[GASSMAN_67]

Hello, I'm in transition from the world of CD's to pure digital, I've ripped some cd's to an internal WD 1TB, I've done a A/B comparrison to the original disc, the FLAC rip sounds compressed, is a WAV rip preferable? I'm not concerned about storage space...Just the BEST sound. I use the "backup" feature in Manic Moose to rip from the BOT-1

[Tympani]

I have consistently noted that my wav files sound better than my flac files. All my HiRez PCM files are downloaded in WAV. I opted to store my BOT-1 rips in flac to take advantage of superior metadata/tagging of my ancient CD collection. I suspect(?) I would note sound superiority with WAV storage as well with these rips.

I have noticed a different phenomenon. My flac rips via BOT-1 sound much better than flac rips via computer-based CD drives.

[GASSMAN_67]

sorry, I just sent you a PM at the same time you posted.Thanks for the reply

[srb]

Might as well try an AIFF rip for comparison.  WAV and AIFF are the same uncompressed linear PCM format differing only in the file header, but AIFF supports metadata tagging.

WAV and AIFF should sound the same, and they do in my subjective testing (but there are some people that claim WAV sounds better than AIFF in their subjective testing).

Steve

[GASSMAN_67]

Can I use AIFF when using a PC?

[srb]

Can I use AIFF when using a PC?

It depends on the player software.  AIFF doesn't have as broad compatibility as WAV or FLAC.

For me it's fine with my chosen players, JRiver Media Center, iTunes and foobar2000.  But some players can't read them at all (Windows Media Player) and MusicBee only sees about 75% of them (?).

Steve

[Grit]

Maybe try comparing uncompressed FLAC, compressed FLAC, AIFF, and WAV.

[GASSMAN_67]

I gave up using the ripping interface in MM. I hooked up the BOT-1 to my PC, I rip to WAV on my NAS with ease now. The Rip interface was so bothersome to my NAS and when I change the rip settings to the internal WD 1TB inside my BDP-2, it would not RIP ANYWHERE AT ALL.Sounds WAY better in the WAV format

[Tympani]

Gassman, How does the BOT interface with the PC? I thought it was a dedicated BDP device? How's the "tagging" on WAV format via PC rips? Frankly, my tagging with FLAC via MM is still quite inconsistent, I might forego it and switch to WAV for the superior sound (which I have also noted).

[GASSMAN_67]

It hooks up seemlessly, it is recognized as a "BOT" on the devices page and rips no problem using media player, my pc is a Intel I7 with 24 gb of ram so the process is quite quick with NO network bottle neck to my NAS. Playback is quite good in the larger WAV format. I was getting so frustrated with Bryston's rip procedure...so my kid told me to hook it up to my PC...and it works! The I7 is quite faster than the Atom processor inside the BDP. To be quite honest, I was quite reluctant to sell my Krell CD player which sounds SOOOOO good in my system, but my player is now up for sale.

[GASSMAN_67]

Forgot to add windows media player tags and brings up album art. On a couple of occassions, it did not show when ripping a MFSL cd, but I could hear the BOT working. The rip DID complete. The only issue is there's no eject button, so when I put a DSD hybrid sacd, it did not identify,rip and I had no way to eject it. I had to hook the BOT back up to the BDP to eject .
Overall, way easier to use on a pc than as intended through the BDP. Was it worth the $$$$$ to invest then on the BOT, I hope so...but realisticaly, not worth the $$$ and the wonky integration with the BDP. It will go up for sale as soon as I'm done ripping

[Marius]

Hi,


Interesting read you provide, sadly illustrating my fears for the BOT... I've always felt it would be best to separate the processes of ripping and storing on the BDP. And, from a convenience point of view, thought it best to not have to hookup the Bot directly to the BDP, but elsewhere in the network, at the working place/desk. It all seems to complicate thing unnecessarily, and is long way from the original statement Bryston made introducing the BDP: creating a state of the art Digital player, and only that. I fear it now is turning too much into an  'ordinary' computer, a jack of all trades related audio, with all pc issues that go with that.. Complicating the software, before ironing out all issues it still has.


Since you now do as described, why do you still bother hooking up the BOT to your pc, and not just use its internal drive? Is there any extra the BOT delivers, other than being an extremely expensive external usb-drive, albeit looking very good?
I would have hoped it to be the ultimate ripping machine, and you describing to hook it up to the pc brings that goal somewhat closer. Still, i need the extra bit to be able to justify the buy....


Cheers,
Marius

Forgot to add windows media player tags and brings up album art. On a couple of occassions, it did not show when ripping a MFSL cd, but I could hear the BOT working. The rip DID complete. The only issue is there's no eject button, so when I put a DSD hybrid sacd, it did not identify,rip and I had no way to eject it. I had to hook the BOT back up to the BDP to eject .
Overall, way easier to use on a pc than as intended through the BDP. Was it worth the $$$$$ to invest then on the BOT, I hope so...but realisticaly, not worth the $$$ and the wonky integration with the BDP. It will go up for sale as soon as I'm done ripping

[Tympani]

Marius,

Though your question was posed to Gassman,  I still maintain that rips created through the BOT, in whichever format, sound substantially better (meaning fuller, with more air and depth,  less stridency) than rips created by any other pc-based drive I have tried in the past.

Before the BOT, the flac and wav files I had created by my pc-based ripping processes, using dbpoweramp and other 3rd party software, with internal and external drives, were underwhelming, and had not inspired me to commit the time to rip my entire CD collection.

So at least sonically, the goal of a quality ripping platform has been met. The implementation is another, rather disappointing story. As Gassman suggested, I would be tempted to move on and sell the BOT once my collection has been ripped, as I am not buying new CDs.

Other than a smooth glitch-free interface, the one value-added feature I would have loved with the BOT would have been the ability to play SACD-based DSD, eliminating the need for my OPPO to BDA HDMI connection. Pie in the sky, I know, from a technical and licensing standpoint, but a sweet concept!

[GASSMAN_67]

I do believe...at least sound quaulity wise, when ripped as a WAV, the sound quality equals my Krell EVO 505 cd player using the Krell CAST cable system, which in my all Krell CAST system, sounds amazing., now just the advantage of playing what I want...when I want.The internal WD storage is good..BUT...I want to RIP cd's ONCE, could you imagine ripping 500 cd's to the internal hard drive in the BDP, then the drive goes bad...That's why I wanted a RAID NAS system, RIP once, if a drive in the NAS goes bad, HOT swap it out.All in all, when connected to my pc, I believe it is a superior drive to the $18 internal dvd reader/writer in my pc...

[Marius]

HI Tympani,


Is there any explanation you could provide for this? Bit perfect and lossless rips shoulnd't/couldn't be distinguishable wouldn't they?
Seems very peculiar that the Bot would use any other software process than any of the other competitors, like XLD or dBpoweramp provided one uses the correct settings of course. But i suppose that goes for the BOT itself as well.


Im a bit in limbo as to how this could be possible.


For me the only true new and unique functionality the BOT delivers over the other options is direct memory playing of loaded CD's. I believe I've asked James whether this functionality will be provided in the BCD3, and seem to remember it wouldn't. Which would be kind of obvious.


Still, interested to learn as to how it is possible the sound is substantially better.


Cheers,
Marius




 

Marius,

Though your question was posed to Gassman,  I still maintain that rips created through the BOT, in whichever format, sound substantially better (meaning fuller, with more air and depth,  less stridency) than rips created by any other pc-based drive I have tried in the past.

Before the BOT, the flac and wav files I had created by my pc-based ripping processes, using dbpoweramp and other 3rd party software, with internal and external drives, were underwhelming, and had not inspired me to commit the time to rip my entire CD collection.

So at least sonically, the goal of a quality ripping platform has been met. The implementation is another, rather disappointing story. As Gassman suggested, I would be tempted to move on and sell the BOT once my collection has been ripped, as I am not buying new CDs.

Other than a smooth glitch-free interface, the one value-added feature I would have loved with the BOT would have been the ability to play SACD-based DSD, eliminating the need for my OPPO to BDA HDMI connection. Pie in the sky, I know, from a technical and licensing standpoint, but a sweet concept!

[Tympani]

Is there any explanation you could provide for this? Bit perfect and lossless rips shoulnd't/couldn't be distinguishable wouldn't they?
Seems very peculiar that the Bot would use any other software process than any of the other competitors, like XLD or dBpoweramp provided one uses the correct settings of course. But i suppose that goes for the BOT itself as well.


Im a bit in limbo as to how this could be possible.

Marius, I have no idea as to the reason different source drives yielded different sounding rips. But clearly they did. Another example of audio theory not lining up with observation, as we've so often seen (until we figure out the right things to measure). Bear with my long-winded story...

I must admit, I became quite OCD about this observation a few years back when I decided to convert all my silver discs to digital files. I wanted the best "archival" quality possible, so that I could rip once, and never look back, frankly planning to get rid of my CDs. I did an experiment using 3 different drives (an internal Blu-Ray drive in my Dell PC, an external Panasonic USB bus-powered DVD Read/Write drive, and a DC-powered Plextor external DVD Drive), each ripping 3 familiar tracks from 3 different CDs using DB Poweramp, and Windows Media Player. I selected one track from a old classical Deutsche Gramophone CD that suffered from CD digititis, another from a "high-end" Reference Recordings disc, and the third from a very listenable rock album. All ripped to WAV, stored on my PC hard-drive and later transferred to USB-flash for playback on my then-new BDP-2. (18 files total)

My wife played back the 18 files, in random fashion, "blinded" for me and my 2 sons (25, 28 y/o). We rated each file for 4 simple qualities (high frequency edginess, low frequency solidity, 3-D depth, plus overall "nicest sound")

Consistently, the files created by the Plextor were the best, the internal Blu-Ray drive scored second, and the external DVD-Rom the worst. This last drive was really quite bad - lifeless, dull, flat. The rips were all "bit-perfect" as displayed by dB Poweramp.

So, I began the arduous task of ripping everything through my Plextor - until the drive died. The drive had been discontinued, and I stopped ripping altogether. That is, until the BOT came around. The files created on the BOT sound better than even those done on the Plextor. Both flac, and now wav. WAV sounds a bit better than flac, but not enough to re-rip the 200 or so discs I've already ripped since I got the BOT.

Although the difference between source drives was clearly noticeable through my main system, it might not be significant enough to notice, or certainly to lose sleep over for many. But I felt it was important enough given my goal of creating a "permanent" archive. Frankly, not knowing what the BOT could do, I would have been happy living with the rips from the $50 Plextor if it hadn't died.

YMMV, but gas is cheap

[Marius]

wow Tympani,
That's some study you made.


I must confess i'm not always (...) convinced of the equality of Rips compared to my original CD's, let alone of any superiority. Quite often i (re)turn to my cd's, and it's the reason i still buy them frequently, and see my digital BDP setup as an extra, for having all under the fingertips.


I can imagine the cheaper drives introducing more errors, or other electronic noise before the rips are written into 1's and 0's than the better ones, and we can be sure the Bryston Bot is among the latter. Other than that, what could it be? I might have to try the BOT after all....


Please let us know what you'll do after selling the BOT? Rips have to be made.


Cheers,
Marius

Marius, I have no idea as to the reason different source drives yielded different sounding rips. But clearly they did. Another example of audio theory not lining up with observation, as we've so often seen (until we figure out the right things to measure). Bear with my long-winded story...

I must admit, I became quite OCD about this observation a few years back when I decided to convert all my silver discs to digital files. I wanted the best "archival" quality possible, so that I could rip once, and never look back, frankly planning to get rid of my CDs. I did an experiment using 3 different drives (an internal Blu-Ray drive in my Dell PC, an external Panasonic USB bus-powered DVD Read/Write drive, and a DC-powered Plextor external DVD Drive), each ripping 3 familiar tracks from 3 different CDs using DB Poweramp, and Windows Media Player. I selected one track from a old classical Deutsche Gramophone CD that suffered from CD digititis, another from a "high-end" Reference Recordings disc, and the third from a very listenable rock album. All ripped to WAV, stored on my PC hard-drive and later transferred to USB-flash for playback on my then-new BDP-2. (18 files total)

My wife played back the 18 files, in random fashion, "blinded" for me and my 2 sons (25, 28 y/o). We rated each file for 4 simple qualities (high frequency edginess, low frequency solidity, 3-D depth, plus overall "nicest sound")

Consistently, the files created by the Plextor were the best, the internal Blu-Ray drive scored second, and the external DVD-Rom the worst. This last drive was really quite bad - lifeless, dull, flat. The rips were all "bit-perfect" as displayed by dB Poweramp.

So, I began the arduous task of ripping everything through my Plextor - until the drive died. The drive had been discontinued, and I stopped ripping altogether. That is, until the BOT came around. The files created on the BOT sound better than even those done on the Plextor. Both flac, and now wav. WAV sounds a bit better than flac, but not enough to re-rip the 200 or so discs I've already ripped since I got the BOT.

Although the difference between source drives was clearly noticeable through my main system, it might not be significant enough to notice, or certainly to lose sleep over for many. But I felt it was important enough given my goal of creating a "permanent" archive. Frankly, not knowing what the BOT could do, I would have been happy living with the rips from the $50 Plextor if it hadn't died.

YMMV, but gas is cheap

[GASSMAN_67]

I will purchase and download Hirez music from the web i would imagine after selling the BOT

[Tympani]

I will purchase and download Hirez music from the web i would imagine after selling the BOT

Same here. I have not purchased a CD in 4 years. An occasional CD that someone brings around can be sampled on my computer, and ripped the old way if I want to keep it.