I finally decided to rip my 1,000+ CDs to files. I know, I know—I'm 10 or 20 years behind the times on this. It's not that I hoped to get much better sound this way than the Tidal equivalent. But it finally occurred to me that if I ripped my CDs to files, I could probably store or even donate the CDs and one or both of the Davidson-Whitehall Store-a-Disc solid natural cherry CD cabinets that I have in my small dedicated-to-audio-listening-room converted bedroom. While CDs in these cabinets provide pretty good diffusion, it's not the same as treating those wall areas with dedicated diffusers, abfusers, or absorbers. A softer room is a better room, especially when the room, like mine, is only about 11 feet wide, putting my ears at most about 5.5 feet from the side walls.
A Truly Local Solution
Also, by having waited this long, I won't even have to add a computer to my audio system or use a LAN, ethernet, USB cables, Wi-Fi, or even a portable hard drive with moving parts to access the files.
CDs average about 650 MB of data each. A thousand CDs in uncompressed form would thus occupy about 650 GB of data. I thus can rip 1,000 GB (a terabyte) of CD data to just two 512 gigabyte USB stick solid-state thumb drives. Recent price drops in such sticks now have brought the price of the Patriot Supersonic Rage 2 sticks I chose down to a "reasonable" $150 each. My Oppo UDP-205 has two USB3 ports in the back just for connecting to stored files on drives. If it turns out that I need more than two sticks, I can either plug a third into the front panel USB2 port or add a four-port USB3 hub to one of the rear ports.
Easy Remote Control
The Oppo Media Control app on my iPhone X provides easy-peasy location and playback of all the stored files. No extra remote control is required and the Oppo input selection doesn't even have to be changed from Blu-Ray Drive. Truly the lazy man's approach to music playback—combining Tidal and internet radio streaming from the Auralic Aries G2, AirPlay, Spotify Connect, and CD files all controlled from my iPhone while sitting in the listening chair.
Ripping Progress
Not that I have all the CDs ripped yet. That is a tedious but not difficult process which could take me many weeks. But I've started and am making good progress with at least 350 down at this writing. I started with my 55 or so Reference Recordings HDCD discs since the Oppo won't decode those and I'm thus limited to Tidal replay of those programs. I have also ripped all my Reference Recordings HRx recordings, my binaural CD recordings, and my libraries of Mercury Living Presence, RCA Living Stereo, and Cello Audio Recordings CDs. I have always kept those CDs filed physically separate in those groups since they share unique sonic as well as historical significance in my mind. Now I'm ripping my general CD holdings.
Of course, if you specialize in high-res downloads, you'll need more disc space than what I've described. Each 24/172 HRx disc is about 4.5 Gigs, compared to the 650 MB CD average. But since the bulk of my disc collection is ordinary Redbook 44/16 CD, this method will work for me.
Sonic Comments are Thin on the Ground
I've read quite a bit about computer audio, but the comments about comparative audio quality between CD playback and the playback of ripped files often are not clear. Frequently there are no such direct sonic comparisons between disc and file playback of the same material. Sometimes there are comments, but the electronic path to the speakers seems much different for the two sources or is not completely specified if specified at all. Other times the issue of comparative sonic quality is obfuscated by meanderings about the sonic contributions of ripping method, software, hardware, etc., without actually dealing with the question of how the ripped result at best sounds compared to playback of the original CDs in a decent CD player.
I frequently get the distinct impression that the emphasis of many computer audio comments is on the tech itself and the assumption that of course you want/need to transfer all the data from your antiquated optical discs to a modern hard drive/NAS/LAN system because that would obviously be modern and therefore better since digital technology has come so far in the intervening years since the Redbook CD standard was adopted. That's about as true as the assumption that modern remasterings of old recordings will automatically sound better than the originals because, well, because those doing the recent remasterings have much more powerful digital editing devices at hand. This assumption that newer is better assumes that the modern remasterers have musical and sonic tastes equal to or superior to those who originally worked with the artists and heard their performance live and could compare the performance to the playback quality. Even if the recording was of material where a live performance never existed (e.g., it was put together track by track on a mixer), it still assumes the quality of musical and sonic tastes of the remasterers is at least as good as the original folks.
Then there are those who comment on and extensively compare the power of modern programs to organize your music collection and gather together all sorts of information about the music and artists in that collection, as well as interconnect and sort various items within the collection in ways of your choosing. Most everyone seems to moan that the classical music collection cataloging ability of most programs is seriously lacking, with such music being treated as the poor step-sister of the more popular genres that seem to make up 95%+ of the collections of most computer audiophiles. All well and good, but how does it sound?
There are also some articles about the equalization and other effects built into some software aimed at music playback. Now, I'm all for using equalization to help recording playback sound more natural, but that is just comparing audio box equalization with the equivalent tools available in software at a computer work station.
Sometimes, as in a few articles in The Absolute Sound, there are sonic comparisons. But these are usually by people who apparently don't seem to be listening for the things or in the ways I listen.
Well, comparative sonic comments are what I hope to provide. I intend to provide some clear commentary on the sonic benefits/problems of ripped files compared to the original CDs. My set up is near ideal for this since I will be using the same unit, the Oppo UDP-205, to read both the uncompressed lossless files on the USB sticks and the optical discs from which those files were directly ripped, there is no network, no additional wiring, and no wireless connections in the signal path. I will also be using the same DAC to decode the data, my Benchmark DAC3-HGC. Finally, the same connection between the Oppo and my Benchmark DAC3-HGC will be used: the HDMI output of the Oppo, through one-meter of Blue Jeans HDMI cable, to the Kanex Pro HDMI Audio-De-Embedder, through a one-meter Benchmark digital coax cable to the digital coax input of my Benchmark DAC3-HGC. For Redbook CD and HDCD files, I could also go straight from the Oppo's coaxial output via one meter of Benchmark digital coax cable straight into the Benchmark's coaxial digital input, bypassing the HDMI connections.
Ripping Equipment
For ripping, I'm using dBpoweramp Release 16.5 with the settings of the program set more or less as recommended by the maker of that program. I am deviating from the recommendations by ripping the files to FLAC with no compression at all rather than with Level 5 compression. Where possible, all files are certified Accurate rips by the proprietary program within dBPoweramp. So far, I've only run into a few tracks which will not rip as Accurate—most of my CDs are in pretty good shape, although they have been subjected to various after-market cleaners, treatments, and add-on rings over the years.
I am not using anything fancy as the ripping drive; I'm using the $30 Dell DW316. The computer involved is also nothing too fancy. It is a Microsoft Surface Pro (the newer version) with an i7-7660U @2.5 GHz CPU, 16 Gigs of RAM, and 1 terabyte of solid-state storage—high-end as the Surface Pro models go, I guess, but not a monster computer.
I do notice a significant difference in the speed at which dBpoweramp will rip various discs. The dBPoweramp program and Dell drive often seem to start out at about 4x speed and accelerate to 8 or 9x by the end. Other discs start at 10x or faster and end up at 23 or 24x. The Dell drive itself advertises 24x as its top reading speed. I think the drive/program often determines by preview the maximum speed at which the end of the disc (the outside edge) can be scanned, and then adopts a uniform rotation rate for the entire CD. This will cause the data read rate to be higher at the end of the CD than the beginning since the diameter of the "groove" gets much larger as playback progresses and pits and lands are placed at uniform distances from each other all along the way. What these ripping speed differences mean is that some discs can take at least ten minutes to rip, while others are done in about three minutes. Sometimes this maximum ripping speed seems to correlate highly with the CD label. For example, most Mercury Living Presence CDs rip relatively slower compared to most RCA Living Stereo CDs.
Sonic Comments to Follow
I'll refrain from any premature sonic comments at this early stage. Stay tuned to this thread for my sonic comments in future posts to this thread.
A Truly Local Solution
Also, by having waited this long, I won't even have to add a computer to my audio system or use a LAN, ethernet, USB cables, Wi-Fi, or even a portable hard drive with moving parts to access the files.
CDs average about 650 MB of data each. A thousand CDs in uncompressed form would thus occupy about 650 GB of data. I thus can rip 1,000 GB (a terabyte) of CD data to just two 512 gigabyte USB stick solid-state thumb drives. Recent price drops in such sticks now have brought the price of the Patriot Supersonic Rage 2 sticks I chose down to a "reasonable" $150 each. My Oppo UDP-205 has two USB3 ports in the back just for connecting to stored files on drives. If it turns out that I need more than two sticks, I can either plug a third into the front panel USB2 port or add a four-port USB3 hub to one of the rear ports.
Easy Remote Control
The Oppo Media Control app on my iPhone X provides easy-peasy location and playback of all the stored files. No extra remote control is required and the Oppo input selection doesn't even have to be changed from Blu-Ray Drive. Truly the lazy man's approach to music playback—combining Tidal and internet radio streaming from the Auralic Aries G2, AirPlay, Spotify Connect, and CD files all controlled from my iPhone while sitting in the listening chair.
Ripping Progress
Not that I have all the CDs ripped yet. That is a tedious but not difficult process which could take me many weeks. But I've started and am making good progress with at least 350 down at this writing. I started with my 55 or so Reference Recordings HDCD discs since the Oppo won't decode those and I'm thus limited to Tidal replay of those programs. I have also ripped all my Reference Recordings HRx recordings, my binaural CD recordings, and my libraries of Mercury Living Presence, RCA Living Stereo, and Cello Audio Recordings CDs. I have always kept those CDs filed physically separate in those groups since they share unique sonic as well as historical significance in my mind. Now I'm ripping my general CD holdings.
Of course, if you specialize in high-res downloads, you'll need more disc space than what I've described. Each 24/172 HRx disc is about 4.5 Gigs, compared to the 650 MB CD average. But since the bulk of my disc collection is ordinary Redbook 44/16 CD, this method will work for me.
Sonic Comments are Thin on the Ground
I've read quite a bit about computer audio, but the comments about comparative audio quality between CD playback and the playback of ripped files often are not clear. Frequently there are no such direct sonic comparisons between disc and file playback of the same material. Sometimes there are comments, but the electronic path to the speakers seems much different for the two sources or is not completely specified if specified at all. Other times the issue of comparative sonic quality is obfuscated by meanderings about the sonic contributions of ripping method, software, hardware, etc., without actually dealing with the question of how the ripped result at best sounds compared to playback of the original CDs in a decent CD player.
I frequently get the distinct impression that the emphasis of many computer audio comments is on the tech itself and the assumption that of course you want/need to transfer all the data from your antiquated optical discs to a modern hard drive/NAS/LAN system because that would obviously be modern and therefore better since digital technology has come so far in the intervening years since the Redbook CD standard was adopted. That's about as true as the assumption that modern remasterings of old recordings will automatically sound better than the originals because, well, because those doing the recent remasterings have much more powerful digital editing devices at hand. This assumption that newer is better assumes that the modern remasterers have musical and sonic tastes equal to or superior to those who originally worked with the artists and heard their performance live and could compare the performance to the playback quality. Even if the recording was of material where a live performance never existed (e.g., it was put together track by track on a mixer), it still assumes the quality of musical and sonic tastes of the remasterers is at least as good as the original folks.
Then there are those who comment on and extensively compare the power of modern programs to organize your music collection and gather together all sorts of information about the music and artists in that collection, as well as interconnect and sort various items within the collection in ways of your choosing. Most everyone seems to moan that the classical music collection cataloging ability of most programs is seriously lacking, with such music being treated as the poor step-sister of the more popular genres that seem to make up 95%+ of the collections of most computer audiophiles. All well and good, but how does it sound?
There are also some articles about the equalization and other effects built into some software aimed at music playback. Now, I'm all for using equalization to help recording playback sound more natural, but that is just comparing audio box equalization with the equivalent tools available in software at a computer work station.
Sometimes, as in a few articles in The Absolute Sound, there are sonic comparisons. But these are usually by people who apparently don't seem to be listening for the things or in the ways I listen.
Well, comparative sonic comments are what I hope to provide. I intend to provide some clear commentary on the sonic benefits/problems of ripped files compared to the original CDs. My set up is near ideal for this since I will be using the same unit, the Oppo UDP-205, to read both the uncompressed lossless files on the USB sticks and the optical discs from which those files were directly ripped, there is no network, no additional wiring, and no wireless connections in the signal path. I will also be using the same DAC to decode the data, my Benchmark DAC3-HGC. Finally, the same connection between the Oppo and my Benchmark DAC3-HGC will be used: the HDMI output of the Oppo, through one-meter of Blue Jeans HDMI cable, to the Kanex Pro HDMI Audio-De-Embedder, through a one-meter Benchmark digital coax cable to the digital coax input of my Benchmark DAC3-HGC. For Redbook CD and HDCD files, I could also go straight from the Oppo's coaxial output via one meter of Benchmark digital coax cable straight into the Benchmark's coaxial digital input, bypassing the HDMI connections.
Ripping Equipment
For ripping, I'm using dBpoweramp Release 16.5 with the settings of the program set more or less as recommended by the maker of that program. I am deviating from the recommendations by ripping the files to FLAC with no compression at all rather than with Level 5 compression. Where possible, all files are certified Accurate rips by the proprietary program within dBPoweramp. So far, I've only run into a few tracks which will not rip as Accurate—most of my CDs are in pretty good shape, although they have been subjected to various after-market cleaners, treatments, and add-on rings over the years.
I am not using anything fancy as the ripping drive; I'm using the $30 Dell DW316. The computer involved is also nothing too fancy. It is a Microsoft Surface Pro (the newer version) with an i7-7660U @2.5 GHz CPU, 16 Gigs of RAM, and 1 terabyte of solid-state storage—high-end as the Surface Pro models go, I guess, but not a monster computer.
I do notice a significant difference in the speed at which dBpoweramp will rip various discs. The dBPoweramp program and Dell drive often seem to start out at about 4x speed and accelerate to 8 or 9x by the end. Other discs start at 10x or faster and end up at 23 or 24x. The Dell drive itself advertises 24x as its top reading speed. I think the drive/program often determines by preview the maximum speed at which the end of the disc (the outside edge) can be scanned, and then adopts a uniform rotation rate for the entire CD. This will cause the data read rate to be higher at the end of the CD than the beginning since the diameter of the "groove" gets much larger as playback progresses and pits and lands are placed at uniform distances from each other all along the way. What these ripping speed differences mean is that some discs can take at least ten minutes to rip, while others are done in about three minutes. Sometimes this maximum ripping speed seems to correlate highly with the CD label. For example, most Mercury Living Presence CDs rip relatively slower compared to most RCA Living Stereo CDs.
Sonic Comments to Follow
I'll refrain from any premature sonic comments at this early stage. Stay tuned to this thread for my sonic comments in future posts to this thread.
