OK, so now I needed to compare the tracks ripped with phil's optimizer installed (and in core mode) against those ripped with a standard OS install. It was quite funny, comparing my scores back against the previous round they are a little higher and to be honest after giving number 1 9/10 it got a bit difficult when it kept getting better!! Randomised the order and subjectively rated them again:Ĥ) 24 bit, 192k Wav - Nicest so far 9.5/10ĥ) 32 bit, 192k Wav - Wonderful, musical, tangible notes - possibly bright but more separate than the last? 9.8/10Ħ) 16 bit, 44.1k FLAC - Ugh!? Flat and lifeless 3-4/10 This time I remembered to do 32-bit at 192k too!
#Best cd ripper for windows 10 flac install#
I re-ripped the CD from windows server 2012 core mode after running the optimiser (I think I needed to leave a couple of things un-optimised for the software to work) if you're grabbing to Wav (I guess it's the same for FLAC but not tried it) Phil's optimiser will install the necessary stuff for kernal streaming which also, incidentally, makes the ripping software work. I then re-optimised my system using Phil's optimizer software. Which do I listen to more? The former, without a doubt. So what.so, I now rip my CDs twice, once to 32bit 192k and again to the standard values. Secondly, there is the possibility that the different files require J River to do slightly different 'work' which impacts upon the CPU usage and ultimately the power draw from the MB power supplies.
Firstly and most probably, there is a distinct possibility that whatever software is doing the upsampling is putting its own fingerprint on the sound. I have no idea but I can postulate a couple of hypothesis. Someone will hopefully come along and tell me what's really happening but it seems to work! or filling in the gaps with a best guess value. What's happening when I upsample? I don't know, I haven't looked at the waveforms but I assume that what is happening is that the ripping software is interpolating.
I clearly heard a difference between uncompressed Flac and 16/44.1 wav and on that basis I will never rip anything I own to FLAC again. The different sound of Flacs against WAVs is pretty well documented and after my listening I think you have to believe the earth is flat to not hear a significant difference between the two. The differences are occurring within the digital domain and according to dBpoweramps post-rip summary when all the bits are exactly the same. I then ran through each one (just the intro initially) and scored them out of 10 - no real 'science' behind the marks, just what I felt sounded 'best' and 'correct'. I then closed the window down so I couldn't see which was which and dragged them randomly around for 30 seconds or so - I had no idea which was which. I imported all tracks into j river 19 and created a playlist with all the tracks. These were ripped on a standard server 1012 install with the gui installed. I digitised copies as follows:Ħ) 16 bit, 44.1k Wav (I accidentally included a second copy of the first track in the playlist) Dur, I hear you cry but my point is that this is even when your starting position is a standard red book CD and you rip it.it will sound different depending upon how you rip it.and the system you rip it on.and how the OS is setup!!įirst, I took a copy of REMs 4-track Collector's Edition CD 'Drive' (1992) because I've used it as a test track for a while now and know how it sounds backwards. I know that this won't be news to many on here and I too had read a few articles and forum posts about it, but I hadn't explored it until now.the sound coming out of the speakers is very clearly affected by the file format, the bit rate and the bit depth of the file that you are playing. I am interested in other people's thoughts on this because once again digital audio has confounded/astounded me.
0 kommentar(er)
