Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Which CD or DVD ROM drive is best for high-quality audio ripping?
I produce radio programs on my PC. This involves ripping tracks from
many, many CD's during a session. In order to save wear and tear on my CD burner (a PlexWriter if you must know), I want to get a CD or DVD-ROM drive to rip the discs and leave the burner for burning. I understand however, that many CD/DVD ROM drives which are perfect for data are inadequadate for ripping CDDA (my extraction software says "resync required", which slows ripping down considerably). Which brands and models of drives have people in this forum used successfully for ripping CDDA? Where can you get them? Thanks in advance. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Plextor and Teac are 2 of the best CD ROMs
Paul wrote in message m... I produce radio programs on my PC. This involves ripping tracks from many, many CD's during a session. In order to save wear and tear on my CD burner (a PlexWriter if you must know), I want to get a CD or DVD-ROM drive to rip the discs and leave the burner for burning. I understand however, that many CD/DVD ROM drives which are perfect for data are inadequadate for ripping CDDA (my extraction software says "resync required", which slows ripping down considerably). Which brands and models of drives have people in this forum used successfully for ripping CDDA? Where can you get them? Thanks in advance. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul" wrote in message
m I produce radio programs on my PC. This involves ripping tracks from many, many CD's during a session. In order to save wear and tear on my CD burner (a PlexWriter if you must know), I want to get a CD or DVD-ROM drive to rip the discs and leave the burner for burning. I understand however, that many CD/DVD ROM drives which are perfect for data are inadequadate for ripping CDDA (my extraction software says "resync required", which slows ripping down considerably). Ripping tends to be a slower process. The most important thing is that your rips are error-free. Of course they need to happen in a reasonbly timely fashion. But that will vary, even with the finest drives, depending on the condition of the discs you are using. What kind of accuracy and speeds are you observing? Which brands and models of drives have people in this forum used successfully for ripping CDDA? Where can you get them? I've found that a wide variety of modern drives from quality providers such as LiteOn, Asus, Pioneer, and others do error-free ripping at speeds in the 7X to 15X and higher speeds, which I deem adequate for my purposes. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"Paul" wrote in message m Ripping tends to be a slower process. (snip) What kind of accuracy and speeds are you observing? Usually from 3X to 15X depending upon the media. Commercial CD's tend to zip along faster than CDR's. Unless a disc is really screwed up, I've not seen noticeable errors. Which brands and models of drives have people in this forum used successfully for ripping CDDA? Where can you get them? I've found that a wide variety of modern drives from quality providers such as LiteOn, Asus, Pioneer, and others do error-free ripping at speeds in the 7X to 15X and higher speeds, which I deem adequate for my purposes. So IOW, you believe that any modern CD ROM drive will do? I had "resync" problems with a 3-month-old Samsung CD-ROM drive (or is that the problem right there)? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul" wrote in message
om "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Paul" wrote in message m Ripping tends to be a slower process. (snip) What kind of accuracy and speeds are you observing? Usually from 3X to 15X depending upon the media. Commercial CD's tend to zip along faster than CDR's. That's pretty much typical performance. Unless a disc is really screwed up, I've not seen noticeable errors. A good combination of ripping software and drive should provide zero errors unless a warning or error message is provided. Which brands and models of drives have people in this forum used successfully for ripping CDDA? Where can you get them? I've found that a wide variety of modern drives from quality providers such as LiteOn, Asus, Pioneer, and others do error-free ripping at speeds in the 7X to 15X and higher speeds, which I deem adequate for my purposes. So IOW, you believe that any modern CD ROM drive will do? I wouldn't go quite that far, as I still find some cheapies that aren't very good. Last example was a off-branded drive from a office supply store. I had "resync" problems with a 3-month-old Samsung CD-ROM drive (or is that the problem right there)? What ripping software were you using? The standard tools are CDEX and EAC, both of which are freebies. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Just to add to the discussion. If you're interested acheiving the best
quality, perhaps what might be considered audiophile quality, then the brand and model of drive can make a difference; the speed of recording too. My resources and experience are limited, but I've compared a number of drives that I've owned in the past and present ( Lite On, Sony, Yamaha, Teac, Philips, Asus and Plextor). When I've burned at the slowest speed, usually 3x with Samplitude or EZCDCreator software, it always sounded better than faster speeds if comparing the results with headphones and a good headphone amp. The drives are more or less transparent too. So far the two most transparent and best sounding drives I have are the Plextor and the Yamaha I used to have, but was destroyed by a bad switching supply a couple of months ago. The Philips, the Sony & the Lite On result in a lesser quality, the differences being clearly audible with good headphones. As to whether a given person can hear that difference with their particular loudspeaker & audio chain, or that they even care about such sonic minutia as that existing among the different CDRWs available, that's another matter. I'd say that unless you're doing audiophile stuff, then pretty much any drive is fine, though if quality is a factor, try experimenting with different recording speeds & see what you can get away with. I don't know about the underlying mechanisms, how to account for the differences, but I know they exist because I've heard them. There are probably web sites or others lurking on this newsgroup who could offer some possible explanastions. Good luck! Skler |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Just to add to the discussion. If you're interested acheiving the best
quality, perhaps what might be considered audiophile quality, then the brand and model of drive can make a difference; the speed of recording too. My resources and experience are limited, but I've compared a number of drives that I've owned in the past and present ( Lite On, Sony, Yamaha, Teac, Philips, Asus and Plextor). When I've burned at the slowest speed, usually 3x with Samplitude or EZCDCreator software, it always sounded better than faster speeds if comparing the results with headphones and a good headphone amp. The drives are more or less transparent too. So far the two most transparent and best sounding drives I have are the Plextor and the Yamaha I used to have, but was destroyed by a bad switching supply a couple of months ago. The Philips, the Sony & the Lite On result in a lesser quality, the differences being clearly audible with good headphones. As to whether a given person can hear that difference with their particular loudspeaker & audio chain, or that they even care about such sonic minutia as that existing among the different CDRWs available, that's another matter. I'd say that unless you're doing audiophile stuff, then pretty much any drive is fine, though if quality is a factor, try experimenting with different recording speeds & see what you can get away with. I don't know about the underlying mechanisms, how to account for the differences, but I know they exist because I've heard them. There are probably web sites or others lurking on this newsgroup who could offer some possible explanastions. Good luck! Skler |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:31:16 -0600, "Skler"
wrote: Just to add to the discussion. If you're interested acheiving the best quality, perhaps what might be considered audiophile quality, then the brand and model of drive can make a difference; the speed of recording too. My resources and experience are limited, but I've compared a number of drives that I've owned in the past and present ( Lite On, Sony, Yamaha, Teac, Philips, Asus and Plextor). When I've burned at the slowest speed, usually 3x with Samplitude or EZCDCreator software, it always sounded better than faster speeds if comparing the results with headphones and a good headphone amp. The drives are more or less transparent too. So far the two most transparent and best sounding drives I have are the Plextor and the Yamaha I used to have, but was destroyed by a bad switching supply a couple of months ago. The Philips, the Sony & the Lite On result in a lesser quality, the differences being clearly audible with good headphones. As to whether a given person can hear that difference with their particular loudspeaker & audio chain, or that they even care about such sonic minutia as that existing among the different CDRWs available, that's another matter. I'd say that unless you're doing audiophile stuff, then pretty much any drive is fine, though if quality is a factor, try experimenting with different recording speeds & see what you can get away with. I don't know about the underlying mechanisms, how to account for the differences, but I know they exist because I've heard them. There are probably web sites or others lurking on this newsgroup who could offer some possible explanastions. I think I agree with you, but I'm not absolutely sure I know what you said... The original question was about drives for ripping CDs. I haven't directly compared drives in that situation, but I have definitely compared their S/PDIF digital outputs and found them amazingly different in sound, going into the exact same DAC. My all-time favorite so far is a cheap Memorex IDE CD play-only drive. Its digital out sounds way better than several supposedly fancier brands that cost a _lot_ more. I have no idea if that has any influence on the data available at the IDE connector, though. Does anyone know if S/PDIF out is created from the raw data you get on the IDE port, or are both created from some more primitive form? Comparing analog audio outputs, the Yamaha (4X?) burner I used to have was outstanding compared to any other drive before or since. It put my stereo component CD players to shame! (But even it sounded nowhere near as good as the Memorex S/PDIF run through my ART DI/O.) So are you saying that, using one single known high quality playback drive, you find repeatable differences in sound resulting from the drive used to burn different CDs? Which of course introduces questions of incompatibility between the two particular drives as well as the quality of the burner... Or are you listening to each burn on the same drive that recorded the audio, adding differences in playback quality to the possible differences in recording quality? When you say different recording speeds make a difference, were you listening to the different CDs on the same drive that burned them? So many possible effects! Loren |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:31:16 -0600, "Skler"
wrote: Just to add to the discussion. If you're interested acheiving the best quality, perhaps what might be considered audiophile quality, then the brand and model of drive can make a difference; the speed of recording too. My resources and experience are limited, but I've compared a number of drives that I've owned in the past and present ( Lite On, Sony, Yamaha, Teac, Philips, Asus and Plextor). When I've burned at the slowest speed, usually 3x with Samplitude or EZCDCreator software, it always sounded better than faster speeds if comparing the results with headphones and a good headphone amp. The drives are more or less transparent too. So far the two most transparent and best sounding drives I have are the Plextor and the Yamaha I used to have, but was destroyed by a bad switching supply a couple of months ago. The Philips, the Sony & the Lite On result in a lesser quality, the differences being clearly audible with good headphones. As to whether a given person can hear that difference with their particular loudspeaker & audio chain, or that they even care about such sonic minutia as that existing among the different CDRWs available, that's another matter. I'd say that unless you're doing audiophile stuff, then pretty much any drive is fine, though if quality is a factor, try experimenting with different recording speeds & see what you can get away with. I don't know about the underlying mechanisms, how to account for the differences, but I know they exist because I've heard them. There are probably web sites or others lurking on this newsgroup who could offer some possible explanastions. I think I agree with you, but I'm not absolutely sure I know what you said... The original question was about drives for ripping CDs. I haven't directly compared drives in that situation, but I have definitely compared their S/PDIF digital outputs and found them amazingly different in sound, going into the exact same DAC. My all-time favorite so far is a cheap Memorex IDE CD play-only drive. Its digital out sounds way better than several supposedly fancier brands that cost a _lot_ more. I have no idea if that has any influence on the data available at the IDE connector, though. Does anyone know if S/PDIF out is created from the raw data you get on the IDE port, or are both created from some more primitive form? Comparing analog audio outputs, the Yamaha (4X?) burner I used to have was outstanding compared to any other drive before or since. It put my stereo component CD players to shame! (But even it sounded nowhere near as good as the Memorex S/PDIF run through my ART DI/O.) So are you saying that, using one single known high quality playback drive, you find repeatable differences in sound resulting from the drive used to burn different CDs? Which of course introduces questions of incompatibility between the two particular drives as well as the quality of the burner... Or are you listening to each burn on the same drive that recorded the audio, adding differences in playback quality to the possible differences in recording quality? When you say different recording speeds make a difference, were you listening to the different CDs on the same drive that burned them? So many possible effects! Loren |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Skler" wrote in message
Just to add to the discussion. If you're interested acheiving the best quality, perhaps what might be considered audiophile quality, then the brand and model of drive can make a difference; the speed of recording too. My resources and experience are limited, but I've compared a number of drives that I've owned in the past and present ( Lite On, Sony, Yamaha, Teac, Philips, Asus and Plextor). When I've burned at the slowest speed, usually 3x with Samplitude or EZCDCreator software, it always sounded better than faster speeds if comparing the results with headphones and a good headphone amp. The drives are more or less transparent too. So far the two most transparent and best sounding drives I have are the Plextor and the Yamaha I used to have, but was destroyed by a bad switching supply a couple of months ago. The Philips, the Sony & the Lite On result in a lesser quality, the differences being clearly audible with good headphones. As to whether a given person can hear that difference with their particular loudspeaker & audio chain, or that they even care about such sonic minutia as that existing among the different CDRWs available, that's another matter. I'd say that unless you're doing audiophile stuff, then pretty much any drive is fine, though if quality is a factor, try experimenting with different recording speeds & see what you can get away with. I don't know about the underlying mechanisms, how to account for the differences, but I know they exist because I've heard them. There are probably web sites or others lurking on this newsgroup who could offer some possible explanastions. The explanation is pretty straight-forward. There are some audio CD players that lack the broad media parameter acceptance characteristics of a good modern optical disc player, and are very sensitive to what should be trivial differences among CDs. Burned CDs tend to have far more optical parameter variations (reflectivity, contrast, and reflective surface smoothness, for example) than regular pressed CDs. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Skler" wrote in message
Just to add to the discussion. If you're interested acheiving the best quality, perhaps what might be considered audiophile quality, then the brand and model of drive can make a difference; the speed of recording too. My resources and experience are limited, but I've compared a number of drives that I've owned in the past and present ( Lite On, Sony, Yamaha, Teac, Philips, Asus and Plextor). When I've burned at the slowest speed, usually 3x with Samplitude or EZCDCreator software, it always sounded better than faster speeds if comparing the results with headphones and a good headphone amp. The drives are more or less transparent too. So far the two most transparent and best sounding drives I have are the Plextor and the Yamaha I used to have, but was destroyed by a bad switching supply a couple of months ago. The Philips, the Sony & the Lite On result in a lesser quality, the differences being clearly audible with good headphones. As to whether a given person can hear that difference with their particular loudspeaker & audio chain, or that they even care about such sonic minutia as that existing among the different CDRWs available, that's another matter. I'd say that unless you're doing audiophile stuff, then pretty much any drive is fine, though if quality is a factor, try experimenting with different recording speeds & see what you can get away with. I don't know about the underlying mechanisms, how to account for the differences, but I know they exist because I've heard them. There are probably web sites or others lurking on this newsgroup who could offer some possible explanastions. The explanation is pretty straight-forward. There are some audio CD players that lack the broad media parameter acceptance characteristics of a good modern optical disc player, and are very sensitive to what should be trivial differences among CDs. Burned CDs tend to have far more optical parameter variations (reflectivity, contrast, and reflective surface smoothness, for example) than regular pressed CDs. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"Paul" wrote in message om "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Paul" wrote in message m Which brands and models of drives have people in this forum used successfully for ripping CDDA? Where can you get them? I've found that a wide variety of modern drives from quality providers such as LiteOn, Asus, Pioneer, and others do error-free ripping at speeds in the 7X to 15X and higher speeds, which I deem adequate for my purposes. So IOW, you believe that any modern CD ROM drive will do? I wouldn't go quite that far, as I still find some cheapies that aren't very good. Last example was a off-branded drive from a office supply store. Yeah, I avoid those office store generics myself. I had "resync" problems with a 3-month-old Samsung CD-ROM drive (or is that the problem right there)? What ripping software were you using? The standard tools are CDEX and EAC, both of which are freebies. Hmm, I'll hafta check those software packages out. Where do you get them? I've been using Easy CD Creator 5 on an older machine and Adobe Audition on my newer one. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"Paul" wrote in message om "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Paul" wrote in message m Which brands and models of drives have people in this forum used successfully for ripping CDDA? Where can you get them? I've found that a wide variety of modern drives from quality providers such as LiteOn, Asus, Pioneer, and others do error-free ripping at speeds in the 7X to 15X and higher speeds, which I deem adequate for my purposes. So IOW, you believe that any modern CD ROM drive will do? I wouldn't go quite that far, as I still find some cheapies that aren't very good. Last example was a off-branded drive from a office supply store. Yeah, I avoid those office store generics myself. I had "resync" problems with a 3-month-old Samsung CD-ROM drive (or is that the problem right there)? What ripping software were you using? The standard tools are CDEX and EAC, both of which are freebies. Hmm, I'll hafta check those software packages out. Where do you get them? I've been using Easy CD Creator 5 on an older machine and Adobe Audition on my newer one. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul" wrote in message
om "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Paul" wrote in message om "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Paul" wrote in message m Which brands and models of drives have people in this forum used successfully for ripping CDDA? Where can you get them? I've found that a wide variety of modern drives from quality providers such as LiteOn, Asus, Pioneer, and others do error-free ripping at speeds in the 7X to 15X and higher speeds, which I deem adequate for my purposes. So IOW, you believe that any modern CD ROM drive will do? I wouldn't go quite that far, as I still find some cheapies that aren't very good. Last example was a off-branded drive from a office supply store. Yeah, I avoid those office store generics myself. I had "resync" problems with a 3-month-old Samsung CD-ROM drive (or is that the problem right there)? What ripping software were you using? The standard tools are CDEX and EAC, both of which are freebies. Hmm, I'll hafta check those software packages out. Where do you get them? Search google - the author's web sites are typically at the top of the list. I've been using Easy CD Creator 5 on an older machine Best thing I can say is that EZ 5 was an improvement over EZ 4. and Adobe Audition on my newer one. I use that ripper a fair amount with newer Liteon DVD-R drives. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul" wrote in message
om "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Paul" wrote in message om "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Paul" wrote in message m Which brands and models of drives have people in this forum used successfully for ripping CDDA? Where can you get them? I've found that a wide variety of modern drives from quality providers such as LiteOn, Asus, Pioneer, and others do error-free ripping at speeds in the 7X to 15X and higher speeds, which I deem adequate for my purposes. So IOW, you believe that any modern CD ROM drive will do? I wouldn't go quite that far, as I still find some cheapies that aren't very good. Last example was a off-branded drive from a office supply store. Yeah, I avoid those office store generics myself. I had "resync" problems with a 3-month-old Samsung CD-ROM drive (or is that the problem right there)? What ripping software were you using? The standard tools are CDEX and EAC, both of which are freebies. Hmm, I'll hafta check those software packages out. Where do you get them? Search google - the author's web sites are typically at the top of the list. I've been using Easy CD Creator 5 on an older machine Best thing I can say is that EZ 5 was an improvement over EZ 4. and Adobe Audition on my newer one. I use that ripper a fair amount with newer Liteon DVD-R drives. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... I can unhesitatantly recommend Hewlett-Packard optical disk drives. Glenn D. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... I can unhesitatantly recommend Hewlett-Packard optical disk drives. Glenn D. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On 03/12/2004 00:29:05, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
The explanation is pretty straight-forward. There are some audio CD players that lack the broad media parameter acceptance characteristics of a good modern optical disc player, A digit is a digit, no? So, are you merely saying that some audio CD players are unable to perform 100% error correction on some 'modern' CD-R/RWs? -- m. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Tillman wrote:
So, are you merely saying that some audio CD players are unable to perform 100% error correction on some 'modern' CD-R/RWs? No CD players can perform 100% error correction. In part, this is because the CD player is a streaming device... if there is a transient media error, it can't go back and reread. If you are ripping with a CD-ROM drive, you can go back and reread a block over again if it's not good. But CD players can't do that because they have to work in realtime with minimal buffering. So, there is a lot of interpolation that goes on. If you have a couple hundred uncorrectable errors on a CD, you won't notice the interpolation. But if you have a couple thousand, you may notice some degradation. And that isn't unusual for a CD-R. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin Tillman" wrote in message
On 03/12/2004 00:29:05, "Arny Krueger" wrote: The explanation is pretty straight-forward. There are some audio CD players that lack the broad media parameter acceptance characteristics of a good modern optical disc player, A digit is a digit, no? Once it is properly read... So, are you merely saying that some audio CD players are unable to perform 100% error correction on some 'modern' CD-R/RWs? That would clearly be the case. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On 05/12/2004 14:34:39, wrote:
Martin Tillman wrote: So, are you merely saying that some audio CD players are unable to perform 100% error correction on some 'modern' CD-R/RWs? No CD players can perform 100% error correction. In part, this is because the CD player is a streaming device... if there is a transient media error, it can't go back and reread. That would surely depend on the severity of the error. So, there is a lot of interpolation that goes on. Again, that surely 'depends'. A while ago I ripped a commercial CD using CoolEdit (not EAC, or CDex in paranoia mode) and 'recorded' the same CD into CoolEdit via TOSlink using a mid price CD player of about 15 years vintage. I was extremely surprised (possibly due to ignorance) to find the two files were identical. -- m. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On 06/12/2004 09:25:03, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Martin Tillman" wrote in message So, are you merely saying that some audio CD players are unable to perform 100% error correction on some 'modern' CD-R/RWs? That would clearly be the case. Excellent. Glad to get confirmation neither of us are losing our marbles yet. -- m. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin Tillman" wrote in message
On 06/12/2004 09:25:03, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Martin Tillman" wrote in message So, are you merely saying that some audio CD players are unable to perform 100% error correction on some 'modern' CD-R/RWs? That would clearly be the case. Excellent. Glad to get confirmation neither of us are losing our marbles yet. At least not *those* marbles! ;-) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio |