Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jmone]

I want to cry.....I just got my hands on some 88.2khz 24BIT FLAC tracks (ripped from SACD) and it now makes my lossless CD stuff sound like crap in comparison.  I'm having flashbacks when I re-ripped all my CD's to go from MP3 to Lossless.  Now while I'm the first to admit the quality of these SACD rips may be due to remastering more than the format they are stored in the quality jump (even for my old ears) is breathtaking!

Any way ... It got me thinking about JR's Resampling as I've got audio recorded in:
- 22.05KHz / 16Bit (some odd Camcorder footage)
- 44.1KHz / 16Bit (CD)
- 48Khz / 16 Bit (DVD)
- 48KHz / 24 Bit (Blu-ray)
- 88.2KHz / 24Bit (SACD)
- 96KHz / 24 Bit (SACD / Blu-ray)
- 192KHz /24 Bit (Blu-ray)
- (And no doubt others I've not seen)

The issue is one of my (and for many) PC sound card only support 44.1 / 48 / 96 / 192KHz (at 16 and 24 Bits) & MC's Output Format for Resampling are:
- All sources --> 44.1 / 48 / 88.2 / 96 / 176.4 or 192
- Only sources less than 44.1Khz or greater than 48KHz --> 44.1 / 48 / 88.2 / 96 / 176.4 or 192
- Only sources less than 44.1Khz or greater than 96KHz --> 44.1 / 48 / 88.2 / 96 / 176.4 or 192

The consideration is what needs to be resampled to enable playback without downsampling.....  so
Question:  Is there any downside to just setting MC to resample everthing to 192KHz?
Idea:  I'm sure many would like to only resample when needed (eg passthough for most), so why not in the DSP's Output Format have some check boxes that lets you specify what your hardware supports then an option that says "Upsample Non Supported Formats" and then upsample just these ones to the next supported sample rate / bit depth?

Thanks
Nathan  Now considering how to get HD replacements.....  

[JimH]

You might take a look at HDtracks.com.

[jmone]

Mmmm Eclectic mix of artists

[kuanj]

Just a thought and I have not tried it.

Use a CD player's digital output into the sound card and rip it.This means that digital output
will be connected to the sound card of the computer and use J river to
Convert the data to wave format(any other format) and save in the hard disk.

Reason: the Transporter (CD) has a much better reading capability than the CD ROM from the
computer.

[Matt]

Just a thought and I have not tried it.

Use a CD player's digital output into the sound card and rip it.This means that digital output
will be connected to the sound card of the computer and use J river to
Convert the data to wave format(any other format) and save in the hard disk.

Reason: the Transporter (CD) has a much better reading capability than the CD ROM from the
computer.

The best quality rip will be using Media Center in secure mode.  It gets all the bits perfectly.

The CD player may do oversampling or some other DSP, but it would be better to store a bit-perfect copy and perform DSP at playback time.  Media Center has a very good DSP chain, including oversampling (which is common on CD players).

[kuanj]

Maybe I elaborate further.

I am using a Ayre CD 7 series player which has a digital out (which means only the digital
signal out). Do not understand when you mentioned that it might go through a DSP. It cannot
be as th internal DAC of the CD7 is not connected.

The computer CD ROM is also extracting the digital from the CD. Will it go throug
any DSP or other layers before the J River starts to convert.

Appreciate your comments

[Matt]

The computer CD ROM is also extracting the digital from the CD. Will it go throug
any DSP or other layers before the J River starts to convert.

An audio CD is simply a collection of 16-bit numbers, and secure ripping is an exact copy of the numbers from the disc.  So if you rip to a lossless format like APE or FLAC, you will have a perfect copy of the disc.

Secure ripping reads each portion of the disc at least twice to ensure you have a perfect copy.

Using an expensive CD player for ripping offers no advantage.  A good computer CD drive might be faster than a cheap drive, but both will be capable of perfect results.

[audunth]

Doesn't even the more expensive standalone CD players play the cd at 1x speed? Which means whenever it doesn't get a perfect read, the missing bits gets filled in by the error correction circuitry. As for a computer CD-ROM, it works in a different way, adjusting the speed as it needs and if it doesn't get a perfect read it tries over and over again until it DOES get a 100% bit-perfect read, or eventually giving a read error if it can't. The exception being high speed unsecure rip modes where the computer tells the CD-ROM to skip small read errors for the benefit of speed.

[Frobozz]

I want to cry.....I just got my hands on some 88.2khz 24BIT FLAC tracks (ripped from SACD) and it now makes my lossless CD stuff sound like crap in comparison.  I'm having flashbacks when I re-ripped all my CD's to go from MP3 to Lossless.  Now while I'm the first to admit the quality of these SACD rips may be due to remastering more than the format they are stored in the quality jump (even for my old ears) is breathtaking!

Don't discount the (likely) possibility that the redbook layer on a hybrid SACD and the SACD layer have been mastered differently, if even just slightly.  It's a dirty trick, but they do it for whatever reason they have.

Here's an article in Stereophile comparing the redbook layer and SACD layer of The Dark Side Of The Moon 30th anniversary hybrid SACD.  The Dark Side Of The Moon isn't the only disc to muck up the CD layer.  The problem is that it is very difficult to prove or show that the two layers have a different mastering.  You can't just easily rip the SACD layer to get the high res digital audio to compare against the CD layer.  Look at what Stereophile had to do to compare the DSOTM disc.  But now there are modded SACD players that can output PCM that can be captured so the ripping part of getting the high res audio off an SACD is a little easier for those who can get a modded player.

Even the digital sources for high res audio (online shops and labels that sell high res audio files) aren't immune from pulling a few tricks to make the higher resolution files sound better than the lower resolution files.

And careful about assuming that 192 kHz is going to sound better than 96 kHz.  Not all DACs will do 192 kHz better than they do 96 kHz.  Some will have more timing errors and other errors at 192 kHz than at 96 kHz, especially consumer level DACs.  If you're upsampling the better choice may be to upsample to 88.2 or 96 rather than 176.4 or 192 even if your DAC is capable of doing 176.4 and 192.

[Frobozz]

The issue is one of my (and for many) PC sound card only support 44.1 / 48 / 96 / 192KHz (at 16 and 24 Bits) & MC's Output Format for Resampling are:
- All sources --> 44.1 / 48 / 88.2 / 96 / 176.4 or 192
- Only sources less than 44.1Khz or greater than 48KHz --> 44.1 / 48 / 88.2 / 96 / 176.4 or 192
- Only sources less than 44.1Khz or greater than 96KHz --> 44.1 / 48 / 88.2 / 96 / 176.4 or 192

The consideration is what needs to be resampled to enable playback without downsampling.....  so
Question:  Is there any downside to just setting MC to resample everthing to 192KHz?
Idea:  I'm sure many would like to only resample when needed (eg passthough for most), so why not in the DSP's Output Format have some check boxes that lets you specify what your hardware supports then an option that says "Upsample Non Supported Formats" and then upsample just these ones to the next supported sample rate / bit depth?

It would be nice to have more options and flexibility in the resampler settings.

For example, I'd like to be able to upsample 44.1 audio up to 88.2 and have 176.4 downsampled to 88.2 while having 48 audio upsampled to 96 and 192 downsampled to 96.  So it would be neat to have something that allows those sorts of settings or decisions set for the resampler.

[bigmun01]

What would be REALLY neat would be that I could rip MY sacd's, which I purchased with MY money, to MY hard drive at 96/24, just as I do regular cd's. I am continually amazed that one of the best sounding (usually) formats is being allowed to slowly wither away due to Sony/Phillips'  (and others) fear of losing a few of my pennies. I don't mind doing hi res downloads of sacd's from HDTracks I don't already own, but it is aggravating not to be able to store stuff I legitimately bought and paid for. Talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
I apologise for ranting at the choir here. But one can't help wondering how much more advanced the state of digital audio might be if there were real focus on delivering quality, affordable sound to all, rather than the drivel that passes for audio in many cases now, or spending tons on vinyl reproduction. (Yes, I love my LP's and all that goes with them, and they sound special, so please don't chastise me on that account). Somehow, though, I don't see future generations of audiophiles carrying their $150,000. turntables with them as they board their spaceship bound for the stars.

[Frobozz]

What would be REALLY neat would be that I could rip MY sacd's, which I purchased with MY money, to MY hard drive at 96/24, just as I do regular cd's. I am continually amazed that one of the best sounding (usually) formats is being allowed to slowly wither away due to Sony/Phillips'  (and others) fear of losing a few of my pennies. I don't mind doing hi res downloads of sacd's from HDTracks I don't already own, but it is aggravating not to be able to store stuff I legitimately bought and paid for. Talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

There are ways to get a digital PCM signal out of a SACD player at 24/88.2, 24/96, or 24/192.  Here's a discussion over at Computer Audiophile of one way.  If you can get a digital PCM signal out to a DAC you can send that signal to a computer sound card (or audio interface) and record it.  You have to record at real-time.  So recording 1 hour of music will take one hour.  Then you'll have to manually split the tracks using some audio editing software.  But it can be done with the right equipment.  Granted the DSD audio on the SACD gets converted to PCM in the process so it's not a straight "rip" of the SACD.  But the process stays all digital.  There's no analog conversions going on.

[bigmun01]

Thanks for the tip. My recording has, to this point, required analogue in, so your suggestion might get better results.