[beeman458]

beeman: What do you mean by "air?"
 
You have a better sense of spacial quality.
 
then it is not really a fair comparison, since you can't say the difference is due to CD vs. WAV rather than signal chain #1 vs. signal chain #2.
 
Good point but the Blu-ray player used to play the CD with is the same player used to rip the file with.
 
These digital technologies are engineered to be copied with high fidelity....just as every modern computer user knows it is possible to copy a large file from one hard drive to another hard drive in a "bit-perfect" transaction, it is also possible to copy bits from a CD to a hard drive in a "bit-perfect" way.
 
I'm in complete agreement and understanding of your above as I've been playing with this stuff since 1980 going back to the TRS-80 days.  Digits is digits.  Hence both my surprise and follow on question.
 
Could the flaw be in the D/A converter somewhere between the Blu-ray player (a Pioneer unit), the sound card and the MoBo which stands between the two?
 
(also, this thread might be more appropriate in the Computer-as-source category, where the OP might get more detailed answers)
 
I figured that I'd start this sojourn with you music ripper types as personally, I didn't expect to hear a difference,  I figure you music types would be on top of this sort of thing and the why of the difference besides "placebo."  And yes, I can see the signal chain being part of the difference as there's a few D/A chips as well as a few million transistors and gigabytes worth of memory silicon, not to mention the millions of lines of software in the middle between the CD and the headphones.
 
???

 

[chronomitch]

As Yoga Flame suggested, you should re-rip your CD using software known to produce accurate files, and then use those files for comparison. Personally, I use Foobar2000 for ripping, but others tend to like EAC (Exact Audio Copy).

 

[Yoga Flame]

Quote:

Is there any past evidence that Windows is messing with the WAV file that you know of?
 

 
Indeed there is. I am a Mac user though, so hopefully Windows users will be able to chime in with better answers. For Windows, pro audio and audiophile users tend to use ASIO drivers to bypass anything Windows might do to the pristine audio signal. Not all media player software supports that standard, but I think Foobar is a popular choice around here.
 
I use iTunes on Mac OSX. It is bit perfect so long as I keep the iTunes volume on 100%, and disable EQ and the "sound enhancer". Otherwise, the audio signal gets tainted by iTunes even before it reaches the soundcard or DAC. On cheap headphones/speakers, these "enhancements" do make things sound better. But on higher end rigs, they degrade the sound.
 
Playing a CD direct from disc would bypass a lot of the "enhancements" too, although EQ and volume adjustment should still work. I'm not entirely certain about this point though.
 
 
The Monkey's proposed test was to rip a CD to WAV, then burn the WAV to CDR again. That way you can compare the original CD to the ripped WAV on the same format.
 
 
edit: I should note that iTunes on Windows is not bit perfect under any circumstance.

 

[beeman458]

chronomitch wrote:
 
...you should re-rip your CD using software known to produce accurate files,...
 
Thanks for the thought, but before I light this candle, reripping my whole library in the process, is there any evidence I can read about that the software made by Windows is flawed for the purpose of ripping a CD?  Is there anything you can suggest that shows that Window Media Player is a flawed program?
 
The reason I ask is, it takes days, maybe a week, to rerip the whole catalog and that's a lotta work not to mention the time to learn about, download and install new programs with their new protocols.
 
???
 
Yoga Flame wrote:
 
For Windows, pro audio and audiophile users tend to use ASIO drivers to bypass anything Windows might do to the pristine audio signal.
 
I'm getting a headache.  Looks like it's back to school, one more time.
 

 

 

[stevenswall]

Yes, to answer the question directly.
 
Use a media ripper with disc verification... Then byte for byte it will be exactly the same, whether it be stored on CD, HDD, SSD, ect.

 

[beeman458]

Use a media ripper with disc verification...
 
Thanks!
 
SSD
 
Ooooooh, want.
 

 

[chronomitch]

Quote:

...you should re-rip your CD using software known to produce accurate files,...
 
Thanks for the thought, but before I light this candle, reripping my whole library in the process, is there any evidence that the software made by Windows is flawed for the purpose of ripping a CD?  Is there anything you can suggest that shows that Window Media Player is a flawed program?
 
The reason I ask is, it takes days, maybe a week, to rerip the whole catalog and that's a lotta work not to mention the time to learn about, download and install new programs with their new protocols.
 
???

 
I don't have any hard evidence that Windows Media Player produces inaccurate rips, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. I don't suggest you re-rip your entire library just yet. Just do a few CDs so you can test any perceivable audio difference between your CD, the old ripped WAV files, and the new ripped files.
 
However, I do suggest you use something other than Windows Media Player for playing your audio. Most Windows users like Foobar2000. With WASAPI and ASIO plugins, you can bypass the Windows mixer, which is not bit-perfect and can do some really bad things to your audio, especially if it is set to up/downsample to another frequency other than the one your audio files are in. Trust me when I say that Foobar2000 is leagues above Windows Media Player when it comes to ripping and playing high fidelity audio.
 
I also suggest you do re-rip CD collection to something like FLAC. It is still a lossless format, but it does use some compression, so you should save a decent amount of space compared to using WAV files. If both file types are properly ripped and converted, they should sound exactly the same.

 

[Nebby]

As others have said, to properly compare a CD vs a lossless file you will need to make sure that 1) rip is accurate and bit-perfect (EAC, dbPowerAmp, or something similar) and 2) your playback is bit-perfect (either ASIO or WASAPI depending on version of Windows).

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

A burned CD cannot be better in fidelity than the original source material--in this case, information can only be maintained or lost, not created.  Sure, error correction can fill in the bits, but that is a guess at the original information based on the context of surrounding information.  Besides, all CD players do error correction, and have since the beginning.
 
(also, this thread might be more appropriate in the Computer-as-source category, where the OP might get more detailed answers)

 
Certainly one would think that's the case, but I believe the article I'm thinking of stated the exact opposite.  I think it was an article by Sam Tellig in the June 2006 Stereophile about the whole "black CD" debate (good lord).  I don't buy most of the nonsense in that magazine, but it was still kind of interesting.  What's odd is that I'm having trouble finding the article itself, though I did find it referenced here: http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/newsletter/Newsletter_Jun06.pdf (see p.3).  I'll try to find the actual article.

 

[necropimp]

here is another big question since you are using WMP
 
what CDs are you using because if you are comparing CD playback of a known HDCD disc to ripped wavs in WMP the files will not benefit from the HDCD decoding but the CD will

 

[beeman458]

chronomitch wrote:
 
However, I do suggest you use something other than Windows Media Player for playing your audio. Most Windows users like Foobar2000. With WASAPI and ASIO plugins, you can bypass the Windows mixer, which is not bit-perfect and can do some really bad things to your audio, especially if it is set to up/downsample to another frequency other than the one your audio files are in. Trust me when I say that Foobar2000 is leagues above Windows Media Player when it comes to ripping and playing high fidelity audio.
 
Ya gotta love homework.  Thanks for the above suggestions.  I can see that I've go some web surfing ahead of me to gain a better understanding of my options.
 

 
Nebby wrote:
 
As others have said, to properly compare a CD vs a lossless file you will need to make sure that 1) rip is accurate and bit-perfect (EAC, dbPowerAmp, or something similar) and 2) your playback is bit-perfect (either ASIO or WASAPI depending on version of Windows).
 
Thanks for the above.  It all adds up to a lotta web surfing but win, lose or draw on my part, I'll walk away with a much better understanding of the rip a file and listen genre.
 
necropimp wrote:
 
...what CDs are you using...
 
Forgive my ignorance, but I don't have a clue.  I walk into the store, grab seven or eight disks out of the used/new bins, come home, rip and listen.
 
if you are comparing CD playback of a known HDCD disc to ripped wavs in WMP the files will not benefit from the HDCD decoding but the CD will
 
FWIW, I'm making the comparison between the original CD and the ripped WAV file.
 
???
 
I'll try to learn more about HDCD's, CD's and their differences so I can better understand of what you write.
 
Thanks for all the suggestions guys.  You've been great.  I have a lot of research ahead of me so I can learn more about what's been suggested.
 
Thanks again.
 

 

[limpidglitch]

The comparisons you are doing, are they blind?
 
I'm not saying there are no differences, I have little competance on these Windows matters, but just as a matter of principle I think you should do it blind.
 
How silly wouldn't it be if you went through all these troubles, while there were no differences at all?

 

[beeman458]

Thanks for the thought.