Rip Speeds, why do they vary?

[Cycleman]

Something I don't quite understand, and perhaps you can enlighten me.

 

Most of my music comes from ripped CDs. And I use iTunes to rip, often doing several new CDs I've just gotten from Amazon at the same session.

 

Now, using my Other World Computing LG external disc drive for ripping, some of these new CDs show, in iTunes, ripping speeds of up to 25X the time of each track. But with other CDs, the ripping speeds drop to 5x or so.

 

Now remember, these are all new CDs, clean and unscratched.

 

So, why would there be such differences in ripping speeds, with all other factors being the same?

 

Dave, who says that perhaps rock rips faster than say a classical waltz and thinks that a moderately amusing statement with no basis in reality

[pooger]

I'm hazarding some guesses here... Have you noticed if certain styles of music take longer than others? My theory being that music that is less complex may process easier. (This based on an analogy with photo manipulations.)

 

A second idea is that it could be label, or even pressing plant, related. I get a large variation in my rip times too, but have always put this down to disc read problems, even though I always polish every disc before ripping. Certainly the discs that take longest (and sometimes this is way below real time) have read errors. I use XLD and it reports each problem. In any case, CDs aren't all alike, in terms of the actual pits and plating thickness, etc. So these differences may make some discs much easier to read. I wonder if someone here has noticed any patterns in this?

[Guidof]

I have noticed large random differences. Sometimes even among CDs in the same two-CDs box. Have no idea as to the cause.

[alfe]

Something I don't quite understand, and perhaps you can enlighten me.

 

Most of my music comes from ripped CDs. And I use iTunes to rip, often doing several new CDs I've just gotten from Amazon at the same session.

 

Now, using my Other World Computing LG external disc drive for ripping, some of these new CDs show, in iTunes, ripping speeds of up to 25X the time of each track. But with other CDs, the ripping speeds drop to 5x or so.

 

Now remember, these are all new CDs, clean and unscratched.

 

So, why would there be such differences in ripping speeds, with all other factors being the same?

 

Dave, who says that perhaps rock rips faster than say a classical waltz and thinks that a moderately amusing statement with no basis in reality

 

This is due to the quality of pressing, often when the BLER (block error rate) also called noise is high, the ripping speed drop due to error correction.

The BLER happens mainly when the stamper is over used >30.000 discs, other reasons are mastering issues, polishing of the back side of the stamper etc..

[sandyk]

This is due to the quality of pressing, often when the BLER (block error rate) also called noise is high, the ripping speed drop due to error correction.

The BLER happens mainly when the stamper is over used >30.000 discs, other reasons are mastering issues, polishing of the back side of the stamper etc..

 

Add to that the quality of the reflective layer and possibly the type of polymer used in the disc itself.

I have previously mentioned a couple of pairs of comparison CDs that I made where one was burned to MAM Gold CD-Rs and the other to a brand name CD-R from the supermarket. I rip using EAC at more conservative speeds, but when I re-ripped both sets to ensure that the checksums were still identical, the MAM Gold CD-Rs ripped at consistently twice the speed of the other pair.

 

Alex

[alfe]

Add to that the quality of the reflective layer and possibly the type of polymer used in the disc itself.

I have previously mentioned a couple of pairs of comparison CDs that I made where one was burned to MAM Gold CD-Rs and the other to a brand name CD-R from the supermarket. I rip using EAC at more conservative speeds, but when I re-ripped both sets to ensure that the checksums were still identical, the MAM Gold CD-Rs ripped at consistently twice the speed of the other pair.

 

Alex

 

CD-Rs and CD's are different beast,in the CD the information is moulded in the PC and for CDR you burn a photosensitive dye.

 

For CD-R the quality and the preparation process of the dye, the flatness of the substrate,the stamper groove will make much more difference than using silicon (gold is marketing ¨-)) or aluminium for the reflective layer.

[Allan F]

I'm hazarding some guesses here... Have you noticed if certain styles of music take longer than others? My theory being that music that is less complex may process easier. (This based on an analogy with photo manipulations.)

 

I don't believe that the ripper has any idea or cares about the complexity of the music. It's concern is accurately reading the data from the disc and the quality of the disc may affect its ability to do so.

[sandyk]

CD-Rs and CD's are different beast,in the CD the information is moulded in the PC and for CDR you burn a photosensitive dye.

 

For CD-R the quality and the preparation process of the dye, the flatness of the substrate,the stamper groove will make much more difference than using silicon (gold is marketing ¨-)) or aluminium for the reflective layer.

 

Nevertheless, the readability and ripping speed of a Gold Mobile Fidelity CD is likely to be superior to that of a normal CD pressing with many reporting improved SQ,( and to hell with the checksums that suggest that they should sound identical) from discs like the BluSpec CDs from Sony and other variations from different manufacturers in comparison with a typical RB CD where the pits are more accurately presented by the use of a shorter wavelength Blue Laser at the master creation and the use of optimised polymers in the Blu Spec CDs (and other variations) . These Blu Spec discs also SOUND better when played directly from a typical CD player with fully working error correction ! Sony sells comparison sets comprising of a BluSpec CD and a normal RB CD of exactly the same binary data for this purpose.

[alfe]

Nevertheless, the readability and ripping speed of a Gold Mobile Fidelity CD is likely to be superior to that of a normal CD pressing with many reporting improved SQ,( and to hell with the checksums that suggest that they should sound identical) from discs like the BluSpec CDs from Sony and other variations from different manufacturers in comparison with a typical RB CD where the pits are more accurately presented by the use of a shorter wavelength Blue Laser at the master creation and the use of optimised polymers in the Blu Spec CDs (and other variations) . These Blu Spec discs also SOUND better when played directly from a typical CD player with fully working error correction ! Sony sells comparison sets comprising of a BluSpec CD and a normal RB CD of exactly the same binary data for this purpose.

 

Blu laser at high speed during the mastering process give a better control of the pit depth, that mean less physical jitter and since 2008

majority of the mastering equipment is using solid state blu laser diode the only thing that Sony did is a slight improvement in the writing strategy and a solid marketing campaign.

Ripped CD better than pressed one? you are convinced so no comment.

[sandyk]

Blu laser at high speed during the mastering process give a better control of the pit depth, that mean less physical jitter and since 2008

majority of the mastering equipment is using solid state blu laser diode the only thing that Sony did is a slight improvement in the writing strategy and a solid marketing campaign.

Ripped CD better than pressed one? you are convinced so no comment.

 

 

The majority of members are likely to have many CDs from well before 2008.

Also, the BluSpec CDs and some others also use improved polymer formulations for improved readability. Neither are you likely to convince Barry D. that masters created at high speed result in discs sounding as good as those mastered at real time or a much lower speed than currently used.

BTW, Barry also has some Sony BluSpec comparison sets, yet he can also hear the improvement with the BluSpec version, at least before it is ripped to HDD again. Where did I claim that burned CD-Rs sounded better than the pressed versions ?

Many members will however tell you that a ripped CD played from System Memory has the potential to sound markedly better than the same CD played in most affordable "spinners".

[alfe]

The majority of members are likely to have many CDs from well before 2008.

Also, the BluSpec CDs and some others also use improved polymer formulations for improved readability. Neither are you likely to convince Barry D. that masters created at high speed result in discs sounding as good as those mastered at real time or a much lower speed than currently used.

BTW, Barry also has some Sony BluSpec comparison sets, yet he can also hear the improvement with the BluSpec version, at least before it is ripped to HDD again. Where did I claim that burned CD-Rs sounded better than the pressed versions ?

Many members will however tell you that a ripped CD played from System Memory has the potential to sound markedly better than the same CD played in most affordable "spinners".

 

Improved polymer formulations? you mean better refractive index, for single layer this is not a key point as far as your are controlling the birefringence during the moulding process.

If Barry hear the improvement it's only the writing strategy which I mentioned already in an other post and also what you are ready to pay for as I said it also before, and hope that you realise that that price of Bluspec CD is much higher than standard CD.And by the way they are all RB CD's.

[sandyk]

Among the formats currently available in Japan, are Platinum SHM-CD,SHM-SACD,SHM-CD,Blu-spec CD2,Blu-spec CD,HQCD,SACD.

Are you admitting that an improved writing strategy may result in a CD sounding better, despite having identical binary content, than a standard CD ? Although the differences between BluSpec and RB CD comparisons are markedly reduced after being ripped to HDD or USB memory and played from System Memory, unlike Barry, I am still able to hear small improvements in favour of the BluSpec version when both are saved to HDD and played from System Memory.

The comparison CDs burned to Mam Gold CD-Rs that I sent Barry actually mainly used tracks from Sony BluSpec comparison sets. Both versions were burned sequentially to the same CD-R ! Basically, the BluSpec tracks were ripped using an internal LG BR writer powered supplied via a modified John Linsley Hood designed PSU Add-on with a very low noise level, and the RB CD versions were ripped using an external portable USB powered writer. They were then ripped back to HDD to verify that the check sums were still the same.

 

As Ripley would say ......

 

and hope that you realise that that price of Bluspec CD is much higher than standard CD.And by the way they are all RB CD's.

 

Sure do !

[alfe]

Among the formats currently available in Japan, are Platinum SHM-CD,SHM-SACD,SHM-CD,Blu-spec CD2,Blu-spec CD,HQCD,SACD.

Are you admitting that an improved writing strategy may result in a CD sounding better, despite having identical binary content, than a standard CD ? Although the differences between BluSpec and RB CD comparisons are markedly reduced after being ripped to HDD or USB memory and played from System Memory, unlike Barry, I am still able to hear small improvements in favour of the BluSpec version when both are saved to HDD and played from System Memory.

The comparison CDs burned to Mam Gold CD-Rs that I sent Barry actually mainly used tracks from Sony BluSpec comparison sets. Both versions were burned sequentially to the same CD-R ! Basically, the BluSpec tracks were ripped using an internal LG BR writer powered supplied via a modified John Linsley Hood designed PSU Add-on with a very low noise level, and the RB CD versions were ripped using an external portable USB powered writer. They were then ripped back to HDD to verify that the check sums were still the same.

 

As Ripley would say ......

 

 

 

Sure do !

 

Alex,

In every post I'm claiming that the SQ of CD is depending of the writing strategy(control of the pit depth, angle of the pit,linear speed,track pitch etc..).

And what I said earlier Bluspec CD is a standard CD that have an improved writing strategy to sound better.

When you read a disc even if you end up with identical binary data the SQ will be better if you use less Reed-Solomon algorithm for error correction.

If I can give you some advises for ripping master CD:

Ripping speed 1X forget about high speed CD-R

Don't read the disc before ripping back to HDD to avoid contamination due to reading laser affecting the dye.

And avoid UV put the disc straight in the box after burning.

Clean the laser head after use.

[sandyk]

Alex,

In every post I'm claiming that the SQ of CD is depending of the writing strategy(control of the pit depth, angle of the pit,linear speed,track pitch etc..).

And what I said earlier Bluspec CD is a standard CD that have an improved writing strategy to sound better.

When you read a disc even if you end up with identical binary data the SQ will be better if you use less Reed-Solomon algorithm for error correction.

If I can give you some advises for ripping master CD:

Ripping speed 1X forget about high speed CD-R

Don't read the disc before ripping back to HDD to avoid contamination due to reading laser affecting the dye.

And avoid UV put the disc straight in the box after burning.

Clean the laser head after use.

 

alfe

I do much of that already. IIRC, EAC won't let me read at 1 x speed, but I use secure mode at a fraction of the ripping speed used by most. With difficult discs some parts may read at speeds as low as 0.1 x so I use an auto cooling down time setting in EAC.

No, I hadn't considered cleaning the Laser Head after each use, only when I notice an unexpected general slowing down of read times that can't be seen by visual checking and cleaning of the CDs. The comparison discs mentioned, ripped at an average of around 3.5 x and the Mam Gold versions ripped at 7 x.

 

Alex

[alfe]

alfe

I do much of that already. IIRC, EAC won't let me read at 1 x speed, but I use secure mode at a fraction of the ripping speed used by most. With difficult discs some parts may read at speeds as low as 0.1 x so I use an auto cooling down time setting in EAC.

No, I hadn't considered cleaning the Laser Head after each use, only when I notice an unexpected general slowing down of read times that can't be seen by visual checking and cleaning of the CDs. The comparison discs mentioned, ripped at an average of around 3.5 x and the Mam Gold versions ripped at 7 x.

 

Alex

 

Alex,

As I know that you like high resolution,you can process yourself SRC by using this: Sonic Studio Professional Audio For Mastering And Restoration Systems

You have a trial version if you are a mac user.

[sandyk]

Alex,

As I know that you like high resolution,you can process yourself SRC by using this: Sonic Studio Professional Audio For Mastering And Restoration Systems

You have a trial version if you are a mac user.

 

Unfortunately, I use Windows 8.1

Incidentally, I am mystified as to why so many don't think that a highly stable low impedance power supply for the optical device for reading, and especially when writing a disc can't be beneficial. Some external writers use SMPS plugpacks where the +12V 2A and +5V 2A supply is only well regulated on the +5V rail, with the +12V rail often higher than 13V and poorly regulated under load.

[alfe]

Unfortunately, I use Windows 8.1

Incidentally, I am mystified as to why so many don't think that a highly stable low impedance power supply for the optical device for reading, and especially when writing a disc can't be beneficial. Some external writers use SMPS plugpacks where the +12V 2A and +5V 2A supply is only well regulated on the +5V rail, with the +12V rail often higher than 13V and poorly regulated under load.

 

Because every one focus on noise and jitter but actually the main reason why you should use a stable power supply it's the laser, SMPS will vary the intensity of the laser beam which will induce error correction.