funny ! I have to think about what I want for breakfast two days ago if I'm having breakfast tomorrow.)

Paul, As witnessed by what I wrote , I (quite obviously) did'nt think a few statements through before posting First, any music file 1411kbps or greater can't be considered compressed. So how much more incorrect can I be talking about "using compressed Flac for High Res files". The Kbps of the HDTT files was already 4 to 5x greater than the minimum for uncompressed files. I do have a few other HDTT downloads that I feel are quite good (& some that I felt were so-so perhaps due to there origins, as I think was the case with this recording). I hope this puts to rest any question of whether I feel HDTT is up to the task of producing fine HD downloads, they are. I will stand by my respect for the available quality of Redbook though. The reason I say "available" is because I'm not convinced a lot of people are "tapping" that potential . Unless you have best collection of CDs that has ever existed you probably are'nt aware of the errors you've been listening to & did'nt give a second thought to for years. Then to compound matters ,using indiscriminate ripping software, we rip the same errors to the music file medium we're going to use. There is nothing wrong with accepting CD sound for what you've "assumed" it's level of musicality to be, but I'm betting some people would be very surprised at how much more " musical" these recordings can actually sound. I think it comes down to if the end user is willing to exert just a slight bit more effort on their part. It turn out that vehicle & means by which the files were placed on the vehicle are what's at fault here. What surprises me is that you have control to reach this higher level.

No..., I was'nt asking anything about what "they" might have done as I not so sure from what "I" heard from the download it was ever a "silk purse" recording. As I seem to recall I did'nt particularly hold James Lock's engineered recordings in the same esteem of someone like Kenneth Wilkson's work. I suppose I should have passed on this download. I honestly don't hold HDTT responsible for a flawed transfer. Beside being confusing here, I'm being lazy as I did'nt actually open up the file when the drive was still connected to my PC (drive gets disconnected when playing files, I use an Auraliti Pk100) so I did'nt look to see what the file size is now. Sorry, for this debacle. Note to self:next time think more carefully, before posting (alright, you can move my status back to "newbie" after this one !)

So you are claiming that HDTT is lying about using the actual Analogue master tape recorded by Decca & they used the "dumbed down" copy( because it needed to fit the Redbook standards set for CD playback) & not the actual master which did'nt have the resolution restrictions that digital play of the day required. Or are you saying that it is impossible to get High Resolution music files from Analogue Master Tapes ? I think you'll find a lot of people who'll disagree with you on that one!

Yeah, the Recycle Bin has been emptied quite a few times now. (Don't you hate it when you admit to doing something a bit dopey in print ! No, great loss though as it appears I was'nt particularly impressed with the recording as it turns out. I would'nt have rated it as being in my top 5 LvB 9ths. At least that's what I'm admitting to for now. Hehehe!)

No, sorry if it seemed that I had come to any particular conclusion. I was actually more curious as to what might have happened to make the files sound as they did.

This is not the whole story, so I'll back up to the beginning as I'm curious to why the bit reduction sounds better. After listening to this download intially , I was'nt that impressed with the sounstaging so I drug the file into my dBPa converter & selected the uncompressed level of Flac as the result file. I noticed that on the initial playback the files were reading in the 52 to 5700kbps range(don't hold me to this as I can't recall the actual numbers). After the conversion the files displayed as 9220kbps/192000hz. The resultant sound was somewhat "echoie" at that top of the frequencies. I did'nt retain the original files so I was stuck with the converted files. Hmm...what to do ? as this was worse sounding . So I decided to see what reducing the bit depth to 16bits would do. After this pass the files were reading 6147kbps/192000khz. So my question is did I actually reduce the files to 16bits as I altered the original file ? (I know I should have left the download alone,but I hated the thought of just deleting it) In this case I guess compressed Flac is preferable for Hi-Resolution files,whereas for Redbook files I don't think you have a choice if you want great sound. I'll repeat myself & claim that well recorded Redbook is'nt anywhere near as flawed as many believe it to be.

I rip my CDs with dB Poweramp using the "uncompressed lossless" level of Flac as my codec. The funny thing is I did'nt realize that this level of Flac was available in dBPa (or anywhere,for that matter) until I saw it mentioned in an AA or AVS Forum posting by a Joe Murphy Jr. some time ago . Long story, short ; I had been ripping everything to WAV as I've never been completely satisfied using compressed lossless. I tried the uncompressed Flac & liked it. (Uncompressed & metadata, what's not to like !) There is one little quirk though . Instead of 1411kbps the files will display 1412kbps on playback. No big deal though as they sound pretty exceptional from my Auraliti Pk100 through my Metrum Octave DAC.