2. digital
  3. 124972-539

Redbook Keeps Surprising

I was a Best Buy to get a memory card reader for my computer. Looked at the CDs and saw a few in the bargain bin that I would like to have, only a few dollars. Came home, ripped them with DB power amp, picked the best cover art. Transferred to my Aurender through the NAS and played away. WOW, impressive sound and I really enjoyed them both. I like the High Res downloads and my SACD collection but am often really impressed by good Redbook CD. It really is the music that counts. 
128x128davt
jon2020's avatar
jon2020
986 posts
 
Hi bsmith,

In my system, it’s just the opposite. The ripped cd file sounds better than the cd spinning in the super heavy transport of my old Esoteric K-01. Many others in audioland have also found ripped files to sound better than cd’s.

To be fair, I have also upgraded to the new generation Esoteric N-05 dac/network player. The usb implementation in the N-05 is miles ahead of the K-01. New digital gets cheaper and better in doing wonders for redbook.

When I switch to hi-res files, the difference isn’t that dramatic.
My entire redbook collection now sounds better than ever and the good recordings sound as good as hi-res.

Jon. :)

(Ptss, we can only hope YKWYA doesn’t come forth to tell us what I already know about the chip residing in the Esoteric N-05)

georgehifi's avatar
georgehifi
10,312 posts
 
bsmith






      someone explain to me why cd’s sound better to me than the file of that cd.


      I’m with you on this bbsmith, playing the original cd always to me sounds more "wholesome, natural and sweeter" compared to a ripped or even downloaded ones, which to me sound a bit "hifi" and a bit in your face, which can to me at first give the wrong impression of better dynamics. But it’s a forced squeezed in your face type of dynamic and not enveloping easy following "bigness of body" type of dynamic that the cd gives, maybe all the added conversions of the ripped/downloaded ones have more jitter involved, who knows?

      Cheers George

      charles1dad's avatar
      charles1dad
      10,250 posts
       
      Georgre,
      It could be system /component dependent or maybe just  my imagination 😊. But it does seem that playing the actual CD does sound a bit more natural with more a sense of ease. Just a personal observation of mine.
      Charles,
      audiolabyrinthandbirdiemayarecommericalshills
      12 posts
       
      My cd player is a Vitus SCD-025Mk2 rbcd player. It employs a heavily modified Phllips Pro 2LF transport, modular design, 4 x custom-made UI-core psu's and uses sample rate conversion to minimize jitter via a new Q8 stereo-synchro upsampler from EngineeRED (formerly Anagram Technologies) which accepts pcm signal from 32 up to 384 kHz with 8 x oversampling (using true extrapolation like the Soulution 745), and accepts DSD64/128 via its asynchronous USB board. It delivers a 24/384 kHz pcm signal that drives 2 x mono ADI1955 d/a converters. The output stages are taken from the SL-102 Mk2 preamp. Vitus design and build their own master clock in-house. This player also has wide bandwidth (to beyond 2.5MHz).

      The design in Hans Ole Vitus's hands is very well executed. It is very resolving, yet smooth and non-digital at the same time. In fact it is the most analogue-sounding cd player i've heard. Bad recordings still suck mind you, but they suck a lot less on this player compared to most ss rbcd players. After hearing some great rbcd's on this player such as the Marten Supreme Sessions, XRCD24's & DXD's, I don't pane for SACD. Yup, RBCD keeps surprising..
      ptss
      1,964 posts
       
      I too second charles1dad and I would like to add that- the more you isolate and refine the AC power to both your analog and digital units the more impressed you'll be with the quality of Redbood CD. Experiment and enjoy.
      More to discover