CD Ripper Ref v15

[Ol'Steve]

I would highly recommend to anyone running CD Riipper v14.4 or lower to spend the few $$ to upgrade
to v15. I can't put my finger on why I'm enjoying it so much . The latest version (for lack of a more technical description) appears to work more effortlessly from a seemingly more "powerful"decoding engine !

I'm pretty certain that I am going to re-rip 95% of everything I've rip so far.(& not because they are'nt
very nice rips already) I trash average "CD quality' sounding rips immediately ... The new rips I've done
are superb

The only downside to things, is that I'll really be procrastinating about getting other things done now. Even the Covet Art seems a bit higher rez.

[garym]

Re: CD Ripper Ref v15

I would highly recommend to anyone running CD Riipper v14.4 or lower to spend the few $$ to upgrade
to v15. I can't put my finger on why I'm enjoying it so much . The latest version (for lack of a more technical description) appears to work more effortlessly from a seemingly more "powerful"decoding engine !

I'm pretty certain that I am going to re-rip 95% of everything I've rip so far.(& not because they are'nt
very nice rips already) I trash average "CD quality' sounding rips immediately ... The new rips I've done
are superb

The only downside to things, is that I'll really be procrastinating about getting other things done now.

But if the prior rips are bit-perfect as reported by ACCURATERIP, they can't get any "better". Bit-perfect is bit-perfect. (p.s. I upgraded too, but I wouldn't rerip my old CDs unless I had a few that I'd never been able to get a match on).

[Ol'Steve]

Re: CD Ripper Ref v15

But if the prior rips are bit-perfect as reported by ACCURATERIP, they can't get any "better". Bit-perfect is bit-perfect. (p.s. I upgraded too, but I wouldn't rerip my old CDs unless I had a few that I'd never been able to get a match on).

& this is why I hate to show any enthusiasm . Undoubtably an objectivist will "pop up" & spout the bit perfect theory

I don't have the scientific apparatus (Nor the inclination) to measure things that I find sound to be incrementally more
refined than they did as a whole previously.

Everyone is free to believe & do as they like. I intend to do just that.

One more thing , maybe some of us can hear in "micro nano bits" so " bit perfect" just won't cut it for
us. (Go with humor, if you're ill equiped to offer scientific resolve)

[Ol'Steve]

Re: CD Ripper Ref v15

Oops, my bad... I added some DSP effects this time . I increased the Bit depth to 24 Bits fixed. For some reason
the DSP engine in this version is quite a bit more "seamless" sounding than in previous versions.

In other versions the effect seems to leave a slight "echoey"sound. In 15 "depth" is a pretty good description of what
you appear to hearing more of. It sounds much closer in nature to what Analog sounds like.

I think that a 24bit depth for 44.1khz sampled files works pretty well as at 16bits the attack & decay of notes is too
pronounced. I don't think 24bits is enough for 96khz or higher. I don't care for the "ringing" I hear in the upper frequencies.

As far as "bit perfect" is concerned none of the model standards are actually sufficient let alone perfect. I don't know
that we should be that concerned about matching a standard that does'nt serve the music that well.

We are stil paying for the fact that Digital Designers brought,Digital to market before it was able to reproduce musical fidelity at least as well as Analog had been able to before it.

16b/44.1khz, 24b/96khz, 24b/192k .... They just don't work that well ...others I don't know maybe ,maybe not. The bit/sample rates should have been a sliding scale adjustable parameter from the start.

[garym]

Re: CD Ripper Ref v15

oh my. No offense but your comments indicate that you are completely confused about how digital music works. I'd try to explain some of these things but I can see that you are not likely susceptible to arguments based on science and engineering and prefer a certain amount of myth and voodoo. Well, that's OK....have fun..it is just a hobby after all.

p.s. I guess you're not really sure the earth is *not* flat.:smile2:

[Khaos_Dj]

Re: CD Ripper Ref v15

16b/44.1khz, 24b/96khz, 24b/192k .... They just don't work that well ...

wtf did I just read? lol

Not trying to troll here, but I do think OP needs to do a bit more research. Plenty of reading material on the Illustrate page to start with.

On a side note, if every CD Ripper release made "better" versions of each CD ripped (clean, secure rip with no DSP or alterations of any kind to the songs), then it would be pointless to rip today because according to what OP stated release 16 will sound better, which is obviously wrong.

[Ol'Steve]

Re: CD Ripper Ref v15

Well, who knows maybe by release 30 we won't even have to rip the CDs anymore. Everything will be processed
by "intense thought processing. The license to purchase the "Psychic Tranfer Program" will be outrageously expensive
unfortunately.

The 16/44, 24/96... OK I stated that incorrectly , of course they work (pleeaz don make me reserch) just not in terms of
the close fidelity to the sound of music being played. Analog (even with it's flaws) worked better FOR ME.

Years ago I used EAC for my rips. After seeing all the raves from people using dBPa I decided to see for myself. The
comparison is not even close as far as I'm concerned.

I was going to say more about how I feel about bit perfect ,but I honestly don't care about it that much. Do me a favor
& at least try to refrain from some of the condescending remarks. Not mentioning some bit of information does'nt necessarily mean you're not aware of that information, that's a pretty broad assumption to make

Hey, have a great day !