Yet another headphone thread

Thin_J wrote:

Those look really nice tuffalo. Those earpads are huge. Not quite Sony XB700 huge, but close enough. Do they get hot to wear at all if you have them on for a while?

I'll let you know tomorrow. I'm going to listen to vinyl tonight in my living room while I do some reading for work. I can't wait!

Reposting the photo i took for the new thread page:
IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/diAqul.jpg)

It turns out, listening to music with these headphones is so fun that I can't concentrate on reading, so I figured I'd write out my initial impressions on the AKG K702s while I'm listening to music. Of course, all of my impressions have my particular bias and inexperience behind them, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.

To begin, I'm listening to vinyl using an old Scott (pretty much no-name as far as I can tell) direct drive turntable and an old Carver Magnetic Field Power amplifier (I don't know exactly what that means, but I assume it's a particular way to do a solid state amp). I normally have that hooked up to some old Klipsch floor speakers.

I first listened to Sufjan Steven's Illinois (first side). My first wow moment was initially having the output set to my speakers, but when I changed it to output to the headphones, for a couple seconds, I couldn't tell if the sound was coming from the headphones or the speakers. I had to lift the headphones off my head just to make sure the sound was coming from the headphones. The music felt like it was coming from everywhere. After that, I noticed how easy it is to pick out every instrument and different tones. The sounds all feel like they're coming from slightly different places.

Secondly, it was time to listen to classical music. I chose a pristine Deutsche Grammaphon recording. I know Deutsche Grammaphon is well known for the classical recordings they release, so I figure it would be a good place to start. As a quick aside, it's amazing how pristine most of the classical vinyl I have collected is. I think people just bought it, listened to it once, and then put it away. I have collected massive amounts of classical vinyl for free or next to nothing, and it is mostly in perfect condition. Moving on, it is incredible how awesome this whole “wide soundstage” thing is. I haven't really experienced it before. You can hear a violin over here, a clarinet over there, a french horn way over there, and so on. I know that the main goal of audio equipment is to reproduce the experience of sitting in a concert hall and hearing an orchestra (or other type of group). While I don't quite get the live performance feeling, I feel like I've made it halfway there from where I was. Classical recordings are always difficult to listen to because they just pale in comparison to live performances. I feel like I accomplished quite a bit when I bought these headphones. I can't wait to get a DAC/amp so that I can try listening to digital Classical recordings.

I next listened to the second movement of Beethoven's seventh symphony (same recording as the previous). It's the piece that gets played in many movies. The opening of The Fall uses it, and the ending of The King's Speech uses it, for example. It sounded very epic as it should. That piece gets very huge, and I thought it sounded excellent through the headphones.

Next up was the first side of The Dead Weather's Horehound. The first thing I noticed was the actual tone of the bass in the first song, "60 Feet Tall". I had never noticed how unique it is. The tone is almost like if you pitched a bee's buzz down a few octaves. It's a really... crunchy. Of course, "Cut Like a Buffalo" was awesome to listen to. I do love me some blues rock.

After that, I listened to the first side of the Out of Africa soundtrack by the recently late, great John Barry. There is a beautiful Mozart clarinet concerto in there, but I think the rest is done by John Barry. It's my favorite soundtrack of all time, and I don't think I've listened to any other piece of musical work as many times as I have that soundtrack. I even went so far as to stop watching the movie because it was “ruining” the soundtrack for me. By ruining, I mean I didn't want to associate scenes from the movie with the music. I had already listened to the soundtrack countless times, and it was interfering with the memory associations I had made with the music. Unfortunately, both copies of the vinyl I have are a little scratchy, so there were too many pops and crackles. Still, those damn french horns and every other instrument sound freaking incredible. I can't wait to listen to the CD versions. I've got a live performance of it by the Scottish National Orchestra on CD in addition to the theatrical soundtrack.

Lastly, I listened to the Machinarium soundtrack by Thomas Dvorak. I've listened to it quite a bit with my iPhone and Sennheiser HD 428s, and it sounds great even with that setup. The sounds in that soundtrack are very distinguishable through these headphones. There is a great deal of tonal range and clarity. I think that this soundtrack sounds better through my Klipsch speakers because the speakers are warmer and have more bass. Through the speakers you can feel the music in your chest just a little bit. I can't wait to try the FLAC recording to a DAC to a tube headphone amp to these headphones. That is going to be interesting. I will say that I haven't heard the piece “By the Wall” sound as good as through the setup I used tonight. There is so much tonal subtlety in the piece that it benefited from this particular setup.

There are a couple other things I should note. The build quality is excellent. They are light, but extremely solid. They're even individually numbered which is kinda fun (mine are number 22265 by the way ;)). The fit on these headphones is good. The pressure is very even all around where the headphone pads encounter your head. They don't slip at all. There MAY be a little too much clamping for my taste, although, it hasn't been fatiguing. I haven't experienced any pressure points or hotspots as the distribution is very even. I'm just wondering if I used these to play a game if they would be noticeable after 4 hours. It's not something that is concerning me at this point, I just figured I'd mention it because the thought crossed my mind. Thin_J, I know you mentioned a particular pair of headphones had too much clamping force for you (IIRC, it was a certain pair of Sennheisers), so I thought you might like to know that. The problem is, I don't really have much to compare to unfortunately, so I don't know if it's just me over-thinking things. I'll report back if I experience any fatigue, but I didn't after this fairly long listening session. Also, Thin_J, to answer your question from earlier, they did not get hot to wear at all. My Steelseries gaming headphones would definitely get hot because of the pleather/leather pad covers which would touch a little bit of my ear. These completely surround my ear, and the foam and material used to cover the foam didn't get hot at all. I dig whatever the fabric is much better than a leather/pleather type material. It's sorta like velour. Now I just need a velour “listening suit” to match.

My next step will be to get a DAC/amp (probably that Maverick TubeMagic D1) and JRiver. I'll keep posting my thoughts as I get to know these headphones and this whole new world (Yes, I promise never listen to that song from Aladdin through these headphones :))

[size=8]That turned out to be a really long writeup.[/size]

Hey tuffalo, since you like classical, ever heard any of Hilary Hahn's recordings? She's a fairly amazing violinist that's got some very high quality recordings out. I've been listening to her performance of Bach's violin concertos with the LA Chamber Orchestra off and on for a couple of weeks now

*Also, as a sidenote... prepare yourself. After spending a few weeks with those AKG's the next time somebody hands you a crappy pair of $20 headphpones or earbuds to get you to listen to something the entirety of your time spent listening to them will be filled with thoughts about how awful they sound.

Thin_J, of the headphones you listed a couple of pages back, which one are your favorite closed cans, and which your favorite open?

jonnypolite wrote:

Thin_J, of the headphones you listed a couple of pages back, which one are your favorite closed cans, and which your favorite open?

The only closed set I even talked about was the A900's, which is the set I currently use when I use closed headphones at home. The only other closed sets I've used extensively are Beyer DT-770 80ohm and 250ohm, and the Sennheiser HD 280 Pro.

All those other sets are open. Beyerdynamic calls the DT-990 "Semi-Open" but that's just marketing babble. They're open.

If you actively want closed headphones there's some other popular sets I would say look into like the Audiotechnica ATH-M50, the Shure SRH840 or 940, the Denon AH-D2000, the Audiotechnica A900 that I have, or the AKG K 272 HD.

The Audiotechnica ATH-M50 is easily the most popular of the entire bunch, but that may be because they're the most budget friendly at around $140. The Shures and the Denons both have a ton of fans too. The A900's and the AKG 272's are harder to find fans of, simply because most people that look at those lineups end up with the open design sets. As a rule, open headphones tend to review better and be a little more versatile for different things.

*Just realized I skipped the open part of your question.

Of the open sets I mentioned that I've used a fair amount or heard some good material through a good setup on, I'm not sure I can give one clear winner. Top three for sound quality for me would go to the Sennheiser HD-600 and the Beyer DT-880 and 990, but the key here is that all three of those headphones sound very different. I think you'll find the most impressions of the HD-600's. They're super, super popular and have been for ages. The HD-600's are very warm sounding and neutral. The DT-880 is super clean and clear, and incredibly accurate.

The 990's are the least accurate of the three, but IMO the most fun to listen to. They emphasize the low end and the highs, and have a very wide soundstage.

Short Answer: If I have to choose my favorites...

Open: Beyerdynamic DT-990
Closed: Audiotechnica A900

But I would caveat that with those are probably not the best starting points. I got to those after owning bunches of other headphones. If I'm being honest, my recommendations would probably be more like:

Open: Sennheiser HD-600 | AKG K702
Closed: Denon AH-D2000 | Audiotechnica ATH-M50

Dependent on budget. I'd recommend different headphones than I've actually kept to own myself simply because those four models are more popular with more people than either of the two I like. I'm not in the majority with those favorites.

Thin_J wrote:

Hey tuffalo, since you like classical, ever heard any of Hilary Hahn's recordings? She's a fairly amazing violinist that's got some very high quality recordings out. I've been listening to her performance of Bach's violin concertos with the LA Chamber Orchestra off and on for a couple of weeks now

*Also, as a sidenote... prepare yourself. After spending a few weeks with those AKG's the next time somebody hands you a crappy pair of $20 headphpones or earbuds to get you to listen to something the entirety of your time spent listening to them will be filled with thoughts about how awful they sound.

I will put that Hilary Hahn on my list. As to listening to cheap headphones, I'm just going to refuse in the future. It's hard enough for me to listen to my iPhone with anything less than my HD 428s as it is.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

I got the AKG K702s today. They are beautiful and comfortable.

Those are some comfy looking headphones!

I bought a pair of Sennheiser HD 600's years ago (before they even made the 650's I think) and I've always loved how comfortable they are. I don't end up using headphones unless they are comfortable, so comfort becomes as important as the sound quality.

Has any bought classical music off of linnrecords.com? It's interesting what they're doing. Probably somewhat pointless, but it's pretty interesting that they have Studio Master FLAC 24bit 192kHz recordings as an option. Are there any other websites doing that sort of thing?

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

Has any bought classical music off of linnrecords.com? It's interesting what they're doing. Probably somewhat pointless, but it's pretty interesting that they have Studio Master FLAC 24bit 192kHz recordings as an option. Are there any other websites doing that sort of thing?

HDTracks.com also does it. I've never bought any of them though.

Thin_J wrote:
tuffalobuffalo wrote:

Has any bought classical music off of linnrecords.com? It's interesting what they're doing. Probably somewhat pointless, but it's pretty interesting that they have Studio Master FLAC 24bit 192kHz recordings as an option. Are there any other websites doing that sort of thing?

HDTracks.com also does it. I've never bought any of them though.

I did a little research, and from what I can tell, it's not going to be worth the trouble worrying about. CD quality 16 bit 44.1 kHz recordings should be enough. From what I can tell, it's more important to have a good DAC. I think I will do a little more reading just to make sure and for fun.

I went and collected all of my CDs to start the process of re-ripping them to lossless. I'm extremely happy that I found some I wasn't sure I had. I have Europa Galante's Vivaldi Concertos (it's basically the Four Seasons and many of Vivaldi's other violin concertos on crack). After listening to many recordings of The Four Seasons, I heard that version on a classical radio station, and it completely blew my mind. They play from a version of the composition that comes before The Four Seasons was published. It allows for much more liberal interpretations of tempo and for improvisation. I actually saw the Portland Baroque Orchestra play The Four Seasons, and they did a similar thing. It's the rock 'n roll of baroque classical music. I also found that I have both the theatrical and live soundtracks of Out of Africa (I thought I lost both of them). Hurray!

So, I had a craving to listen to Mozart's Piano Concerto #23, 2nd Movement today and found that I have the whole collection of Mozart's Piano Concertos on vinyl (huge boxed set). That particular piece gets used a lot in movies for good reason. They use it in a scene of Terrence Mallick's The New World. While the recording that I have on vinyl is in good condition, I've come to a decision. I don't like listening to classical music on vinyl with these headphones. It's too easy to pick out the crackles and pops which is way too distracting. I DO like listening to classical vinyl with my speakers because it hides those pops enough with the warmer sound.

Here's a question that I haven't seen exactly answered yet. If I play a blu-ray on my computer, say using JRiver, that has a DTS-HD audio track with the maximum supported 24 bit, 192 kHz sampling rate, is there a reasonably priced DAC that will take advantage of that? The Maverick TubeMagic D1s and D2s will "only" handle 24bit / 96 kHz. How would a DAC like that down convert a 24 bit / 192 kHz audio track? I'm not really sure how that works. I realize that most of the extra information in a 24 bit / 192 kHz audio track is inaudible to most people, but I'm mostly wondering/concerned about the conversion process.

And yeah, here's that beautiful scene in The New World for good measure:

Here's a list i've been looking at, the Cambridge DAC generates good reviews.

jonnypolite wrote:

Here's a list i've been looking at, the Cambridge DAC generates good reviews.

Thanks for that! I hadn't seen that writeup. I'm going to look into that Cambridge one. I instantly notice the 24 bit / 192 kHz sampling rate (although I don't know about the whole upsampling thing).

Edit: By the way, jonnypolite, we should do a meetup sometime next year when we both amass some equipment so we can compare and contrast stuff. Heheh... just don't buy the AKG K702s.

I couldn't resist trying the AKG K702s with my computer's onboard sound. It can hardly power them with everything at 100% (even though the K702s aren't particularly low impedance), but I can already hear f'n incredible things. I started listening to the Pride & Prejudice soundtrack by Jean-Yves Thibaudet (just ripped the CD into a lossless format ;)). The clarity is ridiculous. I can't wait to get a proper DAC and headphone amp.

Edit: I then listened to the lossless rip I just made of the Amélie soundtrack. It sounds better than I could have imagined. It definitely makes up for Yann Tierson not playing any pieces from Amélie in person when I saw him live this year (which was totally okay because the show was excellent). You can hear the mechanical actions of the accordion very distinctly on songs that use it. It's just really cool.

I did a little research, and from what I can tell, it's not going to be worth the trouble worrying about. CD quality 16 bit 44.1 kHz recordings should be enough. From what I can tell, it's more important to have a good DAC. I think I will do a little more reading just to make sure and for fun.

Ok, here's some actual hard mathematical knowledge you can take to the bank.

Sampling rate only matters for how high a frequency can be represented digitally. Any given sampling frequency can represent sound frequencies of half that rate. That is, a 44100Hz sampling rate can represent up to 22050 Hz sounds. And it can do this perfectly. If you sample a given sound that has no harmonics higher than 22050Hz, the output waveforms will be precisely the same when sampled at 44.1K, 48K, 96K, and 192K. There is absolutely NO difference. This is hard mathematical truth. The output waveforms will be exactly identical. Bigger numbers are not better.

This means sampling rate almost never matters. 44,100Hz is good enough. It doesn't need to go higher for about 99.9% of the human population. And, as someone who once could hear into the 26Khz range (normal human limits are about 20K), let me assure you that there isn't much musical information up there. All the sounds I ever heard up that high, when my ears still worked that well, were unpleasant.

That said, there is some argument that perhaps sounds over 20K can be heard subconsciously, but unless you're pretty young, that's not going to happen. If you're under 25, then 96Khz recording might be interesting to you, but if you're over 40, there's no conceivable way it could matter.

Ok, so that's sampling rate. Bit depth is more interesting. That determines the difference between 'silence' and 'max output'. A 16-bit CD can theoretically represent 105 decibels of sound pressure at maximum volume while maintaining a 0db noise floor. In actual practice, of course, most modern CDs suffer from the 'loudness wars', where everything is mixed to clipping in the top 5db or so. The signal/noise ratio is mostly useless on a CD, and on almost all commercial music, because recording engineers don't use any of it.

This is, as an aside, why vinyl can sound better than a CD. The medium itself is grossly inferior, terribly noisy. But the recording engineers HAVE TO do a proper mix, because if they tried the same kind of crap on a record that they pull with digital mixes on a CD, the needle would jump right out of the groove. You're getting a so-so rendition of a great mix, and that can often beat a fantastic rendition of a lousy mix. Vinyl can't be abused like CDs can, and that's why records can sound better.

So, anyway, back to bit depth. For playback, there's no reason to exceed 16 bits in essentially all normal listening environments. However, it's very useful to do digital mixing at higher bit depths, because there are math errors that accumulate as you add and subtract tracks. If you're mixing at 24 bits, those errors stay down in the bottom 2 or 3 bits, and when you resample your final output to 16 bits, the tracks come out perfect.

(It's also worth pointing out that the very best resolution we can get with ADCs right now is 19 or 20 bits, so the extra bits are simply wasted space. We don't have any sampling gear that will provide a true 24 bits of resolution anyway.)

So, this is the upshot: CDs are perfect. They solved the problem so incredibly well that, at least for stereo music, it will never need to be solved again. There is nothing to be gained in a 24 bit/96Khz environment. Literally nothing. 24 bits is useful for mixing, and 96Khz can be used to represent treble frequencies that we can't hear anyway.

All you're getting with those 'high resolution tracks' is a better mix, not better sound. If you resampled those high quality tracks down to 16/44.1, you would absolutely not be able to tell the difference. The format is irrelevant. All you're getting are tracks that aren't mixed for the loudness wars.

If they sold you that same mix in 16/44.1, it would sound exactly the same. But people think big numbers are better, so that's how they market it. It is utter nonsense. You're buying the mix, not the sampling rate.

Oh, and as far as DACs go -- yes, they do matter. My Squeezebox 2 has a little cheapy Burr-Brown DAC in it that sounds absolutely phenomenally good, better than anything else I've ever heard. The Total Bithead has something else that has a tiny bit of harshness to it, it comparison -- it never bothers me, but I prefer the Squeezebox. I don't know why such a cheap part sounds so marvelous in the Squeezebox, but it really does. I really like the Burr-Brown sound, and if you can get DACs that use those chips, even if they're the older and cheaper models, I think you'll like the results.

Thanks for the excellent info Malor! So, to follow that reply up, what is a DAC doing when it upsamples a 16/44.1 track to 24/192? I've always been pretty sure that 16/44.1 is more than enough, but it's all this conversion stuff that has me curious. Is it just adding higher and lower frequencies to the top and bottom of the waveform? That doesn't really seem like a problem. I was looking through that list jonnypolite posted out of curiousity and on that Cambridge DAC they mention "The DacMagic features Adaptive Time Filtering (ATF) asynchronous upsampling which converts 16-24-bit audio with sampling rates between 32kHz and 96kHZ to a 24-bit word length at 96kHz." It sounds like a really bad idea to me, but I don't know anything about it.

I'm still pretty sure I'm going to go with the Maverick Audio stuff because the price is so good. I may do the D2/A1 combo because I could add some bookshelf speakers to the A1 down the line.

When I've been ripping my CDs to Apple Lossless, iTunes has an option for error correction. I'm going to rip quite a few CDs that aren't in the best of condition, so I would like to have a way to be confident the rip is good without having to listen to every recording carefully for issues.

I found this which makes me feel better if it's true:

Audio CDs have error correction codes on the disc, so that errors (like manufacturing defects, scratches, fingerprints, and even some copy protection schemes) can often be played through without corrupting the sound.
When you rip a CD, the computer reads the raw audio data from the disc. Typically, it just reads the audio samples and ignores the error-correction codes, assuming that the data will be good. This means that if there are any errors on the disc, those errors will become defects in the sound (typically heard as pops or clicks.)
When you turn on the "use error correction" feature, iTunes will process the error correcting codes along with the audio samples, using them to correct any errors it finds. If your computer is fast enough (relative to the drive's audio-extraction speed), you won't notice a slowdown (but you may notice an increase in CPU usage.) If the computer is not that fast, using error correction will slow down the ripping.

Doing a little more research, it looks like there are ripping programs which check your rip against an internet database to make sure there aren't errors. Any recommendations on software for Windows 7? It looks like XLD is OSX only. I would like to stick with apple lossless just to make everything compatible with my iPhone.

Edit: It looks like I may be able to do it with foobar and some added components.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

Doing a little more research, it looks like there are ripping programs which check your rip against an internet database to make sure there aren't errors. Any recommendations on software for Windows 7? It looks like XLD is OSX only. I would like to stick with apple lossless just to make everything compatible with my iPhone.

EAC's what I've used for years. And it allows for this I think.

MannishBoy wrote:
tuffalobuffalo wrote:

Doing a little more research, it looks like there are ripping programs which check your rip against an internet database to make sure there aren't errors. Any recommendations on software for Windows 7? It looks like XLD is OSX only. I would like to stick with apple lossless just to make everything compatible with my iPhone.

EAC's what I've used for years. And it allows for this I think.

That's the first one I checked, but I didn't see for sure if it could do Apple Lossless, it does allow for adding a user defined encoder, so I'm going to see if I can make that work.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:
tuffalobuffalo wrote:

Doing a little more research, it looks like there are ripping programs which check your rip against an internet database to make sure there aren't errors. Any recommendations on software for Windows 7? It looks like XLD is OSX only. I would like to stick with apple lossless just to make everything compatible with my iPhone.

EAC's what I've used for years. And it allows for this I think.

That's the first one I checked, but I didn't see for sure if it could do Apple Lossless, it does allow for adding a user defined encoder, so I'm going to see if I can make that work.

Never tried Apple Lossless. FLAC works, though.

MannishBoy wrote:

Never tried Apple Lossless. FLAC works, though.

I found that you can use qaac to do it. There is a detailed description on how to use qaac with EAC. Hopefully, I can get it working okay. This should be a great method for me to rip CDs.

Quick note about something neat. Corsair has been nice enough to send me a pair of their new Vengeance 1500 USB 7.1s as an advance on some keyboards they've been late in getting me review models of. Tossed them on for some Skyrim last night and wow what a difference over stereo X12s. Anyone here use USB surrounds and wanna compare notes?

TheWanderer wrote:

Quick note about something neat. Corsair has been nice enough to send me a pair of their new Vengeance 1500 USB 7.1s as an advance on some keyboards they've been late in getting me review models of. Tossed them on for some Skyrim last night and wow what a difference over stereo X12s. Anyone here use USB surrounds and wanna compare notes?

Just for clarity's sake: the Vengeance headset is a stereo headset with Dolby Headphone built in. They're only "7.1" in that they'll take a 7.1 signal and interpret it through two drivers using Dolby Headphone.

TheWanderer wrote:

Quick note about something neat. Corsair has been nice enough to send me a pair of their new Vengeance 1500 USB 7.1s as an advance on some keyboards they've been late in getting me review models of. Tossed them on for some Skyrim last night and wow what a difference over stereo X12s. Anyone here use USB surrounds and wanna compare notes?

I picked up the HS1's for cheap when they were clearing them out right before the Vengeance announcements.

They sound pretty decent (after boosting the base in the EQ) for what I paid, and Dolby Headphone sounds about as good as it does on my Astro Wireless Mixamp/Razer Carcharias combo.

BF3 is weird sometimes with helicopter sounds getting completely disorienting when overhead. Not sure it's related to the 5.1 simulation or not, as I think I've had the problem with both stereo and Dolby Headphone. But sometimes the helicopters sound like they're coming from a completely different direction than they really are.

Tanks and other ground sounds don't do it to me.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:
jonnypolite wrote:

Here's a list i've been looking at, the Cambridge DAC generates good reviews.

Thanks for that! I hadn't seen that writeup. I'm going to look into that Cambridge one. I instantly notice the 24 bit / 192 kHz sampling rate (although I don't know about the whole upsampling thing).

Edit: By the way, jonnypolite, we should do a meetup sometime next year when we both amass some equipment so we can compare and contrast stuff. Heheh... just don't buy the AKG K702s.

For sure:) I went with the Audio Technica A900s, for use with my computer, i'll probably get a pair of the Beyerdynamic 880s once i get around to building or buying a headphone amp.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

Thanks for the excellent info Malor! So, to follow that reply up, what is a DAC doing when it upsamples a 16/44.1 track to 24/192?

Nothing. It's snake oil. It absolutely cannot produce a BETTER waveform than the original, because that's all the information there is. Any additional detail or treble information is simply gone. If the DAC produces a better waveform after resampling, that means its 44.1Khz hardware is broken. It's not doing what it's supposed to be doing.

I've always been pretty sure that 16/44.1 is more than enough, but it's all this conversion stuff that has me curious. Is it just adding higher and lower frequencies to the top and bottom of the waveform?

It can be, but the original information was lost, and it's just making sh*t up.

Once you have ground the cow to hamburger, you cannot reconstitute the cow.

That doesn't really seem like a problem. I was looking through that list jonnypolite posted out of curiousity and on that Cambridge DAC they mention "The DacMagic features Adaptive Time Filtering (ATF) asynchronous upsampling which converts 16-24-bit audio with sampling rates between 32kHz and 96kHZ to a 24-bit word length at 96kHz." It sounds like a really bad idea to me, but I don't know anything about it.

Well, if it's doing it right, it shouldn't sound any different. It should do precisely nothing. If anything, it should be very, very slightly worse due to resampling error, although a good resampler shouldn't produce any errors you can hear.

When I've been ripping my CDs to Apple Lossless, iTunes has an option for error correction. I'm going to rip quite a few CDs that aren't in the best of condition, so I would like to have a way to be confident the rip is good without having to listen to every recording carefully for issues.

The best way I know is to use EAC with the AccurateRip plugin. After it rips your tracks, it checks with the AccurateRip online database to see if you get the same checksum everyone else did. If you don't, then either you have a bad rip, or a version of the CD that's uncommon or (very very rarely) not in the database at all.

The best lossless format is probably FLAC. It compresses tighter than Apple Lossless (ALAC), and it's supported by just about everything. And it has very good tagging. But you don't need to sweat it too much with lossless formats, because you can freely convert from one to the other without losing anything. It is, after all, lossless -- you get exactly the same data out that you put in, so changing around freely doesn't damage the sound, no matter how often you do it. At most, you might have a little trouble with the tag data, but I don't think that's even an issue anymore.

With the lossy formats, you needed to choose your format carefully, because lossy->lossy conversions damage the sound badly. But with lossless, eh, use anything you like. It'll work out.

Audio CDs have error correction codes on the disc

Again, EAC is absolutely the best software for handling this. If your drive supports the good features for audio extraction, like C2 error correction and lack of caching, EAC can do an incredibly good job of getting a good rip off a scratched CD. To my best knowledge, there is NO software that's better, period.

Edit: It looks like I may be able to do it with foobar and some added components.

Foobar is the Swiss Army knife of audio tools, but I don't use it for ripping. For bulk conversions between formats, it's the best tool going, but EAC is a better ripper. EAC has been under development for a LONG time, and it is VERY VERY good.

Don't forget to drop some money in his tip jar if it does a good job for you. He's put a good decade of his life into that thing, and he's never charged for the software. I try to donate every couple of years.

Before your excellent replies Malor, I was trying EAC w/ qaac at work in my free time and eventually figured out everything even though I was getting some weird problems. I just set it up at home and it works like a dream with no problems as of yet. I absolutely love how it tests everything. I can now rip with CONFIDENCE! Hahaha. I ripped one CD and it worked perfectly and it was actually very quick. Since I managed to get qaac working, I'm going to stick with Apple Lossless for convenience. My music server will transcode ALAC or FLAC so that I can stream it to my phone, so either one is fine. I still have to use iTunes with my phone, so that's really the only reason I'm going with ALAC over FLAC for now. Like you said, I can always convert them if I want to.

Now, I just have to try ripping some CDs that I know caused problems in the past to see what it does.

Scratched CDs will take a long time to rip, and you may or may not get a bit-matched result. If anything can get a good rip out of your hardware, EAC can, but if there's enough damage, or if the CD player isn't very good, there's only so much it can do.

You may be able to fix up the CDs themselves. I had really good luck with the AleraTec disk polisher. I've tried three polishers over the years. The Gamedoctor was absolutely horrible, leaving nasty herringbone patterns on the disks. The Memorex unit worked, but it was extremely, extremely slow. The AleraTec came with two grinding wheels -- one that goes fast, and one that puts a good polish on the CD. So you run the coarse polisher until you've gotten rid of most of the scratches, and then switch to the fine wheel to put a nice mirror polish on the plastic.

If the scratches are deep enough, it'll actually get into the reflective layer and destroy that part of the CD beyond recovery. But I didn't have any CDs that were that bad. Using the combination of EAC, AccurateRip, and the AleraTec polisher, I was able to get bitperfect rips of everything in a very old and not terribly well-maintained collection. Well, there was one exception -- there was one CD that didn't rip right, but that one always gave me trouble. I think it had a manufacturing defect.

That's good info on the disc polishers. I expected to have to try that once I start ripping older things. I'm just happy that EAC will NOT rip the track if there are issues. Then I can go and re-buy the CD or try polishing it. Ripping it in iTunes would give me imperfect rips that I would end up discovering later on. I hate when that happens.

Well, I think it will rip it no matter what, but it'll warn you through AccurateRip which ones aren't good. I suppose that behavior might have changed, but that's how it's worked for a long time.

Malor wrote:

Well, I think it will rip it no matter what, but it'll warn you through AccurateRip which ones aren't good. I suppose that behavior might have changed, but that's how it's worked for a long time.

I have it set to "Skip track extraction on read or sync errors." I was hoping that would keep me from getting bad rips, but it might be applying to something else. I have yet to test it with anything in poor condition. (Edit) At any rate, it will at least tell me that there was a problem if it produces something bad.

Loving the program. If it keeps working well for me, I'll definitely throw a few bucks their way.