New Poll: Do ripped discs sound better than the physical discs?

[ARQuint]

A very basic question, of course, that I don't believe has been asked at CA for a while. So I'd be very interested to know the current perceptions of a very experienced constituency.

 

So, the question is:

 

Does a lossless file derived from a CD sound better than the physical disc?

Please choose one of these five responses

 

(A) I don't know, I haven't tried it.

 

(B) I haven't tried it, but there's no way they could sound different.

 

© I've tried it, there's no difference.

 

(D) I've tried it, the file sounds better than the CD

 

(E) I've tried it, the file sounds worse than the CD

 

I'll post this as a new poll.

If there are a meaningful number of responses, I'll report.

 

Thank you.

[mordante]

(E)

 

But it is not a fair comparison. I use a very old crappy laptop to stream.

[Jabs1542]

It's also not a fair comparison unless you can use your CD player as a transport so both digital sources (CD and ripped) go through the same DAC. Remember that what you are mostly listening to is the analog side of the DAC itself.

 

Also, is this just for CDs? What about ripped versus spinning SACDs? Which is certainly going to be DAC dependent.

[ARQuint]

It's also not a fair comparison unless you can use your CD player as a transport so both digital sources (CD and ripped) go through the same DAC. Remember that what you are mostly listening to is the analog side of the DAC itself.

 

Also, is this just for CDs? What about ripped versus spinning SACDs? Which is certainly going to be DAC dependent.

 

 

That's a good point. But I would expect CA members to have considered such issues, and I'm interested in the general impressions of audiophiles with real experience with carefully implemented systems for playing lossless files.

 

Let's leave it at CD only for now; I think it's a fair assumption that significantly more members will have had experience with ripped CDs than with ripped SACDs.

[Audio_ELF]

They can sound better, but they don't necessarily sound better... What option does that come under?

[davidbeinct]

I voted "tried it; hear no difference." When I tried it, it was using ripped files on a MacBook Pro vs. the disks spinning in a Denon, don't remember the model, since sold, with its analog outs to a different preamp input.

 

I was (still am) using the DAC section of a Parasound P-5 for the files, vs. the analog outs from the CD player. When I listened sighted I thought the CD had a slight edge, but blind, having wife quick switch, I couldn't tell a difference. Take that for what it's worth, in no way am I implying this was any kind of "scientific" test.

[sandyk]

A ripped CD can sound WAY better than most affordable CD/DVD/Blu Ray players. However, it takes much more than just a cheap laptop to get there.

It should be no surprise that players such as the Perfect Wave Transport or Naim HDX etc. can sound so good, as they also use computer type techniques by saving the CD contents to internal memory, and play them from this memory, but without numerous other non essential processes going on as in a typical computer.

[PewterTA]

The ripped file can sound better, but it's more that you are playing the file through a better DAC than the two tracks are any different. I've played a CD through my Cambridge Audio 840c CDP and played the ripped file via my audio pc through the digital input on the 840c and the file sounds better than the CD. I think it has something to do with better clocking and everything else I do with the media pc that really makes the difference. But pushing the file through a better DAC is definitely the way to go!

[kaufenpreis]

My feeling is its close enough to come down to a matter of taste. I haven't done a direct comparison, but from a demo of the ND5, the presentation is different, though not necessarily better or worse. I suspect a power supply on either your CD5xs or ND5 may tip the scale. The flatcap makes a huge difference on the CD5xs.

[One and a half]

Totally depends on the CD player's mechanism & DAC.

 

An $89 DVD player's RCA analog outs will sound worse than a ripped file played back even over the computer's built in sound card.

 

As prices escalate on both sides (Spinner vs Computer) for playback, the CD should win, inherently shorter, simpler paths and lower processing than for a computer. Too many variables on the computer side to toss SQ sideways with the greatest of ease. I do prefer listening to my spinner than computer, but can listen to either (now), usually convenience decides and how critical I like to listen.

 

Anyway, I can see this thread being dragged into the muck and mire again soon enough, won't take long.

[Teresa]

I didn't vote as I consider my response would be unfair.

 

I have been experimenting with CDs since Elusive Disc sent me "A Sheffield Christmas Collection CD" as a Christmas present with my order of 12/01/2014 and it sounded pretty good on my Yamaha Blu-ray/SACD player I purchased just a month before. I couldn't believe what I was hearing, anyway I have experimented with CD since then by checking them out from the library and buying used ones from Recycled Records and the thrift stores. Not hi-res but not bad either.

 

Anyway, I burned a couple of CDs as wav files on my Gateway laptop using Foobar 2000, saved them to my Slim Mac backup drive and then loaded them onto my Mac Mini. I had to do it this way as my Mac Mini does not have a disc drive.

 

I then played the wav files using Pure Music to my Teac UD-501 DAC, I liked the sound of the CDs from the Yamaha Blu-ray/SACD player considerably better than on my Mac Mini, so didn't try anymore conversions. I find physical discs very easy to play so I found no reason to experiment anymore.

 

I have since tried some 16/44.1kHz online downloads from eClassical.com and they sounded good but not as good as the recent CDs I've purchased.

 

On the other hand my Yamaha Blu-ray/SACD player also plays the Reference Recordings HRx 24/176.4kHz DVD-R data discs, however in this case I found the sound superior on my Mac Mini / Pure Music / Teac Combo. Which I moved to my Mac Mini the same way I moved CDs to it.

 

In short, I don't have a clue why this is so, I just accept that it is and will continue to play physical discs as physical discs and downloads as computer music files.

 

For anyone curious the Yamaha Blu-ray/SACD player is model number BD-S677. Besides playing SACDs, CDs, DVDs and Blu-rays, it also decodes HDCDs and I've purchased many excellent sounding Reference Recordings HDCDs which are not available as high resolution downloads or HRx's.

 

I will be watching your poll as I am curious how many people play both physical discs and downloads as opposed to putting everything on their computer.

 

As a mixed format listener the iTunes database only lists what is on my computer so I have found a good database for both physical and computer music, it's called Music Collector.

[Melvin]

Teresa .. kinda shocked!

 

If my memory serves me, you have been one of the most vocal anti-CD members here. Over and over I've read how listening to CDs (or 16/44.1) is just too painful and irritating for you. The Yamaha Blu-Ray unit must be amazing.

 

I will offer an apology now if I'm mistaken.

[Teresa]

Teresa .. kinda shocked!

 

I was shocked too! I haven't said anything before as nowadays I wait at least six months before I comment on anything positive or negative. It's been 10 months so I feel safe commenting.

 

If my memory serves me, you have been one of the most vocal anti-CD members here. Over and over I've read how listening to CDs (or 16/44.1) is just too painful and irritating for you. The Yamaha Blu-Ray unit must be amazing.

 

I will offer an apology now if I'm mistaken.

 

No, that is correct. And it's not just the Yamaha Blu-ray player but I also finally found 16/44.1kHz downloads which sound very good, not hi-res but very good.

 

If you remember when I first got the Teac USB DAC I still didn't care for CDs or 16/44.1kHz PCM? So I believe something has happened to me since I have the same electronics, speakers and headphones as before.

 

After I ran out of possible reasons, I finally did one of those hearing tests online using headphones and it seems my hearing is much worse. I took an online hearing test back in 2001 and I could easily hear the tones up to 20kHz, but I had to turn the volume up to max to hear the 21kHz tone. Now, I can't hear above 12kHz. I think the problem with CD for me was between 13kHz and 20kHz and since I can't hear those frequencies anymore and problem appears to be gone, but I could be wrong.

 

In this new journey I've found many terrible sounding CDs. Only well-recorded CDs sound good to me and just as there is in high-resolution downloads and SACDs, most of it I don't like.

[cmarin]

Totally depends on the CD player's mechanism & DAC.

 

An $89 DVD player's RCA analog outs will sound worse than a ripped file played back even over the computer's built in sound card.

 

As prices escalate on both sides (Spinner vs Computer) for playback, the CD should win, inherently shorter, simpler paths and lower processing than for a computer. Too many variables on the computer side to toss SQ sideways with the greatest of ease. I do prefer listening to my spinner than computer, but can listen to either (now), usually convenience decides and how critical I like to listen.

 

Anyway, I can see this thread being dragged into the muck and mire again soon enough, won't take long.

 

+1 Even with the same DAC and computer, just changing the quality of the power source or operating system can make significant order of magnitude difference in sound quality.

 

This can be a fun survey as long as we keep in mind its limitations and don't get dragged into the muck as "one and a half" fears. There are just too many variables that are not controlled to be able to derive any meaningful conclusions.

 

In my case, a digital (standard redbook) file played back on a tricked out computer server (fanless PC running Windows Server 2012R2/Audiophile Optimizer in ultimate core mode with SSDs powered by a high quality linear power supply) sounds better than a CD played on a Playback Designs MPS5 transport when both feed the same Pacific Microsonics DAC.

 

The big difference in my case was using a high quality power supply to feed both the PC's USB sound card and the internal SSDs used to store the operating system and music files.

 

So my answer to this "fun" survey is (D) - the file sounds better. But of course YMMV

[Melvin]

I was shocked too! ... snip ...

 

Well, if you have indeed lost some hearing sensitivity (which is too bad honestly) the upshot is the sheer volume of cheap (inexpensive) CDs out there for the plucking

 

Peace

[orgel]

They can sound better, but they don't necessarily sound better... What option does that come under?

 

This seems like the best response to me.

 

--David

[miguelito]

Haven't done a detailed, direct, comparison.

 

However, I have compared upsampling such as Audirvana's iZotope and HQPlayer, and both bring benefits to the sound. Additionally, it stands to reason that error correction during ripping creates a bit-perfect file - during regular playback you would at most achieve this.

 

So I think it is fair to argue that:

1- Rips sounds as good as CD - given proper high quality playback hardware

2- Rips' sound does improve with upsampling

 

1+2 would mean that rips+upsampling does sound better than direct play.

[miguelito]

Totally depends on the CD player's mechanism & DAC.

+1

 

For $1000 or less I would argue ripped >> player. Once you get to the big boys it is a different story, but still I would say ripped > player although much more marginally. As I said I have not done a detailed comparison.

[Audio_ELF]

The way I look at it ... A CD has audio scored with 44100 16bit samples every second. To play that music back you have to first extract the data from the disc and then transfer it to a DAC. Anyway, what happens AFTER the DAC is irrelevant to this thought exercise...

 

If you are using a CD player, you are restricted in that the reading of the disk has to happen in real time, but you have a more direct connection from there into the DAC (via i2s).

 

If you are using a computer, you have to rip the CD and then later transfer that data to the DAC. The ripping is accomplished more easily and accurately by a computer (by virtue of not requiring real time reading the computer can re-read repeatedly till it is sure it has a good read and this read can be checksum to other people's rips); but the transfer of that data to the DAC (via USB or another method) is more complex than an all in one CD player can manage.

 

You can take specific examples though which would be comparable - for example I think a Naim UnitiLite sounds better via UPnP / Network than it does its internal CD player; but on the other have there are various CD players I've heard which sound better spinning a disc than connected to a computer via their SPDIF or USB inputs.

 

Hope that explains my thinking more.

[miguelito]

+1

 

For $1000 or less I would argue ripped >> player. Once you get to the big boys it is a different story, but still I would say ripped > player although much more marginally. As I said I have not done a detailed comparison.

Let me clarify this...

 

I -have- done some comparisons with some discs (cd and sacd). My player sounds pretty great (should for $25k!!!).

 

CD: I would argue that for those very limited comparisons the HQP upsampled version of the CD sounded better than the CD itself.

 

SACD - I cannot tell the difference, my player sounds superb. I've ripped SACD's with a PS3, creating DSF files (DSD64).

 

All of these comps are with a mini using HQPlayer upsampling to DSD via USB to the Player/DAC (so same DAC in all cases). See my profile for system details.

[mrvco]

I wouldn't say that one is worse than the other, but on the occasion that I insert and play a CD, I've never had a "Oh wow, I should do this more often" moment. If I'm shuffling physical media, then I'm shuffling vinyl.

[Audio_ELF]

I wouldn't say that one is worse than the other, but on the occasion that I insert and play a CD, I've never had a "Oh wow, I should do this more often" moment. If I'm shuffling physical media, then I'm shuffling vinyl.

I think there is a lot of appeal and difference with listening to a physical CD which in many ways forces you to listen to the whole album, vs. skipping around between albums that stored music encourages.

[monteverdi]

My CD transport (Pro-ject CD box RS) sounds much better via AES than ripped files on my Macbook via USB (using Audirvana+).

The CD box RS is one of the few recent CD transports and uses an internal buffer so it can read more than once.

I wonder how much of the sound difference is dependent on the connection used to the DAC (have a Devialet D250). Different input receivers have quite different sound quality. There is a lot of discussion about USB purifier (like Regen) and if the USB receiver would be designed optimally these would be not necessary. I should try one too, maybe the new iFi purifier2.

I also tried ripping with my Macbook using different software but for most CDs there was no difference in sound. Is it only the different connections or just computers are not as good source for digital files. I have also a AK120 DAP and it sounds slightly better than the computer but it uses a different connection: toslink.

 

 

 

P.S.: According to Pro-ject the best output is I2S which i can not use with my DAC

[miguelito]

I think there is a lot of appeal and difference with listening to a physical CD which in many ways forces you to listen to the whole album, vs. skipping around between albums that stored music encourages.

+1 !!!

 

There's some magic to putting a disc in the player, sitting down with the liner notes, and listening to the whole thing. Roon has transformed my computer audio experience in very much the same way.

[Allan F]

As I understand it, the usual reason offered for a rip sounding better than a CD played via a transport is that the rip is bit perfect while the CD is often subjected to error correction during playback.