Print

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

[Theleb_Kaarna]

My first post here!

I'm on PC and will be using JRiver for the first time ever once I receive and install my new 1TB SSD (couple days). In the mean time I'm researching all I can, and, needless to say, it's a bit daunting... a lot of it's over my head.

Anyways, as a high end audio enthusiast, I want to get the best sound quality I possibly can. So a friend of mine (who works for a high end audio retailer and who's opinion I've come to trust over the years) recommended JRiver to me, but said I should use dBpoweramp https://dbpoweramp.com/ to rip my CDs instead of JRiver's built-in rip. He then went on to say however, that he hadn't used recent iterations of JRiver, so his comparison was based on JRiver version 18 and 19 vs dBPoweramp.

So my question is, how does the latest version of JRiver compare to the latest version of dBpoweramp for ripping CDs in terms of quality? I realize we all hear differently, just seeking people's opinions and reasoning. Also, any info/links. ALL APPRECIATED and Thanks in advance!
 

[AndrewFG]

Personally I use dbPowerAmp.

One reason is its AccurateRip feature which allows you to compare the checksum on the rip against other persons checksums on the same tracks. If there have been more than about 5 other people who ripped the same track and got the same checksum as you, then you can be pretty sure you got a perfect rip.

Another reason is that the ripper gives you more control over the ripping parameters of the drive (like lead ins, repeats, rip speed, error correction).

[JimH]

There is no advantage to using dbPowerAmp instead of MC, and it can introduce new problems.

MC has a "Secure ripping" which does multiple reads to confirm that the data read is correct.  Listener posted a comparison with dbPowerAmp several years ago.

Andrew, MC allows you to specify the ripping speed.  I believe the lead-in adjustment is not relevant.  It's tiny, as I recall.

[mwillems]

I agree with Jim that there should be no sound quality difference between an MC rip and a dBpoweramp rip, so if you're only concerned about sound quality, MC is perfectly fine for ripping.

That said, I use dBpoweramp for ripping, but not for audio quality, but because there are two "convenience" advantages to using dBpoweramp to rip:

1)  Accurate Rip may not be more accurate than a secure rip, but accurate rip only reads the CD once (if there are no read errors).  Secure ripping necessarily involves reading the CD (at least) twice.  This takes (at least) twice as long.  If you're ripping more than one or two discs at a time, the time savings using accurate rip can be very substantial.  I used MC for ripping for a few years, but then I needed to re-rip a thousand or so CDs (ripped to .mp3 in the dark days of my windows media player usage ). After doing a few dozen in MC, I bought dBpoweramp and the time savings were substantial.

2) JRiver's metadata sources are improving year to year, but (at least for the kind of music I like) their metadata is not as complete as the metadata dBpoweramp fetches.  Again, I used JRiver's ripping and metadata for a while, filling in the gaps as needed, but when I had a mountain of ripping to do, dBpoweramp was much more convenient to use.  I still "test" new albums against both services periodically.  My "hit rate" with JRiver hovers around 75% or 80% these days.  My hit rate with dBpoweramp is 95% or higher. 

MC has a perfectly good all purpose ripper, and rips from the two programs should be indistinguishable.  In fact, dBpoweramp offers a tool (I think it's bundled into their PerfectTunes suite?) that will allow you to check existing rips against the accurate rip database, so you can verify for yourself that the JRiver rips are in fact the same.   The real differentiators IMO is the convenience factor.

[AndrewFG]

Andrew, MC allows you to specify the ripping speed.  I believe the lead-in adjustment is not relevant.  It's tiny, as I recall.

I don't doubt you Jim. I just said what I use and why..

[JimH]

That said, I use dBpoweramp for ripping, but not for audio quality, but because there are two "convenience" advantages to using dBpoweramp to rip:

1)  Accurate Rip may not be more accurate than a secure rip, but accurate rip only reads the CD once (if there are no read errors).  Secure ripping necessarily involves reading the CD twice.  This takes (at least) twice as long. 

I don't think so.  Could you test and provide times?

2) JRiver's metadata sources are improving year to year, but (at least for the kind of music I like) their metadata is not as complete as the metadata dBpoweramp fetches.

Testing and results would be useful.  Our database is pretty good and very clean. 

Maybe you haven't tested for a while.

[JimH]

I found one of Listener's posts on this:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/j-river-vs-dbripper-ripping-17506/#post255148

[JimH]

I don't doubt you Jim. I just said what I use and why..

I've seen people say similar things, but I don't think it's based in fact.  In the early days of CD's, there were some problems with the devices, but that time is pretty much over.

[AndrewFG]

Our database is pretty good and very clean. 
Maybe you haven't tested for a while.

ROFL. I did my part here. I ripped my 10'000 tracks using dbP and got the metadata from dbP's third party sources as well. Then I uploaded all those 10'000 tracks metadata to MC's server so it is now on their site too.   I think other major MC customers have done the same..

[mwillems]

I don't think so.  Could you test and provide times?Testing and results would be useful. 

Do you mean fresh tests?  I did testing at the time across a dozen or so disks and accurate rip was consistently a hair more than twice as fast (in the absence of read errors).  On disks with read errors, they were comparable in speed.  There's really no way that it could be otherwise; accurate rip only requires a single reading of the disk (if the checksum clears) and secure rip (to be secure) requires reading it twice.  If you'd like something more definitive I could easily do a few more discs and report back with actual times. 

Our database is pretty good and very clean. 

It is, and I've contributed more than 30k tracks worth of metadata to it to do my part. 

For context, I get about 10 or 15 cds a month.  I always check a few of them with JRiver (every month).  The YADB hit rate is improving (a few years ago it was closer to 60% than 80%), but AllMusic and GD3 (dBpoweramp's sources) have almost 100% coverage.  Again if you want definite numbers, I can post specific results across 10 or 15 discs, but what I'm describing is observation across hundreds of comparisons over a period of a year or two.

[Matt]

I think our CD ripping is class leading.

I was really reticent to switch to MC years ago, but John did such a great job adding secure mode.  It's just really perfect or it complains!

You can look and see the tests people performed.

I'm the guy that rips all his music lossless so perfect matters to me.  And it is perfect!

[CountryBumkin]

Why pay $40 for dBpoweramp if MC will do the same job?
Try MC first and if there is something missing form MC's ripping method, then get/try dBpoweramp.

[Manfred]

I have ripped ~1200 CD's with JRiver (has taken ~one year time) with no problems.

[gdrichardson]

Five years ago I bought a 50-CD set (The Decca Sound). After ripping with JRiver I found that 11 of the 50 CDs did not rip correctly, with some tracks omitted and others duplicated. I have used dBpoweramp since then so I don't know if the problem still exists.

[CountryBumkin]

Five years ago I bought a 50-CD set (The Decca Sound). After ripping with JRiver I found that 11 of the 50 CDs did not rip correctly, with some tracks omitted and others duplicated. I have used dBpoweramp since then so I don't know if the problem still exists.

JRiver program has changed/improved a lot in the last five years.

[mwillems]

Per Jim's request above, I did some quick tests.  I didn't have time to rip ten or twenty CDs tonight, but I ripped three and the results are pretty representative of what I've been seeing.  Both players were set to rip as fast as possible to FLAC with the same compression level.  Tests were done using the same drive, on the same computer.  I evaluated metadata based on the seven fields most important to me (Album Art, Album Name, Artist Name, Track Titles, Date, Genre, Ratings).  Neither player reported any errors on any discs.

------------------------------------------------------
Disc #1 - Russian Circles - Guidance - 7 tracks

JRiver:
Time to Rip: 4:15
Metadata:
Partially Present
Present: Album Art, Album Name, Artist Name, and Track Titles were present and correct.
Missing: Date, Genre and Ratings Were Absent

dBpoweramp:
Time to Rip: 1:38
Metadata:
All 7 Fields present and correct

Disc #2 - RR7349 - S U R V I V E - 9 tracks

JRiver:
Time to Rip: 1:50
Metadata:
Partially Present
Present: Artist Name and Track Titles were present and correct
Partial: Album Name was present but incorrect.
Missing: Album Art, Date, Genre, and Ratings Were Absent

dBpoweramp:
Time to Rip: 1:45
Metadata:
All 7 Fields present and correct

Disc #3 Ne Obliviscaris - Citadel - 6 tracks

JRiver:
Time to Rip: 2:01
Metadata:
Partially Present
Present: Album Art, Album Name, Artist Name were present and correct
Partial: Track Titles were partially missing.
Missing: Date, Genre, and Ratings Were Absent

dBpoweramp:
Time to Rip: 1:10
Metadata:
All 7 Fields present and correct
----------------------------------------------------

As noted it's a small sample size, and the middle result suggests the speed advantage isn't a certainty.  If there's interest I can add some more another day, but I'm out of time (and new CDs!) tonight.

[JimH]

4 minutes to rip a CD doesn't seem right.  Could you double check your settings? 

"Same compression level"... did you change MC's defaults?

Thanks for the data.

[JimH]

Why would you want "Ratings"?  I don't think I'd want "Genre" either.

[mark_h]

MC rips CDs?!

Just kidding.

I use dBpoweramp, after moving from EAC some years ago, for the control it offers over the ripping, the plugins for stuff like HDCP decryption, the metadata (just checked a new Rush CD: dBpoweramp has it, MC doesn't) and, most importantly, for the AccurateRip database check.

And then I import into MC for all the tagging/cleanup work.

[AndyU]

Have to say I have found dBpoweramp preferable to MC for ripping. Whenever I compared speeds, dBpoweramp would be substantially quicker, and it's metadata retrieval is more comprehensive. You get a choice of metadata from four different sources; I pick the set  that I prefer and modify any tags I want to before ripping. You might as well get Genre if it's there. And very usefully dBpoweramp gives you ComposerSort and ArtistSort tags which makes life easier for organising some important views. This experience is based on ripping a lot of classical music. It may be that if you are just ripping standard rock stuff then these things are less important - though the speed advantage of dBp, especially if you have a mountain of cds to get through, is non-trivial ime.

[mwillems]

4 minutes to rip a CD doesn't seem right.  Could you double check your settings? 

I checked them immediately before the test, and again just now.  MC's speed was on the maximum setting.  The CD in question is a longer cd (7 tracks, but about 60 minutes of music)

"Same compression level"... did you change MC's defaults?

MC and dBPoweramp use a different default compression setting for FLAC, so I had to equalize them somehow, as the time to compress is potentially meaningful.  I set them both to use maximum compression.

Thanks for the data.

My pleasure, let me know if you want more, I can add a few more.

Why would you want "Ratings"?  I don't think I'd want "Genre" either.

I chose the metadata tags that are meaningful to me; there are other tags that other people might care about that I could have also evaluated (styles, composer, contributing artist, etc.).  To be clear, dBpoweramp had data for a few other tags that were also missing in JRiver, but I omitted them because I don't personally care about them.

I like to have ratings for the same reason that I read music reviews.  I ingest a lot of music, and I find it helpful to have guideposts before I re-do the ratings myself.  What may not be immediately clear is that (mostly) dBpoweramp grabs ratings from AllMusic.  Before I ever picked up dBpoweramp, I used to read allmusic for music reviews and ratings because their coverage is unparalleled.  Most of the ratings go through their editorial process (like their music reviews), so the ratings represent an actual critical opinion, not just crowd-sourced noise.  For example, when I've been looking into a new artist with a large catalog, it's hard to know where to start, but the AllMusic "Editor's Choice" album for that artist has typically been a safe starting point everytime I've tried it, etc.  So I like to see the ratings from AllMusic because it tells me at a glance which tracks are likely to be the "hits" and which ones are likely to be troubled.  It doesn't track my taste perfectly (how could it?), but it's very helpful to me as a consumer of music.

As for Genre, genre is notoriously slippery.  I used to make myself crazy trying to fit everything into a very specific slot.  JRiver actually cured me of that type of thinking.  When I was a record store clerk, and when I worked in radio, music needed a clear and categorical genre because it needed to be physically located in one specific place.  With digital files that can be tagged, the "exclusivity" of genre isn't really necessary anymore.  You can create a hierarchy of genre and sub-genre, or you can treat the Genre tag as a list of tags, and albums can have five genres if you want, which can help play doctor make useful connections.  So the metadata-genre saves me typing, and if I decide the work needs a more specific genre, I can add a second one as an additional datapoint.  It's rare (IME) that the genre tags from the metadata are flat wrong; they're often simply too vague, but in a multi-genre world that's just more grist for the mill.

[JohnT]

Does anyone happen to know if dbPowerAmp pays big bucks for AllMusic meta-data access (via Rovi), or is the cost all covered by the end user's annual subscription?

As has been pointed out, the slow rip times in MC vs. others is due to ripping everything at least twice to verify good data.  I'm not sure why that one disc took 4 minutes if no errors causing more than two reads were reported.

[mwillems]

Does anyone happen to know if dbPowerAmp pays big bucks for AllMusic meta-data access (via Rovi), or is the cost all covered by the end user's annual subscription?

They don't have a subscription model, that much I know.  They actually use a model similar to JRiver's: you buy the major version and can keep it forever, but upgrades to the next major version cost.  They also do licensing per computer (un-like JRiver).  So my guess is that it's funded out of user purchase fees.

As has been pointed out, the slow rip times in MC vs. others is due to ripping everything at least twice to verify good data.  I'm not sure why that one disc took 4 minutes if no errors causing more than two reads were reported.

Well, dBpoweramp took about 2:00 minutes on that disc and only had to read it once (because the accurate rip checksum cleared on all the tracks).  I know that's the case because if dBpoweramp encounters an error it shows you that it's reading the track a second time to verify (it automatically falls back to secure rip if accurate rip fails).

If JRiver is reading it twice, wouldn't you expect that it would take twice as long (which was the case for the first and third discs)?  That doesn't explain how my second disk wound up so close in time, of course.  If there's any additional info that might be helpful, I can try and supply it.

[JimH]

MC and dBPoweramp use a different default compression setting for FLAC, so I had to equalize them somehow, as the time to compress is potentially meaningful.  I set them both to use maximum compression.

It would be interesting to test again, using MC's default compression level for FLAC.  Maximum compression is expensive in CPU power and doesn't yield much savings in space. 

[JohnT]

Does anyone happen to know if dbPowerAmp pays big bucks for AllMusic meta-data access (via Rovi), or is the cost all covered by the end user's annual subscription?

I just checked and I guess dbPowerAmp discontinued using AllMusic/AMG as of July 2016.  It looks like they've replaced it with discogs.  I'll bet the pricing got too steep.  Or enforced.
https://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?36067-AMG-Metadata-discontinuation

It would probably make sense to add another "backup" metadata provider to MC, beyond freedb which hasn't kept up with the others.  I spent some time looking at MusicBrainz and that might make sense.  Also looked into GD3, which might require the user to have a subscription there.  We could also do more with Wikipedia.

[mwillems]

I just checked and I guess dbPowerAmp discontinued using AllMusic/AMG as of July 2016.  It looks like they've replaced it with discogs.  I'll bet the pricing got too steep.  Or enforced.
https://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?36067-AMG-Metadata-discontinuation

It would probably make sense to add another "backup" metadata provider to MC, beyond freedb which hasn't kept up with the others.  I spent some time looking at MusicBrainz and that might make sense.  Also looked into GD3, which might require the user to have a subscription there.  We could also do more with Wikipedia.

That's really odd.  It still seems to work here?  I wonder if it's only for newer versions of the software (I'm still a version back) or what dBpoweramp is generating when I tell it to pull only from AMG.  It's definitely returning results.   

GD3 is another provider that dBpoweramp uses; it's almost as good as AMG for general metadata, and often has better cover art.  MusicBrainz is pretty good, but doesn't have the same kind of broad coverage as AMG and GD3

[blgentry]

As far as "audiophile sound quality" goes, it's fairly simple:

If the ripping program gets the data cleanly, then it's all the same.  Any high end ripping program is going to get the exact same data:  DBPowerAmp, JRiver MC, EAC, XLD, etc.  The differences come in how the programs handle read errors caused by scratches, dirt/debris on the disc, and other things that interfere with reading the data.

Some programs use different techniques than others for re-reading parts of the disc when problems are detected.  I don't know how MC does this part of it's job, but the JRiver employees have been pretty vocal about spending a lot of time and money on getting this part right.  In this respect, if it takes longer, but it yields more consistently correct rips, then that's a good thing.

I would expect that any of the big names, like the ones I listed above, are going to yield identical rips from CDs in good condition, and probably very, very similar rips from CDs that are in worse condition.  As has been discussed, the differences are probably most noticeable in metadata.  Secondarily in overall speed.

I don't have any stake in this.  Just posting my observations.  Feel free to ignore me. 

Brian.

[craigmcg]

I use dBPoweramp for ripping/initial tagging and JRiver for playback and everything else.

[dtc]

I just checked and I guess dbPowerAmp discontinued using AllMusic/AMG as of July 2016.  It looks like they've replaced it with discogs.  I'll bet the pricing got too steep.  Or enforced.
https://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?36067-AMG-Metadata-discontinuation

It would probably make sense to add another "backup" metadata provider to MC, beyond freedb which hasn't kept up with the others.  I spent some time looking at MusicBrainz and that might make sense.  Also looked into GD3, which might require the user to have a subscription there.  We could also do more with Wikipedia.

I read the link. I do not understand the discogs reference. discogs is a database of records (aka vinyls theses days). The tracks on records are usually different than the ones on the corresponding CDs, due to the different lengths of the two media. If they have added discogs, it certainly would not be a good primary source for CDs.

[JohnT]

I read the link. I do not understand the discogs reference. discogs is a database of records (aka vinyls theses days). The tracks on records are usually different than the ones on the corresponding CDs, due to the different lengths of the two media. If they have added discogs, it certainly would not be a good primary source for CDs.

It looks like Discogs supports both CD and vinyl formats, and has barcode numbers which could presumably be used for looking up audio CD's.

[imeric]

As per some of the posts above, I too still use dbpoweramp for CD ripping due to speed (Accuraterip), Better Metadata access AND Replaygain tags (for iTunes Sound check that I want in my tags).

However having done a fairly high number of comparisons between MC21 and dbpoweramp15.3 on heavily scratched CDs, MC turned out to always perform better on insecure rips.

(ie the scratches were less noticeable with MC rips than dBpoweramp no matter how I tweaked dBpoweramp securerip settings)...

So I like to have the option to choose between the 2 for CD rips and MC can definitely do the job just fine.

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,98845.msg683937.html#msg683937

This just happened to me once again using the latest dbpoweramp...No matter how I tweak the secur rip settings JRiver performed better on a heavily scratched CD.

dBpoweramp ran for hours (probably took a few years off my drive by doing this...) and wasn't able to rip the song. Tried the same track with JRiver, it had 4-5 unreliable re-reads but it took about 1-2 minutes and the song plays just fine...Makes me wonder why I use dBpoweramp for ripping...

[blgentry]

Better Metadata access AND Replaygain tags (for iTunes Sound check that I want in my tags).

You should not rely upon ReplayGain tags that you get from the internet.  There's no way to verify if they are right or wrong.  There are sometimes many different versions of the same album with wildly different dynamic range and therefore different ReplayGain values.

You should instead have MC run it's Analyze Audio routine, which will populate both the R128 fields *and* the ReplayGain tags.  I use an external player for portable use and it recognizes and uses the ReplayGain tags that MC generates.

Brian.

[imeric]

You should not rely upon ReplayGain tags that you get from the internet.  There's no way to verify if they are right or wrong.  There are sometimes many different versions of the same album with wildly different dynamic range and therefore different ReplayGain values.

You should instead have MC run it's Analyze Audio routine, which will populate both the R128 fields *and* the ReplayGain tags.  I use an external player for portable use and it recognizes and uses the ReplayGain tags that MC generates.

Brian.

I was talking about the R128 Replaygain utility in dbpoweramp that will also generate the itunnorm tags. I run this when ripping and then do MC's audio analysis in MC on import since it uses different tags for its own Volume leveling...
I need the dbpoweramp tags for soundcheck on the iphone and don't want itunes to run its own soundcheck analysis.

[dtc]

It looks like Discogs supports both CD and vinyl formats, and has barcode numbers which could presumably be used for looking up audio CD's.

Yes, it has CDs, but its primary strength is records.  It has twice as many records as vinyls. Take a look, but I do not believe it would be a good primary source for CD data. I just tried  a couple of modern artists and it did not have entries for them. If you want to add them as a secondary source that would be fine.

[Theleb_Kaarna]

Guys, thanks ALOT for all the responses, much to ponder! Think I've decided to go with dBpoweramp for primary ripping and do some testing/comparison with MC's rip in addition.

*EDIT :: Sorry JimH. May start a new thread w/ any different-topic ?'s I might have.

\/ Thanks @Awesome Donkey for your response. \/

[Awesome Donkey]

Having music located on a separate drive won't be any issue whatsoever. Just make sure you point auto-import towards the directory the music resides in and you're good to go.

[JimH]

Please start a thread for new topics.

[imeric]

I was talking about the R128 Replaygain utility in dbpoweramp that will also generate the itunnorm tags. I run this when ripping and then do MC's audio analysis in MC on import since it uses different tags for its own Volume leveling...
I need the dbpoweramp tags for soundcheck on the iphone and don't want itunes to run its own soundcheck analysis.

This just happened to me once again using the latest dbpoweramp and a heavily scratched CD...No matter how I tweak the secure rip settings in dbpoweramp JRiver performed better...

dBpoweramp ran for hours (probably took a few years off my drive by doing this...) and wasn't able to rip the song. Tried the same track with JRiver, it had 4-5 unreliable re-reads but it took about 1-2 minutes and the song plays just fine without noticeable hiccups...Makes me wonder why I use dBpoweramp for ripping...

[A.K.]

I think most important link in the ripping chain is the drive. I have tested with 3 external cd&dvd drives and they all had different results. Oldest LG drive I have is very quiet and rips very fast, error correction seems to be working in secure mode, but had pretty interesting results when I listened those parts that had unreliable data or required multiple re-reads before good data. With other cd&dvd drives those damaged parts that had audible clicks or pops, appeared exactly where it states in the securerip log, but that LG drive probably somehow gave wrong data to MC and the error click or pop appeared several seconds later. Sometimes it was even 30 seconds ahead than what log stated  ?

Other LG drive that I currently use is one of those earlier slim type external drives and it works just fine, even after very damaged cd and unreliable data, I can't hear any clicks or pops in the audio. Just recently bought new Samsung cd&dvd burner and while it  usually rips quite good and fast, error correction capability isn't nowhere near that old LG slim drive 

[bekam]

This just happened to me once again using the latest dbpoweramp and a heavily scratched CD...No matter how I tweak the secure rip settings in dbpoweramp JRiver performed better.

So, JRiver is better than dBpoweramp and EAC on heavily scratched CDs... Is that correct?.

[dtc]

So, JRiver is better than dBpoweramp and EAC on heavily scratched CDs... Is that correct?.

My experience is that dBpoweramp did a better job on some bad CDs than JRiver. dBpoweramp finished but with errors. JRiver never finished. But, it was only 2 CDs so it is hard to generalize. My guess is that it is going to depend on the particular CD.

[imeric]

So, JRiver is better than dBpoweramp and EAC on heavily scratched CDs... Is that correct?.

My experience is that dBpoweramp did a better job on some bad CDs that JRiver. dBpoweramp finished but with errors. JRiver never finished. But, it was only 2 CDs so it is hard to generalize. My guess is that it is going to depend on the particular CD.

Totally agree that in some cases dbpoweramp can perform better.. I don't think we can generalize....  I like to have the option to use the 2.  There might be ways to customize dbpoweramp to do a better job than JRiver for specific CDs with specific drives...It is highly "tweakble"...

[Jackkan]

dBpoweranp has a FLAC lossless uncompressed setting. Also can be set to auto detect HDCD that will decode to 24 bit with a +6dB choice to align 20 bit result in upper 24 bit range. I have used both rippers and both are current. dBpoweramps outperforms JRiver in all areas of ripping for my self. I have ripped over 7500 CDs via dBpoweramp during the years. + Linn says to use it