Jump to content
IGNORED

3000 CD's To Rip - Why Not Just Record Them All To DSD With This Instead?


Recommended Posts

The prevailing opinion is that converting existing music to DSD is an improvement. Since I have 3000 cd's that I need to rip to a NAS I am about to purchase, wouldn't it make sense to buy this DSD recorder and just record and convert all of them to DSD for optimal quality? And it's on sale too!

 

 

TASCAM DA-3000 | Sweetwater.com

 

And a review:

 

Everything Audio Network: Home Recording Review/BenchTest!TASCAM DA-3000 PCM/DSD Recorder:Perfect For Studio Pros And Audiophiles

 

 

JC

Link to comment

This unit records in DSD. Therefore, I am assuming that whatever signal is fed to it is recorded in DSD. Wouldn't it simply be possible to connect it to a cd deck I have with a digital out, and have it record the cd's output to DSD?

 

Why would this work any differently than the current setup I have used, where I have a cd player connected digitally to a professional cd recorder to make copies of my cd's for use when travelling, going to audio shows and demoing things, etc.?

 

JC

Link to comment
This unit records in DSD. Therefore, I am assuming that whatever signal is fed to it is recorded in DSD. Wouldn't it simply be possible to connect it to a cd deck I have with a digital out, and have it record the cd's output to DSD?

 

Why would this work any differently than the current setup I have used, where I have a cd player connected digitally to a professional cd recorder to make copies of my cd's for use when travelling, going to audio shows and demoing things, etc.?

 

JC

 

the conversion of Redbook to DSD 64, 128, and 256 has very good results but is still very much a work in progress. Big advances have been made in the last 12 months and continue to be made. Conversion on the fly from the original Redbook has the following advantages

- the software is getting better all the time.

- The modulator used in the conversion process 5 th order or 7 th order makes a big difference to the sound. Different recording quality / genre tracks work better with different modulators

- DSD 256 sounds better than DSD128 which the DA-3000 can't record or play back in

- the Redbook files take less space, DSD 256 files are huge

 

FLAC is the way to go for ripping, then you are future proof

 

the DA-3000 is a fine machine, but save it for live recordings and doing vinyl transfers

Sound Test, Monaco

Consultant to Sound Galleries Monaco, and Taiko Audio Holland

e-mail [email protected]

Link to comment

You can RIP files to computer in 5 min per CD as WAV or AIFF, then use Korg Audiogate software ver 2.2.1 on Mac to convert that file to DSD as an archive format and or play back via software like J River or Pure Music. You don't gain anything, but you can do it. This would/ should be better than playing CD decoding the digital into analogue and then recording/ transcribing with the Tascam DA-3000 and it will save you $800-1,000 and about 45 minutes per album. Or you can get the Tascam, follow the first process and use the time saved to transcribe LPs, do some live recording or just enjoy some music.

Link to comment
You can RIP files to computer in 5 min per CD as WAV or AIFF, then use Korg Audiogate software ver 2.2.1 on Mac to convert that file to DSD as an archive format and or play back via software like J River or Pure Music. You don't gain anything, but you can do it. This would/ should be better than playing CD decoding the digital into analogue and then recording/ transcribing with the Tascam DA-3000 and it will save you $800-1,000 and about 45 minutes per album. Or you can get the Tascam, follow the first process and use the time saved to transcribe LPs, do some live recording or just enjoy some music.

 

I'm not familiar with the Tascam, but if the recording to DSD is happening in real time, then I would guess the average CD is around 60 minutes long and it would take 3000 hours to do the OP's 3000 CD's, plus time to insert and eject and, if you are not waiting around for the recording to end, there is a good chance it will take longer - since the recording will end and you will not be there on the spot to eject and insert the next disc. If you did this for 40 hours a week it would take around 18-24 months.

 

I have been doing my vinyl ripping project for about 4 years, and I have done close to 9000 records and tapes, all in real time. And with separating and labeling tracks (mine are almost all classical so are easier than pop albums) and running through declicking and decrackling, (running on RX3 Advanced on a separate computer) it takes a very long time.

 

I rip my CD's with dbpoweramp. It takes a few minutes, probably between 5 and 10% of the actual running time of the CD. I use the new uncompressed FLAC. At least for me, I don't worry about the file sizes with 4TB hard drives at $120 at Costco.

 

Larry

Analog-VPIClas3,3DArm,LyraSkala+MiyajimaZeromono,Herron VTPH2APhono,2AmpexATR-102+MerrillTridentMaster TapePreamp  Dig Rip-Pyramix,IzotopeRX3Adv,MykerinosCard,PacificMicrosonicsModel2; Dig Play-Lampi Pacific, mch NADAC, Roon-HQPlayer,Oppo105  Electronics-DoshiPre,CJ MET1mchPre,Cary2A3monoamps Speakers-AvantgardeDuosLR,3SolosC,LR,RR

Other-2x512EngineerMarutaniSymmetrical Power+Cables Music-15KRecs(90%classical),1.7KR2Rtapes,1.5KCD's,500SACDs,50TBripped files

Link to comment

I have purchased the TASCAM DA-3000 and is awaiting final delivery. The use in mind for this machine is to record SACD via the analog outs of the SACD player to initially DSD128, but would also consider DSD64, it's an experiment to consider.

 

As for CD-DSD. The TASCAM can record via the digital out of a CD player direct. It can make separate tracks by detecting the zero output during the track transitions, but I need to check how this works for DSD. If there is any editing involved, the DSD must be changed to PCM, or you spend more $ on one of Tailspin's magic DSD editing DAWs.

 

Eurodriver is correct that many advances have been made in PCM to DSD playback and I feel we have a bit to iron out yet, especially with USB. For transfers from CD, it's quicker to rip to FLAC lossless, but depending on the CD player, let's try a few choice CDs and put it to the test recording from the analog outs. DSD sounds best if it is created from an analog source rather than a PCM train, something doesn't translate too well in the transfer.

 

I have made many CD rips direct to DSD64 using Jriver (which maybe is a doubtful practice, but anyway), it works on some recordings quite well (acoustic for example), but if the recording is a pop/rock with high compression/loudness, meh, the SQ may as well be native PCM.

I should have tried Audiogate 3.0 for CD-DSD conversions , mind, Audiogate 3 will not playback DSD on a non Korg DAC, although it will do the conversions.

AS Profile Equipment List        Say NO to MQA

Link to comment

Yes, simple and straight forward advice.

If I had to rip 3000 CDs, I'd make sure I keep them in an unconverted format (lossless PCM 16/44), in case I change your mind about what sounds best.

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment
The prevailing opinion is that converting existing music to DSD is an improvement. Since I have 3000 cd's that I need to rip to a NAS I am about to purchase, wouldn't it make sense to buy this DSD recorder and just record and convert all of them to DSD for optimal quality? And it's on sale too!

 

 

TASCAM DA-3000 | Sweetwater.com

 

And a review:

 

Everything Audio Network: Home Recording Review/BenchTest!TASCAM DA-3000 PCM/DSD Recorder:Perfect For Studio Pros And Audiophiles

 

 

JC

 

Hi JC,

 

My first question would be exactly where such an opinion prevails? Personally, I take the opposite view. So do the colleagues I've spoken with. I prefer to keep files in their original format, in the case of ripped CDs, that would be a raw PCM format, such as .aif (or, if you don't care about tags staying with the files, .wav).

 

That said, I would suggest that unless you have listened and share the opinion that converting to DSD is an improvement, it might be a good idea to try it out with a few samples before undergoing the task of doing the rest of the 3000. I'd compare those initial samples against some rips to a raw PCM format.

 

As I always say, what is "good", "better" or "best" depends on exactly what one is seeking.

Have fun!

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment

Hi,

 

I have ripped my cd collection in .wav...all 3.000 of them.

I know...nog tags, but after two years of testing what to my ears was the best rip (I tried all formats, all operating system and all programs...well most of them anyway...this was for me the best SQ.

 

I am glad I did this and enjoy my music like never before...

 

Today I have ubuntu Studio 64 bit, HQplayer set at dsd 128, fed to concero hd and so to my system.

I could not have wished for more...

 

My advice would be to rip your collection to .wav...

 

Just my two...

 

Good luck!

Ubuntu Studio 64bit/HQplayer/Concero hd/Altmann BYOB/Philips AD12202 OB

Link to comment
If I had to rip 3000 CDs, I'd make sure I keep them in an unconverted format (lossless PCM 16/44), in case I change your mind about what sounds best.

 

Exactly what I do, and suggest. The native format for music on a CD is 16/44.1PCM. AIFF is an uncompressed container for PCM. So are WAV files, but they lack all the options for Metadata tagging that AIFF provides.

 

RIP CDs to uncompressed AIFF files, paying a lot of attention to getting the metadata right, including embedding the cover art in each track. Then convert a copy to whatever format you wish. Or experiment with on the fly conversion. Lots of fun things to do. :)

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
in case I change your mind about what sounds best.

 

Sorry, I meant to say "my mind" :)

 

Another reason for this is that, these CD rips should be future-proof (you don't want to repeat that tedious task again), and it's not certain that future playback devices will all support DSD. In that case, you would have to convert your DSD files back to PCM again.

Claude

Link to comment

By the way, I'm not sure whether id say converting stuff to DSD improving it is "prevailing opinion". It very much depends on your equipment.

 

So fully agree with my predecessors, get 100% of the information you have right now on your CDs appropriately captured as your Master, then play with it as you like.

 

One more argument: if you ever want to listen to your music on a mobile device from Phone to Car, all support some form of PCM but very few do DSD.

 

Final argument: storage capacity needed. In DSD, your albums will be many times larger, requiring way more storage.

Link to comment
If I had to rip 3000 CDs, I'd make sure I keep them in an unconverted format (lossless PCM 16/44), in case I change your mind about what sounds best.

 

+1.

 

I would think conversion to DSD is best done in the digital domain. Many on this forum have recommended HQPlayer for instance. Anyway, if ripping 3000CDs, I would first do it losslessly and archive the rips with multiple backups before converting them to a different format.

Link to comment

Buy a copy of dBpoweramp, go through the initial configuration to setup your drive (or drives - if you have 3000 discs, purchasing additional drives may be worthwhile) and set it up to eject the CD upon a successful secure or accurate rip.

 

Secure = data from the CD has been copied 1:1 and verified.

Accurate = secure, with additional verification that it matches rips other people have made when compared against an online database

 

Rips may be secure, but not accurate (note: "accurate" refers to the "AccurateRip database" not whether or not the data was copied accurately) when you have a new or rare release, or simply due to regional variations in the disc that you are ripping.

E.g. slightly different tracks or a slightly different track listing.

A secure rip is still a 1:1 copy of what's on your disc, accurate means that your disc also matches other people's results.

 

 

I would strongly recommend ripping to FLAC, since it has internal CRC verifications to ensure the integrity of the file. Few other formats have this additional level of data security.

I think it's crazy to be using "uncompressed" FLAC since the space-saving benefits of FLAC level 8 are roughly 50%, the computational requirements of decoding compressed FLAC are almost nil these days, and because FLAC compression is completely lossless. But if you insist on it, uncompressed FLAC is still better than WAV/AIFF or other formats due to this internal verification.

 

---

 

Conversion during or after ripping is a folly. The CD contains 16-bit, 44.1kHz audio. That is never going to change.

If you either record the output from a CD player with a DSD recorder (which seems insane to me) or convert your lossless 1:1 CD rips to another format like DSD, you will regret it.

 

Perhaps upsampling to 2x DSD sounds amazing on your current system, but in five years you change one component and now DSD might sound worse than the original 16-bit/44.1kHz PCM. Do you think that you will want to go through the process of ripping 3000 discs again five years from now? And it's possible that you will be unable to rip some of your older discs accurately by then. In the last few years, I have noticed that a number of discs in my collection have now become unreadable due to disc rot

 

Upsampling does not make the file better. If upsampling is an improvement in your system, it's specific to that system. Things sound best when I send my DAC a 44.1kHz signal rather than upsampling on the PC. If I upsample, high sample rate PCM sounds better than DSD.

 

And today's upsampling will not be nearly as sophisticated as what is available 5-10 years from now. Upsampling to DSD has only been a thing that people do in the last year or two. If you ripped your CDs five years ago you would probably have upsampled them to 88.2kHz PCM or similar, and by now you probably wish that you had the originals.

 

If you want to take advantage of upsampling, either create duplicate files from your "master" rips that are a 1:1 copy of what's on the disc, or use a player which can upsample to higher PCM rates or to DSD in real-time during playback, rather than having to convert the file.

Link to comment

Perhaps upsampling to 2x DSD sounds amazing on your current system, but in five years you change one component and now DSD might sound worse than the original 16-bit/44.1kHz PCM.

 

I fully agree with your whole post, and this bit made me curious: which DAC do you have that sounds better than if you upsample on the computer (with good-quality upsampling software such as Audirvana I assume)?

Link to comment

I would strongly recommend ripping to FLAC, since it has internal CRC verifications to ensure the integrity of the file. Few other formats have this additional level of data security.

I think it's crazy to be using "uncompressed" FLAC since the space-saving benefits of FLAC level 8 are roughly 50%, the computational requirements of decoding compressed FLAC are almost nil these days, and because FLAC compression is completely lossless. But if you insist on it, uncompressed FLAC is still better than WAV/AIFF or other formats due to this internal verification.

 

If you want to RIP to compressed format, I would use ALAC, since it is completely compatible just about everywhere, and unlike FLAC, is cross platform to Apple applications like iTunes, Amarra, Pure Music, etc.

 

I agree that ripping to "uncompressed FLAC" is a bit of a waste. Sure it is uncompressed, but it can't be read easily by many audiophile playback solutions.

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
If you want to RIP to compressed format, I would use ALAC, since it is completely compatible just about everywhere, and unlike FLAC, is cross platform to Apple applications like iTunes, Amarra, Pure Music, etc.
As I understood it, ALAC lacks the internal checking/verification that FLAC has. The only reason to use it is if you need to use iTunes.

 

If you need to transfer music to an iPod or iOS hardware, I'd perform a one-time conversion creating a duplicate ALAC file to transfer to that device, rather than convert my library from FLAC to ALAC.

 

Perhaps it makes sense to have an ALAC library if you are constantly transferring music to one of these devices. I'd rather not compromise my library's integrity for a little convenience.

 

Batch conversion is trivial with the tools that dBpoweramp provide.

 

I agree that ripping to "uncompressed FLAC" is a bit of a waste. Sure it is uncompressed, but it can't be read easily by many audiophile playback solutions.
Anything "audiophile" should be able to read FLAC. I would certainly use it in preference to uncompressed formats like WAV/AIFF.

 

I fully agree with your whole post, and this bit made me curious: which DAC do you have that sounds better than if you upsample on the computer (with good-quality upsampling software such as Audirvana I assume)?
Benchmark DAC2. I have not heard any improvement converting to DSD. I prefer PCM.

Upconversion is more to do with the filters/internal upsampling quality of your DAC than it is to do with improving the quality of the file.

That's why it is system dependent. If your DAC does a good job with its internal upsampling/filters, there should be no need to upsample it in your player.

Link to comment
As I understood it, ALAC lacks the internal checking/verification that FLAC has. The only reason to use it is if you need to use iTunes.

 

Your understanding is not correct, as ALAC is CRC checked. Also, any player that uses iTunes would be easier to use with ALAC - Amarra, Pure Music, Audirvana+, etc. They might work with FLAC, but it is often a challenge.

 

If you need to transfer music to an iPod or iOS hardware, I'd perform a one-time conversion creating a duplicate ALAC file to transfer to that device, rather than convert my library from FLAC to ALAC.

 

Perhaps it makes sense to have an ALAC library if you are constantly transferring music to one of these devices. I'd rather not compromise my library's integrity for a little convenience.

 

This makes no sense. Your library is just as liable to be damaged in FLAC format as in ALAC, and any damage will be readily noticed. FLAC buys you exactly nothing, except incompatibility with most of the major audiophile players. The ONLY safeguard against damaged files is good backups. Not RAID1 mirroring in a NAS.

 

AIFF or ALAC also removes the need to keep duplicate libraries for the reasons you suggested.

 

Anything "audiophile" should be able to read FLAC. I would certainly use it in preference to uncompressed formats like WAV/AIFF.

 

Benchmark DAC2. I have not heard any improvement converting to DSD. I prefer PCM.

Upconversion is more to do with the filters/internal upsampling quality of your DAC than it is to do with improving the quality of the file.

That's why it is system dependent. If your DAC does a good job with its internal upsampling/filters, there should be no need to upsample it in your player.[/Quote]

 

I see your opinion, but disagree with it. What *should* be and what *is* are often not the same thing. For perfect compatibility over platforms and players, choose a multi-platform format like ALAC, and a multi-platform player, like HQP or JRMC, both of which are perfectly happy running on MacOS, Linux, and Windows, and both of which are quite happy with AIFF, WAV, DSD, ALAC, and FLAC.

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
If you want to RIP to compressed format, I would use ALAC, since it is completely compatible just about everywhere, and unlike FLAC, is cross platform to Apple applications like iTunes, Amarra, Pure Music, etc.

 

I agree that ripping to "uncompressed FLAC" is a bit of a waste. Sure it is uncompressed, but it can't be read easily by many audiophile playback solutions.

 

-Paul

 

I ripped all of my CDs to "lossless uncompressed" FLAC to retain all the metadata, an area where WAV is severely lacking. I avoided ALAC precisely because it is a proprietary Apple format. :) The only audiophile playback solutions that will not play back FLAC are Mac/Apple based.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment

Thanks very much to everyone for offering your perspectives on this. Barry, I especially appreciate your input, given the remarkable background you bring to that commentary. I have had very, very limited exposure to DSD, and I may have to second guess that, as well as the overwhelmingly positive commentary in the majority of the audio rags and media, about DSD, for the same reason. In light of your opinion and those of your colleagues in the recording field, I'll have to very seriously consider DSD as an option, and likely only for later.

 

Interestingly, Dan Wright, of Modwright, whose work in component design, and especially digital component development I greatly respect and admire, seems to be in agreement with you. His new, no holds barred, state of the art Elyse DAC (which a newly wealthy friend was kind enough to gift me with) does not initially even offer DSD. He told me he is waiting to see if it truly has a meaningful impact before considering eventually making it available on the DAC.

 

It seems like the best, and most logical choice, for my needs, is clearly to keep files in their original format, ie; a raw PCM format, with ultimate flexibility and longevity in mind. Is AIFF the best raw optimal pcm format to use? And yes, I would want the metadata, so that eliminates WAV.

 

JC

 

Link to comment
...Is AIFF the best raw optimal pcm format to use?

 

Hi JC,

 

In my opinion, yes.

It is the format in which I do all my recording, mixing (for other folks), and mastering, as well as the format in which I keep everything in my music library.

 

As always, I would suggest doing some comparisons on your own to see if you agree or if you feel differently.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
By the way, I'm not sure whether id say converting stuff to DSD improving it is "prevailing opinion". It very much depends on your equipment.

 

So fully agree with my predecessors, get 100% of the information you have right now on your CDs appropriately captured as your Master, then play with it as you like.

 

One more argument: if you ever want to listen to your music on a mobile device from Phone to Car, all support some form of PCM but very few do DSD.

 

Final argument: storage capacity needed. In DSD, your albums will be many times larger, requiring way more storage.

 

+1. 100% agree with this

 

As TedB used to say "if it's PCM let me hear PCM" "If it's original DSD then let me here DSD."

 

Then sort all the tack formats with something like Audirvana and feed the DSD tracks to a DSD capable DAC and the PCM tracks to a DAC that handles PCM well..> that's why I have still held onto my old Benchmark DAC1.. Cheers.

New simplified setup: STEREO- Primary listening Area: Cullen Circuits Mod ZP90> Benchmark DAC1>RotelRKB250 Power amp>KEF Q Series. Secondary listening areas: 1/ QNAP 119P II(running MinimServer)>UPnP>Linn Majik DSI>Linn Majik 140's. 2/ (Source awaiting)>Invicta DAC>RotelRKB2100 Power amp>Rega's. Tertiary multiroom areas: Same QNAP>SMB>Sonos>Various. MULTICHANNEL- MacMini>A+(Standalone mode)>Exasound e28 >5.1 analog out>Yamaha Avantage Receiver>Pre-outs>Linn Chakra power amps>Linn Katan front and sides. Linn Trikan Centre. Velodyne SPL1000 Ultra

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...