Secure (Recover Errors) mode results in choppy audio

[GBrown]

Heh. I never said anyone was deleting threads, nor had I even thought about that. I strictly meant this thread is functionally dead, because it's been pulled off topic by the very phenomenon I didn't want to see happen. I suppose someone could force it back on target. But, it hasn't really happened with other threads I've seen take this same turn.

So getting back on track then, in post *4 below it looks like the issues were resolved in this case by making a change to the drive conditions regarding C2 error pointers. Seems at least one of the drives in use reported that this was supported, but in fact we&*8217;re not. This has been noted in the past, but keep in mind these drives are being optimized for data use, not for us 0.1% audio users.

The benefit of using dbPoweramp in this case is pretty big. Almost all other programs that provide the ability to rip audio CDs simply do not offer these background options for correction. They just rip what they can and don&*8217;t report much other than "Done" when they finish.

[artisan002]

Heh. Yeah. That has been sorted for the most part. And, equally agreed about the myriad drives and their purposes. The Asus one was a purchase under pressure. I trusted a friend (who routinely asserts he knows more about tech) who managed to wreck a $1000+ computer rig, my entire music archive, 6+ years of personal music work (backup drive was in a SATA dock at the time of disaster), and a brand new Pioneer BDR-209DBK. Trust is thoroughly broken now. But, yeah. I'm finally back to sorting my collection and ran into a few quirks. I had hoped the Asus drive would do the job, and it definitely does not. It was $35, so I held out hope more than actually expected great things. And, very little of that is actually surprising to me, just considering the range of prices and capabilities of so many drives that are out there. The legit surprise for me was the fact that the 8KB setting for USB would still apply to a drive running USB 3.1. LOL! Now, when I think about it more, then I know I should have immediately been suspicious about that. After all, just because it's has a USB 3.1 connection does not mean it's using USB 3.1 protocols. There's not even a point to it, given that we can stream a CD on USB 1. It's just somewhat futureproofed this way. In the end, it's just one more case of me trying to do too many things at once with not enough time, and thus not thinking through that last hurdle of logic.

Now, the new point of fascination for me is exactly what pre-emphasis/de-emphasis is doing. I had thought I understood the basic concept. What little I've found indicates that pre-emphasis is a loudness control. I get that. It makes a certain sense, though I don't understand why it's there, which would be legitimately cool to know about. But, in playing with it, I'm very surprised to find that it doesn't seem to be a "broadband" application of loudness/attenuation applied evenly across the entire spectrum. And that makes this even more fascinating to me. But, since I'm still dealing with a lot at once, I've not yet come back around with other samples to reference against. So, it might be as simple and straightforward as I thought. But, that raises new questions because of the one result I've experienced so far. But, I'm also very conscious that it's just the one result so far.

So, anyway, that's where I'm at in all this. I'd love to know more. Because, clearly, what little I've managed to find about it in the past has failed to be helpful.

[GBrown]

Now, the new point of fascination for me is exactly what pre-emphasis/de-emphasis is doing. I had thought I understood the basic concept. What little I've found indicates that pre-emphasis is a loudness control. I get that. It makes a certain sense, though I don't understand why it's there, which would be legitimately cool to know about. But, in playing with it, I'm very surprised to find that it doesn't seem to be a "broadband" application of loudness/attenuation applied evenly across the entire spectrum. And that makes this even more fascinating to me. But, since I'm still dealing with a lot at once, I've not yet come back around with other samples to reference against. So, it might be as simple and straightforward as I thought. But, that raises new questions because of the one result I've experienced so far. But, I'm also very conscious that it's just the one result so far.

Your best bet is to simply rip each disc "as-is" in a lossless format, for a bit-perfect copy. If you have any hardware devices that can decode HDCD, they can get that information from the existing lossless data. Note this is not possible if you rip to a lossy format.

If you are looking to get any perceived improvements from what HDCD may offer without hardware that supports it, you can use the HDCD DSP for this when ripping. However this will mean you do not have a bit-perfect rip of the original CD. For the few discs that actually have HDCD, fewer still properly utilized the enhancement benefits like pre-emphasis. So my personal recommendation is to go without the decoding and keep the rips intact as original. Out of over 2k CDs that I own and have ripped, just 20 are flagged with HDCD.

[GBrown]

I had hoped the Asus drive would do the job, and it definitely does not. It was $35, so I held out hope more than actually expected great things. And, very little of that is actually surprising to me, just considering the range of prices and capabilities of so many drives that are out there. The legit surprise for me was the fact that the 8KB setting for USB would still apply to a drive running USB 3.1. LOL! Now, when I think about it more, then I know I should have immediately been suspicious about that. After all, just because it's has a USB 3.1 connection does not mean it's using USB 3.1 protocols. There's not even a point to it, given that we can stream a CD on USB 1. It's just somewhat futureproofed this way.

With AccurateRip information to confirm a consistent rip with others, the drive itself is now less important than ever. But you will probably find having two or three different brands available might help, as some are better than others at handling different errors and disc issues. I currently have three internal drives, one is an Asus, and two are different models of LG. I can't tell you how many drives I have killed ripping my CD library over the last couple of decades, more than once.

[artisan002]

Your best bet is to simply rip each disc "as-is" in a lossless format, for a bit-perfect copy. If you have any hardware devices that can decode HDCD, they can get that information from the existing lossless data. Note this is not possible if you rip to a lossy format.

If you are looking to get any perceived improvements from what HDCD may offer without hardware that supports it, you can use the HDCD DSP for this when ripping. However this will mean you do not have a bit-perfect rip of the original CD. For the few discs that actually have HDCD, fewer still properly utilized the enhancement benefits like pre-emphasis. So my personal recommendation is to go without the decoding and keep the rips intact as original. Out of over 2k CDs that I own and have ripped, just 20 are flagged with HDCD.

Yeah. I'm ripping two formats at once. The primary of them is lossless. I thought I covered that earlier, but don't remember now (and should have been asleep hours ago). I've noticed the disparity with HDCD implementation. I personally thought the format was pretty cool; ironic since I hate 32-bit floating point. Since I learned about the format, I've always wondered why it was such a mess. I actually found occasion to mention it in an AES webinar a year and a half ago, and the lead host actually visibly recoiled at it's mentioning and summed it up as "bit packing." Nevertheless I have two or three HDCDs among the totality of my collection. So, it's largely a non-issue here, just a fun oddity.

But, none of this tells me what pre-emphasis is about or specifically what it's doing. LOL!
Now, I am aware that this has not typically been the point or purpose of this forum, anyway. As has been noted, I'm at least currently past most problems (though I'm sure I'll find something else weird later), and am looking for working knowledge on what pre-emphasis is doing and why it's even a thing. I really didn't think that would be so damned difficult to come by, here. Alas, it's been made apparent that this was my key mistake.

Anyway, yeah. That's pretty much where I'm at. Now, once I have time, I will of course play with normal 16 bit rips with and without de-emphasis. And, while 16 bit doesn't fit my circumstantial needs, it will still be of academic value. And unless someone can cite otherwise, there's no reason to think pre-emphasis (coded into the disc) would be different in the decoding stage of this process in relation to whatever format it's saving to after the fact. Saving-encoding to a higher bit format, ideally, shouldn't matter if pre-emphasis/de-emphasis is a fixed value, as there's no change to decibel values instructed there. Buuut, I also know not to rely on logic like that.

[mville]

And, thus the thread is broken. Good job, kids! You missed the point because you're sure a glossy overview of some math means results are absolute. I imagine the lot of you also think every DAW and music player in production puts out identical sound...

Some poltroon thinks there's a point to doing something I disagree with!?! Even though he hasn't explained his reasoning? Ha! I certainly know better, if I do say so myself. Clearly, he's a fool who doesn't understand math, or what adherence to a topic actually looks like...

Calm down now, there's no need to be rude, this thread isn't dead or broken. Users here, are on the most part friendly and will help you.

But, it is important to point out that what one perceives between their ears is subjective and has nothing to do with the general concepts discussed in these forums e.g. bit-perfect rips using CD Ripper, the redbook audio CD standard and basic concepts of digital audio, maths, DSP etc.

If you like the sound of your upsampled 16-bit, 44.1kHz CD rips, then good for you, that is your prerogative, but it doesn't mean that it is a fact that upsampling = improved audio CD rips.

[artisan002]

LOL! I know that feeling. I have 3 dead optical drives waiting to go to an electronic recycling site. Alas, in my case, I'm really only in a position to use this one known good one from OWC. I've given the fussy Asus drive to my mother to plug into her laptop when she needs it for stuff like MRIs, etc.

[GBrown]

Yeah. I'm ripping two formats at once. The primary of them is lossless. I thought I covered that earlier, but don't remember now (and should have been asleep hours ago). I've noticed the disparity with HDCD implementation. I personally thought the format was pretty cool; ironic since I hate 32-bit floating point. Since I learned about the format, I've always wondered why it was such a mess. I actually found occasion to mention it in an AES webinar a year and a half ago, and the lead host actually visibly recoiled at it's mentioning and summed it up as "bit packing." Nevertheless I have two or three HDCDs among the totality of my collection. So, it's largely a non-issue here, just a fun oddity.

But, none of this tells me what pre-emphasis is about or specifically what it's doing. LOL!
Now, I am aware that this has not typically been the point or purpose of this forum, anyway. As has been noted, I'm at least currently past most problems (though I'm sure I'll find something else weird later), and am looking for working knowledge on what pre-emphasis is doing and why it's even a thing. I really didn't think that would be so damned difficult to come by, here. Alas, it's been made apparent that this was my key mistake.

Anyway, yeah. That's pretty much where I'm at. Now, once I have time, I will of course play with normal 16 bit rips with and without de-emphasis. And, while 16 bit doesn't fit my circumstantial needs, it will still be of academic value. And unless someone can cite otherwise, there's no reason to think pre-emphasis (coded into the disc) would be different in the decoding stage of this process in relation to whatever format it's saving to after the fact. Saving-encoding to a higher bit format, ideally, shouldn't matter if pre-emphasis/de-emphasis is a fixed value, as there's no change to decibel values instructed there. Buuut, I also know not to rely on logic like that.

There is a pretty good summary of the concept and fundamentals of emphasis here.

[artisan002]

There is a pretty good summary of the concept and fundamentals of emphasis here.

Ha! I was hoping to avoid Hydrogen. That was the last place I went for info on it, and it was disappointing. But, that's also been probably 5 or more years ago. I'll have a look when I'm fully awake again. Thanks. ^_^

[artisan002]

Calm down now, there's no need to be rude, this thread isn't dead or broken. Users here, are on the most part friendly and will help you.

But, it is important to point out that what one perceives between their ears is subjective and has nothing to do with the general concepts discussed in these forums e.g. bit-perfect rips using CD Ripper, the redbook audio CD standard and basic concepts of digital audio, maths, DSP etc.

If you like the sound of your upsampled 16-bit, 44.1kHz CD rips, then good for you, that is your prerogative, but it doesn't mean that it is a fact that upsampling = improved audio CD rips.

LOL! Hang on. Rude? You are aware that I didn't start this particular issue. Yes? In fact, I specifically said this issue was to be avoided. As in I. did. not. want. this. It's not even relevant to the stuttering/gating effect I started this thread on, and it also has no bearing on understanding what pre-emphasis is doing at a CD level. I very literally said I didn't want to get into it. Yet, somehow.... So, the choice was made to veer entirely off from the two actual subjects, and insult my choices -- ones you weren't even informed of -- entirely out of hand. But, I guess your own participation in that doesn't qualify as rude? My god, man, you couldn't even be bothered to stay focused on either of the two solitary topics in play! It's like you didn't even read!
There wasn't even an attempt to respect the fact that I stated I had reasons for it, let alone my intention to avoid this specific "debate." It's so bad in here, that I feel a need to be redundant about this fact because nobody has picked up on this detail without overt objection. And now you've moved up to putting words in my mouth about quality when I never said anything about that either. I'm not kidding when I say your ability to follow the conversation at hand is rather bad. You made the personal choice to frame me up as some unaware rube &*8212; over nothing anyone was asking about . Quite literally nobody asked. But you just had to type away. And now you figure you're fit to assess who's rude? Lovely. Well done indeed.

Additionally, it's not like this is a new occurrence in here. I've watched this same disrespect happen to other people with less spine about their situations. It's been bad enough in years past that I felt a need to say something this time, in hopes that I wouldn't have to go through exactly this. But, we can see how well that's worked out, can't we? In fact, I avoid coming on here to ask anything unless I absolutely have to. This is not as friendly a space as you seem to think. But, of course, you also seem to not notice your own conduct; so, there's that. But, I really do avoid this place in general because the odds are so high that someone will find an excuse to attack someone's choices or lack of information. The latter is particularly offensive, considering people come here to resolve that exact problem, not be kept from it. It is truly bewildering to behold how often people ride in and wax autistic about bit depth and sample rate. And every time, it wasn't any more relevant to the thread than it is this time! But, after all this, I guess it's beside the point. It's been made pretty clear that this is just going to happen no matter what. So, we move on... Rather, I was trying to; but you're taking umbrage over my reaction to commentary that was condescending, unhelpful, and irrelevant.

As a reminder: Nobody asked about opinions regarding bit depth or sample rate.

Seriously, if I had been looking for unwarranted, off-topic denigration I would have simply gone over to Reddit. At least then I could find a couple funny memes while there.

[artisan002]

There is a pretty good summary of the concept and fundamentals of emphasis here.

Well, I may be exhausted, but I looked anyway. This is nothing like the page I found however many years ago. No concrete idea on how I missed this, but I'm guessing the search I ran linked to the 'Talk' section rather than this. Either way, thanks. I now have reading to do.

[mville]

This is not as friendly a space as you seem to think...

Well, I disagree.

But, of course, you also seem to not notice your own conduct; so, there's that. But, I really do avoid this place in general because the odds are so high that someone will find an excuse to attack someone's choices or lack of information. The latter is particularly offensive, considering people come here to resolve that exact problem, not be kept from it.

Like I said, calm down, your embarrassing yourself now. As for your paranoia...

[artisan002]

Well, I disagree.



Like I said, calm down, your embarrassing yourself now. As for your paranoia...

Ah! Opinion versus opinion, yet you're already weighing one with favor. And that in combination with the "calm down" bit. You have to know you're even less helpful than before. LOL

[Spoon]

Thread locked, it is going downhill fast...