Forgive me if this has been hashed out already, but I searched the forum and couldn't find what I was looking for.

A friend an I were having a discussion about our beloved stereos, when it occurred to us how cheap hard drive space is now. Up until now, I've been ripping all my CD's into the MP4 format at 320kps just for casual listening and iPod use. When I want to have an listening session, however, I dig out the actual CD and drop it into my nice Marantz SACD/CD player.

Well, now I'm thinking that I could just drag and drop the AIFF or WAV files right off of the CD into iTunes or other music program, and plug the computer into the stereo.

What we are wondering is, what is the difference in quality. I have a $500 Marantz SACD player. With a normal CD (not an SACD), would it sound better coming off of the hard drive since there is no laser involved? I'm assuming, or course, that ripping the music onto a hard drive uses better error correction since it doesn't have to do it on the fly while it's playing music, but that's an uneducated guess.

That brings us to the DAC question. Let's suppose that the computer has a digital output that we could plug a DAC into. I'm guessing that it comes down to what is a better DAC- the Marantz or the stand alone one that I plug into the computer.

One more thing to consider would be the application that's reading the files, right? For instance, how well does iTunes read and interpret the information? Would the music sound better coming from a different application?

We're both New Yorkers, and space is at a premium! It would be nice if I could have 800 CDs on a hard drive with no loss of sound!

Thanks!

First of all, if hard drive space is no problem, I would rip all of your cd's into FLAC. There are different media players that will play FLAC files that IMHO are much better than iTunes. MediaMonkey and Foobar2000 are two of the most popular ones. I use MediaMonkey, as I like the format and style better than Foobar From there, an external DAC with USB would proably be your best choice. I built a dedicated PC with 1TB HDD to store all my ripped cd's. I have Fubar DAC (real cheap end of the DAC spectrum) that feeds into my Yamaha CR-1020, and it sounds great.

First of all, if hard drive space is no problem, I would rip all of your cd's into FLAC. There are different media players that will play FLAC files that IMHO are much better than iTunes. MediaMonkey and Foobar2000 are two of the most popular ones. I use MediaMonkey, as I like the format and style better than Foobar From there, an external DAC with USB would proably be your best choice. I built a dedicated PC with 1TB HDD to store all my ripped cd's. I have Fubar DAC (real cheap end of the DAC spectrum) that feeds into my Yamaha CR-1020, and it sounds great.

Thanks for your reply!

Actually, I'm thinking of not "ripping" the CDs at all. I was going to drag the audio files right off of the discs onto the HHD- keep them in their native formats from the CD itself, which should be AIFF files or WAV.

My reasoning is, then they should sound exactly the same as if I threw the CD into my Marantz. That is, unless a computer application like iTunes does a worse job of reading the file information than the Marantz.

How about this- there are many applications out there that play music files. Do some sound better than others, or do they all use the same audio engine and leave the sound part up to the DAC?

I think that only your ears can tell. I have read the opinion of many others, who suggest (in short) that the sound quality from an original CD on a CD player is the highest that digital offers. This is ultimately a subjective evaluation and results from the equipment that one owns (great variability here). Other then FLAC music files stored on a computer tend to be compressed (which means that the information density is reduced).

Set up an experiment ... can you tell a difference?

Then there is also a matter of back-up. Drives fail and would you really dispose of your 800 CDs? Finally (a small footnote) the legal ability to listen to music ripped from a CD is based on the assumption that you continue to own the CD. Once you dispose of the CD you are supposed to delete the files.

There is no such thing as dragging the audio file. The file you see on a CD is only the header or recognition file. Those files point the drive to where the actual .wav (RAW) file is on the disc. You will notice that the .cda file is only 1 kb whereas most .wav files for a single song are in the range of 20,000 kb. You will have to "rip" the CD to get the info you want. Flac files allow you to compress the size of the files with no audible loss to you. There are other systems like Monkey's Audio . ape files that are the same type of loss less conversion.

You can also just rip to a .wav file but they are huge and will greatly reduced how much you can put on your drive.

I play FLAC files though a "pro-sumer" audio card and it sounds as good as the CD. The audio card that you use will determine how good it sounds. If you are using Windows, you'll want to use a card with ASIO drivers and a media player that will stream directly to ASIO.

rmeade: Good suggestion. I'll probably set up an experiment when I get off the road. I thought I'd ask about the coding aspect of digital music, in case there was a known difference.

As far as ditching the originals, I'm definitely planning on holding onto them. I'd just store them in the back of a closet without the jewel cases :D

KingBubba: I'm a little confused about that. Maybe it's a PC vs Mac thing, but when I pop a CD into my Mac, I can see the actual audio files. They always show up as large AIFF files. For instance, I just checked a CD on my friends mac, and track one is a 84.4MB AIFF audio file- that's definitely not a reference file.

A CD can hold up to what, 740MB right? Let's say, for the sake of simple math, that the average CD is holding 700MB of music info. I have about 800 CD's at home, so that's about 560,000 MB's of files, which is 560 gigs. I can run two 1.5 terabyte drives in a raid for under $500 these days.

That's why I want to avoid ripping all together- keep it at REAL cd quality. But, like rmeade mentioned, when you play them off of a high quality CD player the best possible digital experience... ?

I do know this. There have been CDs that had a skip in them when I played them on a Bose Wave radio, but played great in my computer. Hmmmm

I play FLAC files though a "pro-sumer" audio card and it sounds as good as the CD. The audio card that you use will determine how good it sounds. If you are using Windows, you'll want to use a card with ASIO drivers and a media player that will stream directly to ASIO.

Ahh, okay, we are getting closer. Let me focus on one part.

There are many applications that can "play" audio files; iTunes, MediaMonkey, Foobar2000, etc...

Soo, do all of these apps simply hand off the 1's and 0's (i.e. the digital music information) to the computers onboard audio converters in exactly the same quality. In other words, the apps don't have a sound of their own? Are some music applications coded better than others?

If that is the case, then it stands to reason that a computer with a digital output port plugged into an outboard DAC would sound exactly the same as a CD player with a digital output port plugged into the same exact outboard DAC.

I'm assuming that if you are using a digital out on a computer and having a DAC turn the 1's and 0's into music, then iTunes probably isn't doing anything at all to the files other than hand them off to the outboard DAC.

Thanks again for discussing this with me. It always helps to bounce things around :tresbon:

I am using Windows Media Player on my IBM ThinkPad. I purchased an HRT MusicStreamer USB DAC and a 500 GB Seagate external hard drive. I rip my CDs in the WAV Lossless mode. This combination sounds as good as any cdp I have ever heard.

Use Exact Audio Copy (EAC) to rip the CD into FLAC format on your hard drive. EAC gives you the best control.

Use Mediamonkey as the music server.

Sound card is not important if you use USB to an external DAC.

I can't argue with the suggestions to use FLAC and Media Monkey, etc., but will tell you the learning curve is steep compared to using iTunes and the Apple Lossless format. iTunes is as simple is putting the CD in your computers drive and hitting the RIP button. The song titles, artist, year, and a ton of other information is automatically obtain from GRACENOTES (I think it is called) and stored in iTunes.

If you already own a wireless router, you can buy an Apple Airport Express for <$100 (see Amazon.com) and use its digital optical output sent to an outboard DAC to convert the signal to analog, which then feeds your stereo.

Some tips for making iTunes sound the best it can sound are:

1. Set the volume slider at maximum and control the audio volume via you preamp or receiver.

2. Make sure all the things like cross fade, sound check, etc, are turned off in the iTunes menu.

People will tell you the Kernel Mixer in Windows XP hurts the audio quality when using iTunes. I can't hear it though. Think I've heard Windows Vista eliminated the Kernel Mixer.

I'll be glad to answer any questions you have about using iTunes, AE Express, AppleTVs, etc.

I think that only your ears can tell. I have read the opinion of many others, who suggest (in short) that the sound quality from an original CD on a CD player is the highest that digital offers.

Well I hope that's true because I have, and will continue to invest in my digital/CDP setup, but I have no plans to buy an "audiophile" music server. And if you read TAS or Stereophile (I do) they seem to think this is where the future of high-end audio is headed, generally speaking. It's not that I think it's bad, it's just not for me. The tactile experience of playing CDs and owning the case + artwork is in some ways similar to the experience of records, for me at least.

My DH9300 Marantz Music server is very close to the sound of my CD-Pro2 Transport when played thru the same high end DAC....

They each get about 50% of my play time.... CD-Pro2 transport is super clean sounding with great detailing, low jitter.... the DH9300, well it lets me stay seated on my butt longer ....and just press buttons....

Both have their place.

jk

As far as using a computer as a transport, playing files on the hard drive is going to be more accurate than any optical player if the files were ripped to a lossless format with error correction on.
At that point you have to take into account the sound processing electronics. If you're using a high end sound card or using digital out to an outboard DAC you could well better your CD deck by a wide margin.

As far as using a computer as a transport, playing files on the hard drive is going to be more accurate than any optical player if the files were ripped to a lossless format with error correction on.
At that point you have to take into account the sound processing electronics. If you're using a high end sound card or using digital out to an outboard DAC you could well better your CD deck by a wide margin.

Cool, that's what I was thinking. I wasn't sure if the actual music application had anything to do with the digital info. Soo, maybe a nice Mac Mini on eBay is in my future...

Though, like jstang said, I have been thinking about the pleasantries of actually touching the CD and dropping it into a player. I'm a vinyl freak, so I'm kinda used to that experience. Hmmmm, decisions decisions...

My friend, however, is diving in!

Linn DS technology is the best sounding digital source available today.

For the last several weeks I've taken on the daunting task of ripping my CD library to a Seagate 1 Terrabyte hard drive I bought specifically for this purpose. At the suggestion of one of our fine AK members I also upgraded to to an M-Audio Audiophile 2496 sound card which I think helped immensely. Being the anal retentive that I am, I also have a 500 GB Western Digital external drive with all of my music safely backed up.

What I'm finding out is just how GOOD digital files are capable of sounding. I'm not going to claim that there is absolutely no discernible difference in sound when compared to CD, but to my old ears its damn close, usually too close to call, and I'm pretty demanding. When it comes to convenience there is simply NO contest. Want to listen to a specific CD? It's on the drive and playing with a few clicks. If you have a large collection as I do, things get lost in the shuffle, so on occasion I'll just start scanning the file list and that reminds me of this or that wonderful gem I haven't heard for a while.

Add to all of this the fact that I have a 17 year old son who has more or less commandeered my hard rock CDs, and doesn't afford them the respect I do....I rip them and they are safe forever, plus I know 'where they are' - they're on my drive! I don't see myself ever opting for a pure digital download only format because I like physical media as much as the next guy, covers, lyrics, artwork, having a disc physically in hand. Hard drive may not be perfect, but it serves my needs awfully well.

I rip all my music to a 1TB internal WD drive and backup with an external 1TB WD drive. I have a third copy on an external USB powered drive to my netbook computer which plays to a DAC in my system.

I only rip CDs that I have personally purchased new or used. Realize that this ability to easily copy music could be the end of the monetary motivation behind the quality of the recording industry over the last 70 years.

Buy music for the sake of it's future for us all...

I only rip CDs that I have personally purchased new or used. Realize that this ability to easily copy music could be the end of the monetary motivation behind the quality of the recording industry over the last 70 years.

By music for the sake of it's future for us all...

I'm not in a circle where there would be grassroots passing around of music from one friend to another, and frankly thats fine by me. If I were using their files they would likely be too compressed for me to truly enjoy having them, and it would take the fun of music shopping out of my life. I like owning my music in some sort of physical state.

It IS nice to know that when you buy a recording and rip it to your drive, its safe... as I mentioned, my son listens to lots of my 70's stuff and thats fine as long as I have it digitally backed up. When I was a teenager I was fairly anal about keeping my vinyl in good shape, but vinyl wasn't a media that afforded the owner convenient mobility. When I was a kid, 8 Tracks and cassettes sat in my car in all manner of weather and got played to death, and if I were a teenager I can see how scratches would be damn near inevitable for discs you particularly like.

Was about to start a new thread on this. Good thing this one was right on top. I wondered is there any point to a CD player when a computer can be cobbed together from bits laying around, one of those $20 Behringer USB DA converters and then they all can be networked? New Egg's got a Hitachi 1TB drive for $75 shipped. For a year or so now I've been doing this. Seems it should be the way to go. CDs are safe away. And FLAC of course.

Hard drive prices have become so low its hard not to consider going this route, simply for convenience if nothing else. The only deterrent I've seen is the time and effort spent in converting discs to digital files. It's not work, its just time consuming...also, if there was a time that you converted those same discs to digital in a less ideal format in the past (guilty! I've been re-ripping discs that I originally ripped as far back as 2000) you run into not knowing what you've done and what still needs doing. Just piddling gripes compared to knowing I have such easy access to my music collection for so cheap.

Hard drive prices have become so low its hard not to consider going this route, simply for convenience if nothing else. The only deterrent I've seen is the time and effort spent in converting discs to digital files. It's not work, its just time consuming...also, if there was a time that you converted those same discs to digital in a less ideal format in the past (guilty! I've been re-ripping discs that I originally ripped as far back as 2000) you run into not knowing what you've done and what still needs doing. Just piddling gripes compared to knowing I have such easy access to my music collection for so cheap.

Cool- this thread still has legs!

I'm still a little confused as to why anyone would want to compress CDs into FLAC or Lossless, give the cheapness of storage. Like I said before, I simply throw a CD into my mac and drag the .aiff files right off disc into iTunes- no compression at all. They're the exact files that a CD player would read. The added bonus is it's quicker than ripping. The drag and drop to copy around 650MBs (for instance) is a lot faster than ripping.

This way, if you use a DAC with your computer, in theory, the files should be exactly the same sounding (or better if you take into account errors in CD reading from the player...)

Cool- this thread still has legs!

I'm still a little confused as to why anyone would want to compress CDs into FLAC or Lossless, give the cheapness of storage. Like I said before, I simply throw a CD into my mac and drag the .aiff files right off disc into iTunes- no compression at all. They're the exact files that a CD player would read. The added bonus is it's quicker than ripping. The drag and drop to copy around 650MBs (for instance) is a lot faster than ripping.

This way, if you use a DAC with your computer, in theory, the files should be exactly the same sounding (or better if you take into account errors in CD reading from the player...)

In your case, dragging and dropping is ripping. "Ripping" is just slang for extracting the audio files from a CD, no matter how you do it.

The only disadvantage to FLAC is that not all media players, or portable audio players can read it. The audio itself is identical to uncompressed.

In your case, dragging and dropping is ripping. "Ripping" is just slang for extracting the audio files from a CD, no matter how you do it.

The only disadvantage to FLAC is that not all media players, or portable audio players can read it. The audio itself is identical to uncompressed.

Ahh, got it. Whenever I hear the word "Rip", I envision an application being involved...

I only rip CDs that I have personally purchased new or used. Realize that this ability to easily copy music could be the end of the monetary motivation behind the quality of the recording industry over the last 70 years.

Buy music for the sake of it's future for us all...

:yes: Agree!

I rip my CDs to .flac and play them back in MediaMonkey though an Asus Xonar Essence STX (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16829132010) sound card and run a 2ch interconnect to my receiver.

I would put that up against any CDP any day of the week.

Ahh, got it. Whenever I hear the word "Rip", I envision an application being involved...

The mac has a built in codec that removes the stream headers and applies error-correction thus allowing the files on the CD to be seen as PCM. Natively Windows machines only see the .cda headers in Explorer, but some applications will install the codec so again you can read a glass CD's files directly in Explorer, which can then be copied to the hard drive. Generally a CD is copied to the hard drive by an application designed to do that, such as I-tunes or Max in Macintosh, or AudioGrabber or Easy CD-DA Extractor in Windows. In every case, whether drag and dropping from Explorer or Finder, or using a dedicated application, the stream headers have to be removed and error-correction applied, so they are ALL are means of "Ripping" a CD.

If the same DAC is used on a CD player's Coax or Optical output, or on USB for CDs ripped to the hard drive, those files will sound identical in every way, since it is the same digital data stream, which can't have its own "sound" being varied by storage or transport methods.

If the same DAC is used on a CD player's Coax or Optical output, or on USB for CDs ripped to the hard drive, those files will sound identical in every way, since it is the same digital data stream, which can't have its own "sound" being varied by storage or transport methods.

That's a big IF. It's generally impossible for folks using computers to use the same DAC as the cd player they are comparing playback to unless the DAC is a separate unit.

And I would say that it is debatable that different methods of transporting the data to the DAC are equivalent let alone identical sounding - for instance, SPDIF sounds markedly different to me than optical which in turn sounds different to USB. This makes sense because in each case the DAC must do different things with the data. Which begs the question, which method sounds better and why?

Jeff

:lurk:

Great post! I have been considering this route myself due to space constraints in my audio room/office.

The mac has a built in codec that removes the stream headers and applies error-correction thus allowing the files on the CD to be seen as PCM. Natively Windows machines only see the .cda headers in Explorer, but some applications will install the codec so again you can read a glass CD's files directly in Explorer, which can then be copied to the hard drive. Generally a CD is copied to the hard drive by an application designed to do that, such as I-tunes or Max in Macintosh, or AudioGrabber or Easy CD-DA Extractor in Windows. In every case, whether drag and dropping from Explorer or Finder, or using a dedicated application, the stream headers have to be removed and error-correction applied, so they are ALL are means of "Ripping" a CD.

If the same DAC is used on a CD player's Coax or Optical output, or on USB for CDs ripped to the hard drive, those files will sound identical in every way, since it is the same digital data stream, which can't have its own "sound" being varied by storage or transport methods.

Thanks for spelling it out. I'm going to go back and start re-ripping everything right off the discs. It definitely goes a lot faster when the computer doesn't need to compress anything.

I rip my CDs to .flac and play them back in MediaMonkey though an Asus Xonar Essence STX (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16829132010) sound card and run a 2ch interconnect to my receiver.

I would put that up against any CDP any day of the week.

Same exact setup I have. Sounds marvelous!

Ok folks, lots of good info in this thread so far, but nothing that seems to relate to my specific desires.

I want to get all of my CD collection onto hard disk... evidently I'm not the only one:) I already have around 50 (out of approx 400 titles) ripped to my HDD in the .wav format.

My Question is this: besides a laptop or desktop PC, is there a networkable audio device (that does not cost that much!) that can get on a wireless network, access my audio files wirelessly and stream them from across the room for playback?

Yes, a laptop or PC could be used for this, but is there a device with a nice, built-in DAC built in that can perform this kind service?

Also, I would be using this as my primary playback method and so, within reason, am looking for as High a Quality device as I can afford.

That's a big IF. It's generally impossible for folks using computers to use the same DAC as the cd player they are comparing playback to unless the DAC is a separate unit.

And I would say that it is debatable that different methods of transporting the data to the DAC are equivalent let alone identical sounding - for instance, SPDIF sounds markedly different to me than optical which in turn sounds different to USB. This makes sense because in each case the DAC must do different things with the data. Which begs the question, which method sounds better and why?

Jeff

No, there's no difference. Optical may be dealing with dolby files that are mixed to PCM. Have someone run a blind test on the SAME .wav file on all three systems and then see if you can tell. PCM is PCM..The DAC is doing the same things with each source.

Ok folks, lots of good info in this thread so far, but nothing that seems to relate to my specific desires.

I want to get all of my CD collection onto hard disk... evidently I'm not the only one:) I already have around 50 (out of approx 400 titles) ripped to my HDD in the .wav format.

My Question is this: besides a laptop or desktop PC, is there a networkable audio device (that does not cost that much!) that can get on a wireless network, access my audio files wirelessly and stream them from across the room for playback?

Yes, a laptop or PC could be used for this, but is there a device with a nice, built-in DAC built in that can perform this kind service?

Also, I would be using this as my primary playback method and so, within reason, am looking for as High a Quality device as I can afford.\

Any Media player such as the Playon
http://www.playonhd.com/en/#info

Western Digital
http://www.homecinemachoice.com/reviews/new_reviews/exclusive+unboxing+preview+western+digital+adds+ne tworking+wdtv+13+10+09

Xstreamer
http://www.xtreamer.net/89/content-pages/Specs.aspx

Plus Mediagate and of course Popcorn Hour. There are many such media players but none have exceptional D/A performance.

No, there's no difference. Optical may be dealing with dolby files that are mixed to PCM. Have someone run a blind test on the SAME .wav file on all three systems and then see if you can tell. PCM is PCM..The DAC is doing the same things with each source.

You do realize that SPDIF embeds a clock in the data when streaming to the DAC and that USB does not? My question is how can any comparison be accurately drawn between USB and SPDIF (or USB and optical) when the data streams differ and are dependent on the decoding occuring in the DAC? (i.e. each is dependent on the quality of the decoder and the type of decoder in the DAC).

I've heard the bits is bits, PCM is PCM argument over and over again. Unfortunately it does not explain why there are audible differences between USB playback, SPDIF playback, CD playback, and plain old analog-out playback. It also doesn't explain why certain players sound better than others or why different computers running the same DACs often sound different.

Most important to this discussion and the OP's questions, it seems to say that there is no difference between CD and hard drive playback without examining the myriad configurations, implementations, decodings, and encodings in the playback chain. All these I'd venture to say have an effect on the bits that are ultimately delivered to our ears via our systems.

As for running a blind test, I think I'll pass on that one. I'm too busy listening to music.

Jeff

Ok folks, lots of good info in this thread so far, but nothing that seems to relate to my specific desires.

I want to get all of my CD collection onto hard disk... evidently I'm not the only one:) I already have around 50 (out of approx 400 titles) ripped to my HDD in the .wav format.

My Question is this: besides a laptop or desktop PC, is there a networkable audio device (that does not cost that much!) that can get on a wireless network, access my audio files wirelessly and stream them from across the room for playback?

Yes, a laptop or PC could be used for this, but is there a device with a nice, built-in DAC built in that can perform this kind service?

Also, I would be using this as my primary playback method and so, within reason, am looking for as High a Quality device as I can afford.

I have always been partial to the squeezbox series of devices
http://www.logitechsqueezebox.com/

The Squeezebox device seems to be just the ticket (thanks BC). Affordable to the extent that I can even get a get my other desire, which is an SACD player, providing I don't spend too much.

Anyone got a suggestion for a reasonable quality SACD that doesn't cost too much? I don't "need" a DVD player like an oppo 980 or 983?, but from what I have read it may be one of the better solutions both SQ and price wise, regardless of whether or not I need it. I'd need to keep this purchase around $200, and it does not have to be new.