new computer rips

[lazycat]

I know that this will probably be contentious but I bought a new lappy 2 months ago and the rips - using dbpoweramp - sound much better. I do appreciate that it's all 0's and 1's butI realised I was listening to new albums only - mainly because the sound was so improved.

Did a re-rip of something previously on the hard drive and the increase in quality was very noticeable especially bass - more definition, tighter etc. all old rips were verified with accurate rip and were ok

any explanations?

using a sb3/naim/royd minstrels.

yes, i am going to re-rip everything - joy.

[AmDismal]

Can you demonstrate that the original FLAC files are identical to the new ones (as should be the case with AccurateRip)? Check file size too; there are tools to allow comparisons if you're keen. If they are the same, then there is no possible way that they can sound different.

They could be slightly different: there may be a different version or compression level of FLAC you are now using. It is feasible that the different levels of processing in the SB3 cause it to sound different, although that does sound pretty unlikely...

You could try getting DBPA to re-FLAC them, which you can do in batch mode. A lot easier than reripping, and could have the same (placebo? ;) ) effect.

[opusover21]

eh?? I tried all the usual suspects..DBPOwer, MAX. EAC, iTunes and all the lossless formats ripped on 3 different machines...couldnt hear snitch between em...

[lazycat]

i'm not obsessing about it, but it's definitely not a placebo- although i do understand why anyone (including me) would think so.

i'll try a few more rips over the next few days.

i just wondered if anyone had noticed any difference when changing hardware - regardless of accuraterip - all settings on db were the same by the way.

[MrSammy]

Test the old drive and new new drive to see if they do correct DAE.

http://www.daefeatures.co.uk/

Easy test to do, just burn a known WAV file to a CD-ROM on various parts of the disc and then re-read it 10 times. Compare with the original WAV file.

If you have no differences relax and don't worry about it anymore. If you do have adifference then rip with another CD-ROM mech that is rated as being able to do perfect DAE.

They've got a lot better than when I first started doing this sort of thing 10 years ago but there are still many mechs and machines that cannot accurately read an audio encoded Red Book CD.

In the days when I used to back up my CDs to CD-ROM the recommended combination was a SCSI Plextor reader - they read anything - and a Yamaha CD Writer - they could over burn better than other burners and disks they burnt could be used on older CD mechs. This was 10 years ago and things have changed since then but you should still check the quality of the Digital Audio Extraction.

[Alistair T]

Simon,

One way of sorting out if anyone else can hear the same difference would be to post an original flac file on a hosting site and then a new rip of the same track also in flac.

Then post a link to the two versions on here and I am sure people will listen to them both on their own system and confirm, or otherwise any differences.

Not sure how you put a flac file on a hosting site, but I am sure someone on here can advise.

Alistair

[lazycat]

sorry, i haven't explained clearly.
all my music - old and new - is ripped to an external hard drive.
i'm assuming there's a difference because of the new/better dvd drive.
i will do some comparisons over the next few days, after erecting the Xmas tree.
thanks for the input.

[browellm]

I wonder if your music has (or had) ReplayGain volume-levelling tags included which your player was reading.

When you re-ripped, the tags may have been removed, giving you a significant volume boost = sounding "better".

Just a thought.

[lazycat]

browellm wrote:

I wonder if your music has (or had) ReplayGain volume-levelling tags included which your player was reading.

When you re-ripped, the tags may have been removed, giving you a significant volume boost = sounding "better".

Just a thought.

good point but nothing was added/used, i'm sure like most people here i want my music unadulterated.
i did a quick sample - no 'processing' was used on the original samples, just a straight rip at max compression. level 8.
it just sounds better - i heard strands in the music i've never heard before - always the sign of an upgrade! IMHO
plus, if it wasn't comprehensively better i wouldn't post.


i'm just intrigued and happy that i'll get a free, if time consuming, upgrade.

[skalpol]

If you send me a few files of old and new rips, I can check if they are data identical.

I can also rename them and send them back so you don't know which is old and which is new, then see if you can identify them.

If you can, we should submit for AES publication.