Just listened to a CD for the first time in years....

Gimpymoo

Gimpymoo

Gimpymoo

Soldato
Joined
31 May 2005
Posts
15,640
Location
Nottingham
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CD AND AND EVEN MINIMALLY COMPRESSED MP3's is like night and day.

Ive allways ripped my CD's to the PC then left them on the shelf :(

Off to listen to some of the CD's I purchased a year ago :)
 
Welcome back ;)

The best thing to do to hear the difference between the 2 is to listen to an mp3 version of a song, and then listen to the CD version. I've done that for a few people and they can't believe the difference.

Mp3 have their place but hi-fi it is not!
 
I know what you mean - i use sennheiser 555's and a headbox 2 amp when listening to lossless MP3 from my PC but compared to the real thing through a decent stereo it loses something. :(

Put it this way, i've never ever ever considered selling my CD7Q. :)

gt
 
Gimpymoo said:
Even the "Lossless" audio files dont matchup.

I am amazed.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that is completely wrong, and the whole point of the quality issue of ripped music is misunderstood.
It's not the format or the rip that is causing the reduced sound quality, it is the equipment used to replay it.
If your equipment used to play ripped music was as good as the CD player then the sound would be nearly as good. (Assuming a rip of above 192 as minimum) With loss less it has the potential to be even better than the CD. Due to better transfer of data, rather than reading a CD in real time.

Using a PC and it's sound card just isn't up to the same level of a CDP. You need to be streaming the data to an external DAC, ala Squeeze box, Transporter or DS !!!

That said I would always suggest listening to the original disc, unless you have invested in a really good external DAC to stream to.
 
Indeed. I've been ripping to FLAC recently and the diference between it and MP3 is amazing even on my modest setup (Digital Coaxial out to a CA 540R... one of the better budget AV receivers for music but still). The music is so much more open, subtle and expansive.
 
shoot1st said:
My understanding is that it is compressed, i.e. bits removed, aka a loss in quality by definition.
Click to expand...

It is loss in data, but that is less significant than the equipment normally used. Rip at 320, 240 or 192, can you tell the difference on a blind test ?between them (unlikely).

FLAC is not a reduced quality format. So is purely down to the replay equipment.

You have to compare "apples to apples" on the equipment side to know if CD is better than your chosen rip.
 
9designs2 said:
It is loss in data, but that is less significant than the equipment normally used. Rip at 320, 240 or 192, can you tell the difference on a blind test ?between them (unlikely).

FLAC is not a reduced quality format. So is purely down to the replay equipment.

You have to compare "apples to apples" on the equipment side to know if CD is better than your chosen rip.
Click to expand...

Yes, I realised just after I posted that that you were referring to lossless formats, my mistake. The standard mp3's the people I know listen to are all of a lossy nature so it doesn't take much for them to hear the difference.
 
im goning to agree with what nearly every one has said, compressed mp3s will never be as good as the original cd as it is a lossy format this is compounded by the fact that a soundcard will rarely if ever match the quality of a dedicated cdplayer.

other issues to note are the interference from all the various add on cards and circuitry inside the pc that can reduce sound quality further.

some people also do not "mute" the ports that are not in use eg mic, aux, line in etc which can add noise to the sound.

lossless formats i dont have much experience with but will try ripping some of my cds to test it but for all the reasons above i doubt if it will match the original cd

there is a sound card or add on device that i seen a while back that was supposed to offer hi-fi quality sound from a pc it was like a sound card but im not sure the way it worked i dont think it was suitable for games think it added some hi-fi quality ports and connectors via a breakout box / cables think i might look into this
 
Some very valid points binaryknight, the way to get the sound out of a PC is two options. "Bit perfect" transfer over USB or SPDIF into a external DAC. ,,, Bit perfect is when the original 16 bit, 44.1Khz sample rate is not altered by the sound card or media player....Creative and windows are the the big culprit, normally re-sampling everything to 48Khz.
Second is to steam the raw data over CAT5 or wireless to again an external DAC.
Usually with an input buffer to eliminate jitter and drop outs in the data stream.

I have just set up a NAS server to stream data over CAT5 to a Network "Digital stream player"...plays FLAC files, and can out perform the CD player.
 
I am rubbish with sound. I can only tell the difference if the quality is truly awful. MP3's and CD's sound the same to me. Not sure if that is a good thing or not.
 
I have lots of WAV files on this computer but they still sound quite noticeably different to the CD from a CD player. As mentioned, it is down to the DACs and the transfer of data. A computer is not an ideal place for a sensitive piece of equiptment like a DAC, being surrounded by noisy digital electronics, and the digital data takes a long route rather than a direct one to the DAC (though it can be shortened with an internal digital link from your CD drive to soundcard only if using the drive to play).
 
I have just spent a few weeks ripping my cds to flac. I now have the pleasure of tagging them all (well, correcting the tags).

What is the best way to tag a compilation? Is it to have the artist as 'Various Artists', have each track with a different artist and tick the 'compilation' box or something else?

Also, which is better for SQ? Onkyo DAC, Squeezebox or Beresford DAC? I don't need the wireless streaming so it is purely down to SQ.
 
Depends on which models you are comparing. An Onkyo 875 has much better DACs than a 605. The Squeezebox has very good DACs for the money.
I am sure someone will come along with more info.
 
Last edited:
The thing is, when I bought the 605 the guy in the shop assured me it had:

"twin wolfson DACs".

I know the new squeezebox uses wolfson DACs, but i can't find any confirmation of the 605 having such a dac, in the manual it just says "24bit Digital/Analogue Converter" or something like that, which makes me think the guy didn't know what he was chatting about... see if you can guess where i bought it from :p
 
SoapSurgeon said:
The thing is, when I bought the 605 the guy in the shop assured me it had:

"twin wolfson DACs".

I know the new squeezebox uses wolfson DACs, but i can't find any confirmation of the 605 having such a dac, in the manual it just says "24bit Digital/Analogue Converter" or something like that, which makes me think the guy didn't know what he was chatting about... see if you can guess where i bought it from :p
Click to expand...


I wouldn't worry. The most important element is how the DAC is implemented, not the chip itself. Just see how many expensive CD players use what appears to be fairly prosaic silicon, yet still sound very good (e.g. Zanden).
 
As Mr S says DAC are more or less irrelevant, it is the implementation, and then the very critical analogue stage the follows it to feed the pre amp section.
What budget do you want to spend on this ?
Tags should be applied at ripping, by setting up the software first. Try the free Ripstation Micro DS software for future rips. It's configured for the Linn DAC, but you can alter the defaults, works like a dream....
 
What an interesting thread. Could someone clarify something for me? If say I have all my music on a PC in a lossless format, let's say FLAC, and I have a sound card with some sort of digital out (I guess optical of some sort) does the ultimate sound quality that I get depend on the computer? I guess what I mean is - does the PC do any processing and/or can the digital signal pick up noise before it leaves the PC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom