.......

[bubobubo]

...............

 

[iMark]

It's about error correction. If you play a CD (in a CD, DVD or Bluray player) the error correction is done on the fly by the player. Some players are better than others. A disc might be a little bit scratched etc.

If you rip a CD in drive and you do it with error correction on you will end up with a bit perfect rip because a computer doesn't have to do this on the fly. In practice a properly ripped CD that goes straight to the DAC will sound better than that same CD played on any sort of player. If the CD is perfectly clean, the difference will be less.

http://docs.linn.co.uk/wiki/index.php/CD_Ripping_Terminology

 

[manicm]

Do whatever sounds good to you. Personally I don't think rips sound quite as good as the CD.

 

[muljao]

The theory is they should both sound the same if you listen process everything the same. This is probably not possible though as the cd player reads dig file etc and sends it to the dac inside or outside the player and then from dac to amp.

From a usb its likely processed alittle different, so prob sounds alittle different. Some say cds are better. Others say rips. I'd guess 97.32% of people wouldn't know or care

 

[iMark]

I think there's a lot of expectation bias when people say a (expensive) CD player sounds better than ripped CDs. For a lot of people in the HiFi hobby world it's completely counterintuitive that CDs ripped with a 20 euro (or pound or dollar) DVD drive by amateur software like iTunes can actually give you better sounding files when these files have been ripped to lossless files with error correction.

But if you think logically, basically we are looking for files that have the same bits on them as were pressed on them in the factory, so a perfect copy of the master that was used to produce the CD. The chances that we get the perfect copy from a rip and then play that rip are obviously greater than by using a CD player where the error correction has to be done on the fly rather than by a computer that will take as long as it needs to correct any errors. A properly ripped file is therefore a bit perfect copy of the master that was used to create the CD.

It's very similar to the fact that some people actually believe that an expensive HDMI cable must give a better picture than a cheap one. In the digital domain it doesn't matter what cable is used as long as the cable isn't faulty and bits are lost on the way. A printer doesn't print better or faster if you use a gold plated USB cable.

The biggest problem with modern CDs is the fact that the masters that were used to produce often sound like sh•t so the rips will sound like sh•t too. Properly mastered CDs however are a thing of sonic beauty. Many modern jazz and classical recordings are absolutely wonderful.

 

[manicm]

I think there's a lot of expectation bias when people say a (expensive) CD player sounds better than ripped CDs.

Wrong, I had a cheap cd player and I don't think rips sounded better. On all my (3) laptops I did not think rips sounded better than even playing the CD on the laptop.

I admit there could be some reasons why but I couldn't be ars*d. Or maybe it's just my faulty ears?

 

[iMark]

I think there's a lot of expectation bias when people say a (expensive) CD player sounds better than ripped CDs.

Wrong, I had a cheap cd player and I don't think rips sounded better. On all my (3) laptops I did not think rips sounded better than even playing the CD on the laptop.

I admit there could be some reasons why but I couldn't be ars*d. Or maybe it's just my faulty ears?

I don't think so. I suppose the DAC in your CD player is better than the DAC in any of your laptops. When I play ripped CDs on my MacBook they don't sound great either. But when I plug in the the MacBook to our Cambridge Audio DACMagic they sound wonderful.

 

[Womaz]

I used to listen to both through my Devialet and I just could not tell the difference

The MFidelity CD player was just as good as the FLAC rips. I was told the FLAC rips would be better as no correction would take place etc .

 

[nopiano]

I used to listen to both through my Devialet and I just could not tell the difference

The MFidelity CD player was just as good as the FLAC rips. I was told the FLAC rips would be better as no correction would take place etc .

I see you have a Melco. Is that to improve the quality over a dedicated laptop or Mac mini?

 

[Womaz]

I used to listen to both through my Devialet and I just could not tell the difference

The MFidelity CD player was just as good as the FLAC rips. I was told the FLAC rips would be better as no correction would take place etc .

I see you have a Melco. Is that to improve the quality over a dedicated laptop or Mac mini?

Sort of yes. AIR was so unreliable for me that I had to find an alternative .

The Melco is excellent and I believe it is as good if not better than AIR. The only let down is the lack of their own app

 

[Womaz]

Yes this was a huge let down for me as I bought it as a one box solution.

I kept my CD player for a year but eventually sold it. Like I say I could not hear a difference between this and the FLAC files . What the Devialet lacks in streaming ability is more than made up for with the sound quality, which I feel is quite breathtaking for the price ...... so it's hard to be really unhappy with their misleading advertising and promotion ;-)

 

[nopiano]

I used to listen to both through my Devialet and I just could not tell the difference

The MFidelity CD player was just as good as the FLAC rips. I was told the FLAC rips would be better as no correction would take place etc .

I see you have a Melco. Is that to improve the quality over a dedicated laptop or Mac mini?

Sort of yes. AIR was so unreliable for me that I had to find an alternative .

The Melco is excellent and I believe it is as good if not better than AIR. The only let down is the lack of their own app

Thanks! Shame the Dev is a bit of a let down in that area, as it appears to do it all. I have a chum with the same as you, and he's gone that route because the Mac mini never was 100%.

 

[bubobubo]

...........

 

[bubobubo]

...............

 

[bubobubo]

............