Audiology Thread

[Glathannus]

Sometimes I like to hit the -2 dB switch for the higher frequencies on my studio monitors. Sometimes I cut the low-end off at 80 Hz instead of letting it go down to 37 Hz - depending upon whether I have the house to myself or not.

I only did finer EQ than that when I was using cheap speakers, and then the settings would really just depend on how bad those speakers were.

[TurtleFu]

This has basically turned into a "Help TurtleFu learn how to use computers" thread...

Anyways, what program does everyone use for ripping CDs? I used to use iTunes (the horror!) but then I switced to EAC + LAME, but the file sizes were exactly the same and I couldn't tell any change in quality.
When I ripped my new Kanye West CD, it had clipping and sounded really bad, and it was 320kbps. I tried it twice and still got the same results. Is there a better program I should be using?

Oh, also, I notcied my St. Vincent MP3s that I bought from Amazon ALSO have clipping. Is that part of the mastering or is Amazon's 320kbps MP3s just shitty?

[deadgrandma]

Originally Posted by TurtleFu

This has basically turned into a "Help TurtleFu learn how to use computers" thread...

Anyways, what program does everyone use for ripping CDs? I used to use iTunes (the horror!) but then I switced to EAC + LAME, but the file sizes were exactly the same and I couldn't tell any change in quality.
When I ripped my new Kanye West CD, it had clipping and sounded really bad, and it was 320kbps. I tried it twice and still got the same results. Is there a better program I should be using?

Oh, also, I notcied my St. Vincent MP3s that I bought from Amazon ALSO have clipping. Is that part of the mastering or is Amazon's 320kbps MP3s just shitty?

Id say its the CD if you're using EAC. No idea about Amazon mp3s

[Glathannus]

Originally Posted by TurtleFu

What program does everyone use for ripping CDs? I used to use iTunes (the horror!) but then I switced to EAC + LAME, but the file sizes were exactly the same and I couldn't tell any change in quality.
When I ripped my new Kanye West CD, it had clipping and sounded really bad, and it was 320kbps. I tried it twice and still got the same results. Is there a better program I should be using?

EAC with factory settings, isn't automatically secure or special.

You've probably been Bursting through the disc (the sloppy default ripping mode akin to how most other ripping applications would operate). Anyone who vouches for EAC, has taken the time to configure aspects of it that have nothing to do with which target format they prefer. EAC -> Drive Options makes more of a difference than the rest of the application, even if you won't necessarily see differences in the resulting file sizes.

Every 320kbps rip of the same duration is going to be the same size, no matter which settings or ripping application were used.

[TurtleFu]

Okay, I just checked. I'm not using Burst mode, but the CD itself has some minor scratches (I bought it used). I'm beginning to feel like I should just torrent it...

[Glathannus]

EAC's ripping process starts at the beginning of the disc, and asks the drive:
"So what do the first 29 bytes look like, exactly?

Okay, the report you delivered one nanosecond ago was great, but please do tell me again what there was to report.

Alright, so how about the next 29 bytes???"
And so forth.

Suppose there's a scratched section of the disc, where it would be difficult to say exactly what data is there. The first time you ask for that data, the drive uses a best-guess. The next time you ask, the drive's buffer redelivers that guess without taking another look at the disc. EAC needs to know if your drive does this, so AccurateStream can perform an exhaustive workaround to force your drive to truly re-read the same section of the disc.

It is AccurateStream's job to judge the consistency of micro-rereads. If your particular drive does caching and you haven't told EAC, the 1st and 2nd "readings" from the drive will always match, and AccurateStream will think there's no reason to read any of the problematic areas a 3rd or 4th time.

An undeclared 2 MB buffer (the minimum you'll find on most drives) is more than enough to foil a "Secure" ripping process which presumes to reread the latest 29 bytes at a time.

[TurtleFu]

Thanks for the info, Glath.
I had set EAC to used AccurateStream and Cacheing, but my drive doesn't use Cacheing. So I truned Caching off, and then re-ripped the CD. I still can't tell any difference.

Now here's the weird part. I "got" an MP3 copy of the CD, and it still has clipping! So two separate 320 rips of two different CDs both have the same clipping, which I had attributed to a scratched disk. Now the clipping is noticeable enough for me to hear it, but when I use Spotify, I can't hear clipping. Could the lower bitrate of Spotify be masking the clipping, or do they just have a better quality copy?

[Glathannus]

If you do Test & Copy -> Uncompressed, and if your CRCs don't match, then your disc definitely has some unique problems. If the CRC's do match, and you can hear clipping in the WAVs you're getting from that, then the CD was manufactured to be exactly that stupid.

If you get WAVs without clipping, then you could experiment with different bitrates of MP3 to find out if they're introducing any of the clipping you were hearing. If the WAVs are actually supposed to have clipping (according to how every copy of that CD actually sounds), you could still experiment with different bitrates of MP3, just to find out if they make the clipping more or less obvious.

This way, you'll really know which factors are responsible.

[TurtleFu]

Okay, it says:
Peak Level 100.0%
Track Quality 99.9%
Copy OK
No errors occurred

So... what the hell?

[Glathannus]

Originally Posted by TurtleFu

Okay, it says:
Peak Level 100.0%
Track Quality 99.9%
Copy OK
No errors occurred

So... what the hell?

The "quality" of a track, represents how much of the readings were consistent.

So it's actually encouraging to see at least one 99.9% among all the tracks, because it means your ripping process acknowledged some problems instead of denying them. Any 99% lends more credibility to all the surrounding 100s you ever get. At least half the CDs in the world should have some 99.9% ratings. If you never saw that on any of the CDs you were ripping, it would probably mean EAC wasn't properly configured.. regarding your drive caching or lack thereof. You will get some CDs with all 100s, but you should never actually expect that. I've seen fresh-out-of-the-factory-wrap CDs with 99s from almost every shipment I get, and they sounded fabulous so long as the Test and Copy CRCs matched.

Now all that being said, just because a track is rated at less than 100% "quality", doesn't actually mean that any irreversible damage was done. If EAC thought that any of the difficult-to-read sections were uncorrectable, there would be some extra remark about it in the report.

Peak Level 100% means there could be some clipping in the actual music production, assuming that the read was reliable - which you can be certain of, with a Test & Copy of any "quality" percentage which turned out "OK". If AccurateStream has any reason to report 99% quality during the Test and during the Copy, you want to know that your computer was consistent in how the 1% was corrected. A Test and Copy which does or doesn't match, cuts closer to the truth about the CD than the "quality" rating does. The sub-100 ratings are just for you to know the Secure ripping process is doing its job, and has nothing to do with what the track will sound like. Two different computers ripping the same CD could get 100 and 99 for the same track, but if they're configured properly, they will get the exact same rip anyway - even if one computer thought there was nothing to correct.

You could just google around about that CD, and find out if anyone else has complained about clipping on it.