SACD Ripping using an Oppo or Pioneer? Yes, it's true!

[Dick Darlington]

5 minutes ago, emiliocb said:

The quality rip of all the players is the same? or is there some difference?

 

Any player that can rip will result in the same ones and zeroes. 

[emiliocb]

23 minutes ago, Dick Darlington said:

 

Any player that can rip will result in the same ones and zeroes. 

 

 

?? Therefore, the cheapest is the best

[Phthalocyanine]

38 minutes ago, emiliocb said:

Therefore, the cheapest is the best

On that basis, you cannot beat the Sony models!

 

It must be noted that getting the Sony models to work is slightly more complicated but nothing that a focused user cannot deal with -- as indicated by all the recent successful Sony rippers here.

[emiliocb]

1. Oppo 103 / 103D: firmware BDP10X-77-0827 (Hong Kong) / BDP10X-80-1031 / BDP10X-83-0715. ALL FIRMWARE WORKS (STILL WITH THE LATEST FIRMWARE VERSION)
2. OPPO 105 / 105D: beta firmware BDP10X-83-0715B / beta firmware BDP10X-83-1226B / BDP10X-80-1031 / BDP10XEU-38-1220 (factory firmware) / BDP10X-83-0715. ALL FIRMWARE WORKS (STILL WITH THE LATEST FIRMWARE VERSION).
3. Cambridge Audio Azur 752bd; firmware 752BD-21-1031
4. Cambridge Audio CXU: firmware CXU-07-1031 (download from https://techsupport.cambridgeaudio.com/hc/en-us/articles/207128045-CXU-Firmware-Information
5. Pioneer BDP -lx58/88
6. Pioneer BDP-160: firmware 101/102
7. Pioneer 170: firmware V01.02
8. Pioneer BDP-80FD: Firmware version 1.01
9. Sony BDP-S4100: firmware M15.R.0197. All the most recent firmwares for all the models seem to work
10. Sony BDP-S5100: firmware M15.R.0197. All the most recent firmwares for all the models seem to work
11. Sony BDP-S590: firmware M12.R.0430 / M12.R.0510. All the most recent firmwares for all the models seem to work
12. Sony BDP-S490: firmware M12.R.0510. All the most recent firmwares for all the models seem to work
13. Sony BDP-S390: firmware M11.R.0422. All the most recent firmwares for all the models seem to work
14. Arcam CDS27: firmware 0.83
15. Arcam UDP411 

 

NOTE: Getting the Sony models to work is slightly more complicated but nothing that a focused user cannot deal with -- as indicated by all the recent successful Sony rippers here.

[emiliocb]

29 minutes ago, Phthalocyanine said:

On that basis, you cannot beat the Sony models!

 

It must be noted that getting the Sony models to work is slightly more complicated but nothing that a focused user cannot deal with -- as indicated by all the recent successful Sony rippers here.

 

ok, I put this information in the list.

 

Thanks you very much again. ?

[diecaster]

Okay, there is a reason AccurateRip exists in the CD world. Just because a player can rip does not mean you are assured to get an accurate rip. Without something like an AccurateRip database to compare against, it's pretty clear that a higher quality mechanism will result in better chance to get a bit perfect rip.

[emiliocb]

7 minutes ago, diecaster said:

Okay, there is a reason AccurateRip exists in the CD world. Just because a player can rip does not mean you are assured to get an accurate rip. Without something like an AccurateRip database to compare against, it's pretty clear that a higher quality mechanism will result in better chance to get a bit perfect rip.

 

Then, there are differences between the players …

In your opinion which one or which ones of this list would be the best for rip?

 

Thanks in advance

[Dick Darlington]

1 minute ago, diecaster said:

Okay, there is a reason AccurateRip exists in the CD world. Just because a player can rip does not mean you are assured to get an accurate rip. Without something like an AccurateRip database to compare against, it's pretty clear that a higher quality mechanism will result in better chance to get a bit perfect rip.

 

Someone smarter than me (and there are many) will need to explain the underlying reason, but AFAIK that which is true for Redbook CDs is not the case for SACDs. It is my understanding that SACD rips are bit perfect, ie the checksum is repeatable. At least insofar as full ISO image rips are concerned. 

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, Dick Darlington said:

Someone smarter than me (and there are many) will need to explain the underlying reason, but AFAIK that which is true for Redbook CDs is not the case for SACDs. It is my understanding that SACD rips are bit perfect, ie the checksum is repeatable. At least insofar as full ISO image rips are concerned. 

SACD has more in common with DVD than CD, including the structured filesystem. The main difference is the low-level copy-protection preventing the disc being read by an unauthorised drive. The difficulties affecting CD rips do not apply to SACD. It is of course still possible to suffer an undetected read error, but chance of this is much lower than for CD.

[emiliocb]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

SACD has more in common with DVD than CD, including the structured filesystem. The main difference is the low-level copy-protection preventing the disc being read by an unauthorised drive. The difficulties affecting CD rips do not apply to SACD. It is of course still possible to suffer an undetected read error, but chance of this is much lower than for CD. 

 

And that small possibility of error in the SACD, is even less with one player better than another, or is it a random issue that does not depend on the player?

[wanthalf]

SACDs like BluRays and DVDs use standard filesystems (in this case ISO) with normal files and lots of checksums and mechanisms for error-correction. The files must always be bit-perfect like any other computer files (noone wants to have their text documents or accounting files to change letters and numbers randomly and collecting typos, right?). You just copy the contents like any other computer data files and the filesystem uses auto-correction and it is either OK and readable or seriously broken and unreadable. Just like on any other computer disk.

 

The classical CD audio is different. There are also some checksums for basic auto-correction in the data streams, but not that many. CDs were expected to be read with mistakes, since uninterrupted playback was the priority and the drives did not have so much speed reserve to re-read everything several times at the beginning, they read the CDs often just in real-time speed. So, you need to be very careful to ensure everything has been read correctly and use a really reliable software to rip and verify the contents properly, such as "cdparanoia" in unix-world or "Exact AudioCopy" or similar under Windows.

[emiliocb]

24 minutes ago, wanthalf said:

SACDs like BluRays and DVDs use standard filesystems (in this case ISO) with normal files and lots of checksums and mechanisms for error-correction. The files must always be bit-perfect like any other computer files (noone wants to have their text documents or accounting files to change letters and numbers randomly and collecting typos, right?). You just copy the contents like any other computer data files and the filesystem uses auto-correction and it is either OK and readable or seriously broken and unreadable. Just like on any other computer disk.

 

The classical CD audio is different. There are also some checksums for basic auto-correction in the data streams, but not that many. CDs were expected to be read with mistakes, since uninterrupted playback was the priority and the drives did not have so much speed reserve to re-read everything several times at the beginning, they read the CDs often just in real-time speed. So, you need to be very careful to ensure everything has been read correctly and use a really reliable software to rip and verify the contents properly, such as "cdparanoia" in unix-world or "Exact AudioCopy" or similar under Windows. 

 

Thanks you very much for your information ?

Then, back to .... the cheapest is the best 

[mindset]

47 minutes ago, emiliocb said:

And that small possibility of error in the SACD, is even less with one player better than another, or is it a random issue that does not depend on the player?

The foundation of SACD is DVD which uses much more reliable error detection and correction than those of CD, so chances of getting non-bit perfect rip is "practically" zero "if" ripping succeeds.  In other words, if a disc has uncorrectable defects, that will be much more likely be detected than CDs (without relying on external check sum sources).  Therefore, unless players are messing with the read data, there should not be any difference between players.

 

Some people have mentioned file system in SACD, but the way the album is separated into track is similar to that of Audio CD.  The entire audio of an album is linearly recorded (which is essential for smooth read operation), and the TOC at the beginning of the disc contains pointers (offsets) to tracks.

 

[emiliocb]

3 minutes ago, mindset said:

The foundation of SACD is DVD which uses much more reliable error detection and correction than those of CD, so chances of getting non-bit perfect rip is "practically" zero "if" ripping succeeds.  In other words, if a disc has uncorrectable defects, that will be much more likely be detected than CDs (without relying on external check sum sources).  Therefore, unless players are altering the read data, there should not be any difference between players.

 

Some people have mentioned file system in SACD, but the way the album is separated into track is similar to that of Audio CD.  The entire audio of an album is linearly recorded (which is essential for smooth read operation), and the TOC at the beginning of the disc contains pointers (offsets) to tracks. 

 

 

Thanks you very much mindset ?

[diecaster]

1 hour ago, wanthalf said:

SACDs like BluRays and DVDs use standard filesystems (in this case ISO) with normal files and lots of checksums and mechanisms for error-correction. The files must always be bit-perfect like any other computer files (noone wants to have their text documents or accounting files to change letters and numbers randomly and collecting typos, right?). You just copy the contents like any other computer data files and the filesystem uses auto-correction and it is either OK and readable or seriously broken and unreadable. Just like on any other computer disk.

 

The classical CD audio is different. There are also some checksums for basic auto-correction in the data streams, but not that many. CDs were expected to be read with mistakes, since uninterrupted playback was the priority and the drives did not have so much speed reserve to re-read everything several times at the beginning, they read the CDs often just in real-time speed. So, you need to be very careful to ensure everything has been read correctly and use a really reliable software to rip and verify the contents properly, such as "cdparanoia" in unix-world or "Exact AudioCopy" or similar under Windows.

 

Thanks. I did know that. 

 

I have been thinking about getting some SACDs And I want to use them via Roon. These inexpensive SACD players make that a cost-effective plan! 

[mansr]

12 hours ago, mindset said:

Some people have mentioned file system in SACD, but the way the album is separated into track is similar to that of Audio CD.  The entire audio of an album is linearly recorded (which is essential for smooth read operation), and the TOC at the beginning of the disc contains pointers (offsets) to tracks.

The disc contains a filesystem that is carefully laid out such that the audio data is in one continuous block, same with DVDs. The data on audio CDs is less structured, which is why otherwise identical rips done on different drives can, for instance, have track breaks shifted by some constant amount.

[emiliocb]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

The disc contains a filesystem that is carefully laid out such that the audio data is in one continuous block, same with DVDs. The data on audio CDs is less structured, which is why otherwise identical rips done on different drives can, for instance, have track breaks shifted by some constant amount. 

 

?

[mindset]

5 hours ago, mansr said:

The disc contains a filesystem that is carefully laid out such that the audio data is in one continuous block, same with DVDs. The data on audio CDs is less structured, which is why otherwise identical rips done on different drives can, for instance, have track breaks shifted by some constant amount.

Yes, but this is far from typical "file systems" though its definition is very loose.  There is no concept of files or directories in SACDs while DVDs (even video DVDs) do.  I agree that data on SACDs data is better structured and ripping repeatability is much higher though.

 

[Phthalocyanine]

 

Some but not all SACDs appear to have a conventional UDF 1.02/ISO 9669 hybrid file structure.

Here's one in Isobuster.  You can see folders and files.

[bellhead]

# 3 (Camb. 752BD) works very simply and flawlessly with superb quality with exactly that firmware you list. It's also a very nice player on its own for DVDs, which was my original main use for it (for concert videos mainly; it has very nice audio quality, and this is mainly for regular DVDs, not even blu-rays). It's really worth having even for this.

 

I like it better than the Oppos (I have both) since the Cambridge runs cooler, is more compact and sealed, and is very quiet.

[mindset]

29 minutes ago, Phthalocyanine said:

Some but not all SACDs appear to have a conventional UDF 1.02/ISO 9669 hybrid file structure.

Here's one in Isobuster.  You can see folders and files.

Yes, I have read there are some discs like that, but majority has no file system.  The author of sacd-ripper claims UDF is not part of the SACD specifications:  https://github.com/sacd-ripper/sacd-ripper/wiki/ScarletBook

[Phthalocyanine]

 

23 minutes ago, mindset said:

Yes, I have read there are some discs like that, but majority has no file system.  The author of sacd-ripper claims UDF is not part of the SACD specifications

 

Agreed.  But in my experience maybe 25% do have this file system.  Very prevalent for Philips-issued SACDs.  For example, under the UDF properties tab of this SACD disc the program listed is "Philips DVD Video."  I've never heard an explanation of why some SACDs are like this and others are not.

[mindset]

16 minutes ago, Phthalocyanine said:

Agreed.  But in my experience maybe 25% do have this file system.  Very prevalent for Philips-issued SACDs.  For example, under the UDF properties tab of this SACD disc the program listed is "Philips DVD Video."  I've never heard an explanation of why some SACDs are like this and others are not.

I am also curious about the purpose of UDF in those discs when that is not necessary for SACD players.  Maybe Philips was seeking ways to add SACD playback support on DVD players with minimal software changes or foresaw the days of computer-based audio?  Either way, tons SACDs without UDF were already in the market so neither would be a good reason.

[Lillapepe]

Hi Guys, can somebody post the right autoscript to download so i can rip sacd on oppo 105?

I've been trying for a few days now and it crazy how many times i tried and all i get is the same message, failed to connect...my ip address. i read that the autoscript from sonar does not work but i can't find the other autoscript. maybe is something else that i am doing wrong, who knows.

thank you in advance

[haggis999]

35 minutes ago, Lillapepe said:

Hi Guys, can somebody post the right autoscript to download so i can rip sacd on oppo 105?

I've been trying for a few days now and it crazy how many times i tried and all i get is the same message, failed to connect...my ip address. i read that the autoscript from sonar does not work but i can't find the other autoscript. maybe is something else that i am doing wrong, who knows.

thank you in advance

 

If you check out my Oppo-based ripping procedure, which is linked on the first page of this thread, you will find the download link for the correct version of the autoscript file.