Does a ripped CD sound better than the original CD?

[Ralf11]

Does SQ ever improve by ripping a CD?

 

I see this fairly often on other forums.  Has anyone tested it?

 

If there is a difference, what is the mechanism?

 

(I've seen people say the clock signal is derived from a different source, but don't know enough about digital electronics in audio to know how much smoke is involved in that claim).

 

Other mechanisms could be a different DAC (seems most likely), acoustic effects on the CD mechanism, and noise injection.

[esldude]

In theory you could have a CD player with higher jitter, or effected by airborne noise or simply with lesser analog electronics which would be heard.  Ripping that and playing over a better DAC as a file not effected by airborne noise or the inherent jitter of the mechanical player might sound better. In fact, other than lesser analog electronics for the output there likely would be no difference in sound. 

 

Some have said ripping a CD and making a CD-R copy can improve sound by creating a disc a given CD player will find easier to read resulting in less jitter and better sound from the same CD player.  Theoretically possible, but unlikely.  You have to remember the available evidence is jitter is not heard until it passes the few nanoseconds level.  There are very few devices that poor in terms of jitter (except some AVRs).  Much of what is bandied about as being audible jitter is a ghostly mirage that recedes into the mists of imagination.

 

 

[mansr]

I can build you a "CD player" that's actually a SATA CD-ROM drive connected to a small computer. When you press play, it starts "ripping" the CD while at the same time sending the audio data to a DAC (with a suitable amount of buffering, of course). Does this count as merely playing the CD, or does it get the supposed benefit of a rip?

[jhwalker]

44 minutes ago, mansr said:

I can build you a "CD player" that's actually a SATA CD-ROM drive connected to a small computer. When you press play, it starts "ripping" the CD while at the same time sending the audio data to a DAC (with a suitable amount of buffering, of course). Does this count as merely playing the CD, or does it get the supposed benefit of a rip?

 

What you're describing is not really any different from several so-called "high end" CD players, from what I can tell (as I'm sure you know).

 

I'm willing to accept that a clean rip (e.g., verified against AccurateRip database, or generated via a secure ripping protocol), played back from a hard drive direct to a DAC, could potentially sound "better" than a CD played in a CD player which may or may not be using error correction, subject to high jitter or electrical noise, etc.  But the source of data, if read correctly and not subject to other "gotchas along the way, should be immaterial to the final sound quality.

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

What you're describing is not really any different from several so-called "high end" CD players, from what I can tell (as I'm sure you know).

 

I'm willing to accept that a clean rip (e.g., verified against AccurateRip database, or generated via a secure ripping protocol), played back from a hard drive direct to a DAC, could potentially sound "better" than a CD played in a CD player which may or may not be using error correction, subject to high jitter or electrical noise, etc.  But the source of data, if read correctly and not subject to other "gotchas along the way, should be immaterial to the final sound quality.

CD players vary in quality. Who knew?

[kilroy]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Does SQ ever improve by ripping a CD?

 

I see this fairly often on other forums.  Has anyone tested it?

 

If there is a difference, what is the mechanism?

 

(I've seen people say the clock signal is derived from a different source, but don't know enough about digital electronics in audio to know how much smoke is involved in that claim).

 

Other mechanisms could be a different DAC (seems most likely), acoustic effects on the CD mechanism, and noise injection.

 

It's been covered here ad nauseum so why start again. Just do a search.

[beerandmusic]

46 minutes ago, kilroy said:

 

It's been covered here ad nauseum so why start again. Just do a search.

for fresh and different opinions...

a better question is, why troll.

[beerandmusic]

i would say the data is the same and it depends on the electronics which sounds better, which does not always equate to which is most accurate.

[kilroy]

11 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

i would say the data is the same and it depends on the electronics which sounds better, which does not always equate to which is most accurate.

How insightful.

[Norton]

My experience over the last  7 years of ripping is that vs. the original CD, rips sound different and generally  for the better, when compared using the same machine both as a standalone CD player  and as a DAC.

 

Rips sound consistently brighter, airier, more detailed.  Very occasionally  this tips over into being unlistenably bright.  I also find that SACD rips sound better than the original.

 

I'd be quite happy playing discs, but I mainly choose not to precisely for these SQ reasons rather than convenience.

[Ralf11]

Norton - that is a very interesting observation

 

not sure what could account for it

[monteverdi]

My CD player (Pro-ject CDbox RS) and many recent one (mostly because all the high end drives are discontinued) uses a DVD drive and can make several passes and stores it on a small memory before playing. There is a 1-2 second delay if one changes tracks. So it essentially temporarily rips a CD the only difference to real rips is that no reference to databases is occurring.

This CD player sounds much better than playing ripped CDs through a my MacBooks, one reason is that I use AES connection in contrast to USB which is a much better option for my DAC. So CD player wins. But if I put these rips on a SD-card and play it through my SDtans 384 via SPDIF I get better sound than playing the CD direct.

[Northern_Canuck]

8 hours ago, esldude said:

In theory you could have a CD player with higher jitter, or effected by airborne noise or simply with lesser analog electronics which would be heard.  Ripping that and playing over a better DAC as a file not effected by airborne noise or the inherent jitter of the mechanical player might sound better. In fact, other than lesser analog electronics for the output there likely would be no difference in sound. 

 

Some have said ripping a CD and making a CD-R copy can improve sound by creating a disc a given CD player will find easier to read resulting in less jitter and better sound from the same CD player.  Theoretically possible, but unlikely.  You have to remember the available evidence is jitter is not heard until it passes the few nanoseconds level.  There are very few devices that poor in terms of jitter (except some AVRs).  Much of what is bandied about as being audible jitter is a ghostly mirage that recedes into the mists of imagination.

 

 

+1 spot-on reply

[TubeLover]

 hours ago, kilroy said:

It's been covered here ad nauseum so why start again. Just do a search.

beerandmusic said: for fresh and different opinions...

a better question is, why troll.

 

I don't honestly think this incidence was trolling. It has been covered here in the forums many times, with commentary even provided by professional recording and/or mastering experts who identified it to be true. I don't believe anyone truly knows exactly why ripped cd's sound better, or more accurate, but it is clear that they do. 

 

I also do not believe there are any fresh or different opinions than before. But I suppose you never know. 

 

JC