dbpoweramp ripping problems!

Hm, I might try it. But for that I would need a CD that won't rip. So far I haven't come across one. I have a history of about 1,000 rips.

And as for the AccurateRip confirmation - well I can live without it. The one or two odd bits and bytes that may have gone wrong because of a scratch on the CD do not at all interfere with the overall sound quality. The worst I have had, was a skip, like with vinyl, because of a scratched CD. But the rest was just fine.

Just to clarify, PinkHamster, I like you (although I have only ripped 6 so far ),  have never failed to have a CD actually rip.  (I thought it had because I couldn't copy it, but as Simon indicated, that turned out to be a separate issue.)  It was only the inaccurate indications that were a problem for me.  But I, like you, am not going to worry about that as long as it sounds good.

Russ

Yes, but it raises the question as to why top-flight CD players aren't configured to "read ahead", push the data to a buffer and re-read any problem areas, getting the best of both worlds. Essentially, they would be "ripping" the CD and playing the resulting file on the fly. The drive speed and computing power required is trivial. Even basic PCs can do this effortlessly (and have been able to do do so for years). It seems (to me at least) that if one were after the ultimate fidelity of the original CD digital data, then this would be an effective option.

But then again, perhaps missing (and guessing at) a few bits here and there maybe doesn't matter that much at all? Maybe a player like the CD555 tries to have as little "computer" in it as is possible for other reasons. Hmmm....

Winky,

I could imagne that this is a credit to the usability of CD players. I would be quite irretated to have to wait  x seconds for another track to start playing after having hit the NEXT botton.

But in principle I asked myself the exact same question in the past.

winky: If you have no problem with doing so, could you expound on your "hmmm"?  Inquiring minds without much imaginination would like to know. 

In any case, it seems to me that on every level except one, the death knell of the CDP is being rung. Of course, I know that is no surprise to any of you--after all, it was the folks on this board who convinced my doubting mind to consider the Superuniti as opposed to the Uniti 2, and to abandon the notion that I absolutely could not get by without a CD player.  So I buy the SU and am so glad I did.  Then, I read first about difficulties (rare, one has to admit, given the number of units sold) with the transports on some of the finest CDP s made (of several brands), and then my dull brain slowly wraps itself around the fact that many (not all) people who report on the issue find rips on very inexpensive computing equipment to be superior to CD s played on CD players--even very good ones.  I do find myself wondering what owners of the top end 555 players feel about the difference, or lack thereof, between their players and rips.  (But for me personally, even if they are superior, they are out of my price range and therefore my interest, though real, is only academic.)  Finally,

the CD itself is disappearing due to the popularity of MP3 downloading and the general satisfaction with that level of quality.

So that would seem to leave only one reason to own a CDP in the future--but one that is very understandable and which I have seen posted several times--the physical and mental satisfaction with opening up the CDP, selecting the CD to be played, examining the notes and art, and playing the CD--very much like the satisfaction many report with playing vinyl.  But then again, with vinyl, there seem to be definite differences in sound between the analog and the digital.  I am anxious to get to the point where I can record a good vinyl record to something better than MP3 and play it digitally.  That will take some time.

Best regards,

Russ

Installed DBpoweramp on second computer and ripped the CD I had inaccuracies with on the new machine.  Same result--inaccuracies on all tracks.  Next, just for grins, I will try to copy the original CD to a blank CD-R.  First, I need to buy some, as all I have are DVD-R s, which I doubt will work.  Then I need to get my wife to teach me how to copy the damned thing.    After posting that result, I will allow this thread to die the death it so richly deserves.

Best regards,

Russ

Sure. My personal view is that a few bits here and there absolutely do not matter. Great CD players are great because they do excellent D to A conversion and provide a very controlled and clean analogue signal to the pre-amp, not because they are super-duper accurate at reading the CD.

Similarly, I am sceptical that rip quality audibly varies much provided the basics are taken care of. For all the fuss about bit-accurate and verified rips, I doubt there is audible difference between decent rips. I also am very sceptical about alleged large differences between types of uncompressed files.

 You don't have to suffer a delay. A variable buffer would solve it. Start playing instantly from zero buffer and build the buffer in parallel over the first few seconds of playback. With read speeds around 20X+, it wouldn't take long.

On another note, I think it was Rega that had some players that would spend a few seconds analysing a CD in order to "optimise" playback before they would play a new disc. Never quite understood what that was about.

Winky: Gotcha.  I cannot add anything to your assessment of great CDP s, because I have not heard any--and have, in fact, been amazed at what I hear out of my 40 USD Wal Mart Special with a digital feed into the Superuniti.  I am, as I said earlier, more and more convinced of your assessment (and that of others) that a few bits tossed either here or there, don't seem to make much difference and that it difficult at best to distinguish between rips.  (FLAC is my only experience, and I cannot say about differences between lossless files.)

What, then, is your opinion of the difference (or lack thereof) of the SQ between a CD played on a great player--or the same album ripped and streamed--versus an HD download--say a 24 X 96 or a 24 X 192?  My thinking here is that if the ear cannot distinguish between CD quality files in which a few bits have been juggled about, is that same ear capable of hearing the higher definition that results from a lot more bits?  Don't get me wrong--I intend at some point to do the download and listen test, but let's talk theory here.

(And yes, once again, I hijack my own thread. )

Russ