Have your say & ask the experts

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?

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,

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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....

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?

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

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?

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