what application should i use to get out of scopes outs the best audio quality?
i am reffering to wav audio.
or is it better to play straight throgh a cd player deck from outside the pc?
is there a way to rip audio and playback by using ordinary hard discs in a real high end quality?
higest qulity audio listening using scope?
-
chriskorff
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:09 am
You can extract the uncompressed digital audio from a CD using Sony's Soundforge, and probably numerous others, then play that back through Scope. The difference in quality between using that method and playing the CD in a CD player (provided you use the same amp & speakers as you do playing from your PC) will depend on the quallity of Digital-to Analogue Converters in your player. As far as I can tell, Creamware's DACS are very good so I would probably use the first method.
The exception to this would be if you plug your CD player into your computer, and have your amp/speakers connected to the soundcard's output. The reason for this is that you are converting the digital audio (on the CD) to analogue (in your CD' player's converters), then the reverse process happens in your soundcard's DACS. This would certainly result in some degradation of quality, though it would probably be very slight (again, depending on your CD player's DACS).
Hope that helps,
Chris
The exception to this would be if you plug your CD player into your computer, and have your amp/speakers connected to the soundcard's output. The reason for this is that you are converting the digital audio (on the CD) to analogue (in your CD' player's converters), then the reverse process happens in your soundcard's DACS. This would certainly result in some degradation of quality, though it would probably be very slight (again, depending on your CD player's DACS).
Hope that helps,
Chris
well, that's mostly correct, but not the whole story...
the datastream from an audio CD is entirely different from a harddisk based file - it may include (lots of) errors, regardless if it's played back 'the classic' way in a CD player or 'ripped' in a PC drive.
as usual ...it depends.
Not all traditional players are built equal regarding mechanic and error correction
There may be additional 'errors' introduced by the manufacturing process to make high speed copying more difficult - ripping may suffer from this (or not, I rarely do it)
on the classic player the next variables are the quality of the digital filter, the converter itself and the analog parts, including powersupply.
the Scope converters are indeed (for my taste) excellent, but on an audio CD I cannot tell the difference between the Pulsar conversion (player's digital out) and the player's analog out using it's internal converter.
I've tried to detect a difference a couple of times - it's rather easy to test as Pulsar and the CD player (Philips CD 650) are on the same pre-amp (NAD 1020) that drives the monitors.
The Philips player with 'true' 16 bit converters (TDA1541) has a very 'natural' sound, while a Pioneer with 20bit Burr-Browns (another player I rarely use) is overbrite and kind of artificial sounding imho. I can't tell the Philips from Pulsar, but I can tell the Pioneer (at least when A/B ing), it's not a subtle difference.
cheers, Tom
the datastream from an audio CD is entirely different from a harddisk based file - it may include (lots of) errors, regardless if it's played back 'the classic' way in a CD player or 'ripped' in a PC drive.
as usual ...it depends.
Not all traditional players are built equal regarding mechanic and error correction
There may be additional 'errors' introduced by the manufacturing process to make high speed copying more difficult - ripping may suffer from this (or not, I rarely do it)
on the classic player the next variables are the quality of the digital filter, the converter itself and the analog parts, including powersupply.
the Scope converters are indeed (for my taste) excellent, but on an audio CD I cannot tell the difference between the Pulsar conversion (player's digital out) and the player's analog out using it's internal converter.
I've tried to detect a difference a couple of times - it's rather easy to test as Pulsar and the CD player (Philips CD 650) are on the same pre-amp (NAD 1020) that drives the monitors.
The Philips player with 'true' 16 bit converters (TDA1541) has a very 'natural' sound, while a Pioneer with 20bit Burr-Browns (another player I rarely use) is overbrite and kind of artificial sounding imho. I can't tell the Philips from Pulsar, but I can tell the Pioneer (at least when A/B ing), it's not a subtle difference.
cheers, Tom
duh - all rubbish - I should delete my nonsense from this thread...
just had my personal revelation about 'hot' mixes, made by Timbaland in this particular case - probably in a million $ studio... or do they fake that as well and do it with just a notebook and Cubase in the bedroom ?
anyway, it was my wife ringing the alarm...
normally immune to any 'audiophile' discussion and a confessing 'I neither do care, nor can (or will) I tell the difference', she comes in and asks if she can play a CD on my player '... something wrong with the disk, or with the player - sounds terrible...
ok, I (first) have a listen on the home entertainment system (which has a 2nd laser for audio CD, so it performs rather well) - in fact, the upfront vocals 'straight in your face' like sandpaper on trashcan tin, plus a big boomy bass (that my monitors will never be able to reproduce).
with the fresh impression over to my room, disk into the Philips, slightly more balanced, but same vocals that make your neck hairs stand up, though not for pleasant sensations...
well, it's an old player, one never knows - so the disk was passed on to the VLC media player via the Plextor combi - same result, less quality by AC97 onboard
Ripped the track, put it on USB stick and copied to the Pulsar box, played back by TripleDat, better sound overall, but same harshness
of course, a look at the waveform reveals what's going on, it's hotter than hot - and it simply sounds like shit.
however expensive the production was
didn't know (until now) that 'radio edit' means the 'over the to' processing is actually pressed on disk.
so what, if Timbaland can do it, so can you... don't bother about levels or a few deci-dBs, give it a good push right from your heart
cheers, Tom
just had my personal revelation about 'hot' mixes, made by Timbaland in this particular case - probably in a million $ studio... or do they fake that as well and do it with just a notebook and Cubase in the bedroom ?
anyway, it was my wife ringing the alarm...
normally immune to any 'audiophile' discussion and a confessing 'I neither do care, nor can (or will) I tell the difference', she comes in and asks if she can play a CD on my player '... something wrong with the disk, or with the player - sounds terrible...
ok, I (first) have a listen on the home entertainment system (which has a 2nd laser for audio CD, so it performs rather well) - in fact, the upfront vocals 'straight in your face' like sandpaper on trashcan tin, plus a big boomy bass (that my monitors will never be able to reproduce).
with the fresh impression over to my room, disk into the Philips, slightly more balanced, but same vocals that make your neck hairs stand up, though not for pleasant sensations...
well, it's an old player, one never knows - so the disk was passed on to the VLC media player via the Plextor combi - same result, less quality by AC97 onboard
Ripped the track, put it on USB stick and copied to the Pulsar box, played back by TripleDat, better sound overall, but same harshness
of course, a look at the waveform reveals what's going on, it's hotter than hot - and it simply sounds like shit.
however expensive the production was
didn't know (until now) that 'radio edit' means the 'over the to' processing is actually pressed on disk.
so what, if Timbaland can do it, so can you... don't bother about levels or a few deci-dBs, give it a good push right from your heart
cheers, Tom
sorry, that's my Scope box of course, I have the older one when things were named Pulsar... 
player was TripleDat, it was a ripped CD track anyway, so few bit concerns...
the sh*t was with absolute certainity (intended) in the production, because the next (non-radio-edit) mix didn't have the same harshness.
if my wife can hear it ... and it makes her move to the next player, then you can bet there is something wrong
... of course it's cool because it was by Timbaland, bla, bla ...
you can spare a lot of time worrying, just do your thing, what soundquality ? naahh, what's that anyway ? ... it's cool the way it is, that is my sh*t man, yo
cheers, Tom
learned a lot about attitude this evening...
player was TripleDat, it was a ripped CD track anyway, so few bit concerns...
the sh*t was with absolute certainity (intended) in the production, because the next (non-radio-edit) mix didn't have the same harshness.
if my wife can hear it ... and it makes her move to the next player, then you can bet there is something wrong
... of course it's cool because it was by Timbaland, bla, bla ...
you can spare a lot of time worrying, just do your thing, what soundquality ? naahh, what's that anyway ? ... it's cool the way it is, that is my sh*t man, yo
cheers, Tom
learned a lot about attitude this evening...
Arcadios, looking at photos of your room, i'd say that you should stop putting money into gear and start putting it into the room. your room and mix position are more important than a specific speaker or whatnot. how can you even hear the difference between really good and great if the room's acoustics mask everything?
