Reading a spinning disc

[admin_exported]

I was going to post this in that "other" thread, but thought it might get engulfed in a supermarket war.

As I understand it, one of the benefits of using a computer based system for audio reproduction is that you are more likely to get a bit-perfect feed, as you eliminate the problems of a CD player trying to read a disc in real time.

I am currently ripping my CD collection with EAC, with a low end laptop which has a presumably cheap CD/DVD combo drive. With error correction on it is ripping at around 3 times speed, giving perfect rips every time (according to Accuraterip).

So, if a cheapo combo drive is able to read 60 minute CD in 20 minutes and achieve bit perfection, why do people seem doubtful that a CD player of say £500, built soley for the purpose of extracting audio from CDs, would be less capable, given that it has the luxury of the full 60 minutes to do its extraction and error correction?

 

[Anonymous]

It's a different way of doing things.

The CD player is constrained by the real-time element. However, if the CD is in fine condition I doubt you'd notice any audible degregation.

Are you happy with EAC, and what interface do you play back with? You might want to try ripping to WAV with iTunes and using EAC to compare the outcomes. I read an article here that said iTunes is just fine, and I've seen other tests elsewhere too, although I didn't bookmark them.

Regards,

 

[Anonymous]

CD players don't have the luxury of 60 minutes and error correction. Most cd players don't have buffering, and send the data in real time. One pass, that's it.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Eddie,

My point was that it would appear that the real time constraint of the CD player is irrelevant, given that much cheaper equipment manages to do it fine in a third of the time.

Yes, I'm getting on well with EAC, and I use Foobar for playback, although I am mainly doing the ripping for backup purposes. I doubt I could hear any difference between this and iTunes, but I prefer to use an open rather than proprietary format where possible. I know that the idea that iTunes and Apple may not be around in 20 years time may seem fantastical, but you never know.

 

[Anonymous]

Tarquinh:CD players don't have the luxury of 60 minutes and error correction. Most cd players don't have buffering, and send the data in real time. One pass, that's it.

Someone will no doubt flame, ahem, I mean correct me, if I'm wrong, but don't CD players do multiple passes? I seem to remember reading in WHF that one of the innovative features of the new Cyrus SE system was that it read disc only once, concentrating its efforts on getting an accurate pass. The implication seemed to be that other players take multiple passes.

Once again, perhaps I haven't made myself clear: my point is that CD players actually seem to have the luxury of much more time than my computer, i.e. my computer manages it in 20 minutes, whereas the CD player has a luxurious 60 minutes to read the same disc.

 

[Anonymous]

The cd player starts the moment you hit the play button. It doesn't buffer at all, let alone for 60 minutes - would you accept a wait of that long?

 

[idc]

tractorboy:Hi Eddie, My point was that it would appear that the real time constraint of the CD player is irrelevant, given that much cheaper equipment manages to do it fine in a third of the time. I know that the idea that iTunes and Apple may not be around in 20 years time may seem fantastical, but you never know.

The realtime element of the CDP is very relevant, the whole point is that a CDP has to make more 'guesses' where there are any errors, but when importing a CD with error correction there are a number of re-reads to ensure higher accuracy.

On your second point, whilst Apple and itunes may not exist in 20 years, lossless files and file converter programmes will, so they will never go out of date.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm sure Cyrus' rationale behind the new CD transport, but remember who is writing the literature and for what purpose.

 

[Anonymous]

Tarquinh:The cd player starts the moment you hit the play button. It doesn't buffer at all, let alone for 60 minutes - would you accept a wait of that long?

Sorry, maybe I still haven't made myself clear...

My computer reads a disk with 100 accuracy in 20 minutes. There is NO perceptible buffer time. It is not designed first and foremost for audio disks.

My CD player has 60 minutes to read the same disk. It is designed purely for audio disks.

This leads me to suspect that it is reasonable to expect the CD player to extract with similar accuracy.

 

[Anonymous]

idc:The realtime element of the CDP is very relevant, the whole point is that a CDP has to make more 'guesses' where there are any errors, but when importing a CD with error correction there are a number of re-reads to ensure higher accuracy.

So don't CD players employ multiple passes and error correction?

idc:
On your second point, whilst Apple and itunes may not exist in 20 years, lossless files and file converter programmes will, so they will never go out of date.

Very true. I guess it's also becuase I don't really get on that well with iTunes, so it's a safe bet that whatever media player I want to use my files with, it won't be that. I just find it rather unituitive to navigate at times.

 

[Anonymous]

The CD player doesn't read ahead. You hear the sound more or less the moment it's being read, just as with a record player. Yes, it could read the disc in 20 minutes, simply by spinning tthe disc faster. However, most people wouldn't accept the consequences....

 

[Anonymous]

How can you say there is no buffering involved with such certainty? Even the cheapest portable cd players used to advertise an anti skip mechanism which if I'm not mistaken involved some sort of buffering. Why wouldn't a half decent cd player buffer a few seconds ahead for the sake of having to reread data?

 

[Anonymous]

CD players have one pass, if they don't get everything they guess and if there isn't enough to guess from they mute, so they might be constantly muting for tiny fractions of a second if the CD is scratched or the laser tired. Laser life is 2.5 years of average use, but much less if subjected to heat, shock or static. They are a pain.

iTunes is deadly accurate, it takes a good read if it can, it error corrects and saves a file with a checksum so that from then on the track always plays the same, which it probably wont on a CD player.

This is another heavily over discussed and oft repeated discussion. The bottom line is that you're better off on a Computer but that you probably won't hear the difference unless your CDs and player are tired.

If iTunes is counter intuitive for anyone, they need help IMO. I doubt for a single second that all 180 million purchasers of iPods have stonkingly high IQs.

Ash

 

[John Duncan]

Ashley James: I doubt for a single second that all 180 million purchasers of iPods have stonkingly high IQs

I have four. Are you saying I'm really thick?

 

[Gusboll]

Depends on where you're starting from and whether you add, divide or multiply!

 

[manicm]

Many CDPs do more than just one pass, and have a measure of error-correction as well, so it's an ignorant myth that they don't - just not to the extent that one in a PC is capable of.

I recently sent a link to an article about this on Linn's website - go dig.

And Ashley are you saying lasers last on average 2.5 years? Sorry that's a laugh, I had a Technics player (brilliant sounding in my humble system way back then) for 11 years - and still worked perfectly when I sold it for a Pioneer DVD player - which I still have 7 years on in perfect nick.

 

[Anonymous]

Ashley James:This is another heavily over discussed and oft repeated discussion. The bottom line is that you're better off on a Computer but that you probably won't hear the difference unless your CDs and player are tired.

Sorry to be such a crashing bore...

Could you point me in the direction of a site which does a comparative analysis of the bit stream from a decent CD transport vs a the optical out of a PC running iTunes or similar? Then I shall stop pestering you all...

 

[Anonymous]

Ashley James:

If iTunes is counter intuitive for anyone, they need help IMO.
Ash

Well, maybe one day we will be able to discuss this face to face. I wonder if you will be so curt then.

 

[JoelSim]

tractorboy:Ashley James:If iTunes is counter intuitive for anyone, they need help IMO.AshWell, maybe one day we will be able to discuss this face to face. I wonder if you will be so curt then.

Buying turkey twizzlers is counter intuitive, but millions do it.

ÿ

 

[Anonymous]

manicm:
Many CDPs do more than just one pass, and have a measure of error-correction as well, so it's an ignorant myth that they don't - just not to the extent that one in a PC is capable of.

I recently sent a link to an article about this on Linn's website - go dig.

And Ashley are you saying lasers last on average 2.5 years? Sorry that's a laugh, I had a Technics player (brilliant sounding in my humble system way back then) for 11 years - and still worked perfectly when I sold it for a Pioneer DVD player - which I still have 7 years on in perfect nick.

Yes I am and that figure came from Philips. Older players lasted for years but as prices of machines came down so did quality and longevity.

2,500 hours or 2.5 years is optimistic and as a CD player manufacturer that made CD Players from 1993 to 2007 I should know how long they last and just how much of a pain they are. They've caused us more grief than anything else we've ever made and I shall not mourn their passing.

Personally I think discussion is pointless because computers are a done deal for most thinking people. We stopped making players because people weren't buying them any more. They'd bought computers and mostly Apple who have 21% of the US consumer market now and are expanding exponentially.

By a CD if you must, but you'd get far more fun from a decent home computer and as for sound quality, the music was made on a computer and the CD was made from an HD, so why on earth does someone think it might be better on a CD. It's nuts to me!

Ash

 

[Anonymous]

For the sake of discussion I could say that if I had a working cd player and a clean cd it is much more probable that I will be able to listen to some music compared to having to turn on a PC and a million things could go wrong.

The other day i hooked up a fairly new netbook to my new amp to have a look at its performance as an audio source and for some reason I didn't even care to find out media player cought itself on a loop repeating the last 2 seconds of a track. That was in like 5 minutes of music playback. I switched it off immediately.

Also I would be very skeptical having my music solely on a hard disk which could at any point fail completely leaving me with zero bits of data.

Bottom line for me is the ideal is to have both a CD and a PC for use as an audio source. As I like to have a gaming console and a dvd player. All have their reasons for existence imho

 

[Anonymous]

tractorboy:Ashley James:

If iTunes is counter intuitive for anyone, they need help IMO.
Ash

Well, maybe one day we will be able to discuss this face to face. I wonder if you will be so curt then.

Of course I will. I am blunt but good natured and harmless! Even when dealing with anachrofiles!

 

[matengawhat]

anachrofiles??????????

 

[Anonymous]

From anachronism...

Fair enough Ashley, but for the record, I am writing this on a laptop in one room, whilst monitoring (with remote desktop) another laptop which is currently doing my ripping with EAC in a different part of the house over an ad hoc wireless network... my point being that I am hardly a technophobe clinging with fear in my eyes to yesteryear's technology.

 

[Anonymous]

noble:
For the sake of discussion I could say that if I had a working cd player and a clean cd it is much more probable that I will be able to listen to some music compared to having to turn on a PC and a million things could go wrong.

The other day i hooked up a fairly new netbook to my new amp to have a look at its performance as an audio source and for some reason I didn't even care to find out media player cought itself on a loop repeating the last 2 seconds of a track. That was in like 5 minutes of music playback. I switched it off immediately.

Also I would be very skeptical having my music solely on a hard disk which could at any point fail completely leaving me with zero bits of data.

Bottom line for me is the ideal is to have both a CD and a PC for use as an audio source. As I like to have a gaming console and a dvd player. All have their reasons for existence imho

None of that sounds remotely logical to me!

I have an apple TV, a Mac Mini, a Macbook Pro plus some Airport Express and two hi fi systems at home. Usually I use the Apple TV which is instant but the others are very fast and silent. None have given a moments trouble ever. I wouldn't prat about with an obsolete old CD player ever again, but mine is a fully fledged media system with movies, thousands of radio stations, some TV, all my photos etc. Everything all instant and from an IR handset.

At work I have a 20" iMac and a stinking Dell. I hate Windows and am sure it is the reason why people can't understand how computers can be so much better for hi fi.

Ash

PS. Everything automatically backs up every hour or so to another HD on the network and everything on the Apple TV is duplicated on the Macbook Pro. And I have a mobile me account so can use my computer on any computer anywhere. I have a Touch too that also syncs with the system too. You can keep your old legacy stuff, this is miles better.