warrenstuart Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Hi I've noticed that a few tracks that I've ripped from original audio CDs are a little bit dull (wooly) compared to tracks that I've downloaded.I understand and can see if viewed in Cool Edit etc that modern dance/pop tracks are heavily compressed and sound "louder" than some of the older less heavily compressed music I have.I also understand that some tracks are brighter than others, more top and/or bottom heavy than others as that's just how they've come out of the studio and it's always been like that to a certain extent even in the vinyl days.However I noticed the other day that my ripping software (DiscJuggler) has a pre-emphasis option that by default isn't checked. I've ripped a couple of tracks with and without it checked and can't really tell any difference playing them back in the car, maybe I will be able to hear something tonight on a bigger sound system but just wondered what anyone else thought of this? I work in the radio communications industry where pre-emphasis is used on an FM transmission and than de-emphasis is used on an FM receiver but have never thought about this with audio like I'm using it for DJing. Regards, Warren. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbsy Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 My opinion? No. Pre-emphasis/de-emphasis on FM transmissions is carefully matched as a way to improved the perceived bandwidth. Using pre-emphasis by itself to make things sound brighter is just a lazy way of doing EQ at a fixed amount. Since you mention Cool Edit, far better you use the EQ function manually so you control what's going on. A couple of thoughts: First, if downloaded MP3 tracks sound better than original CD tracks, are you saving at a lower bit rate or something? For that matter, are you limited to using MP3 files? If it was me I'd do everything as wave--even if downloaded stuff had to be saved as wave in Cool Edit. Second, if you really want the heavily compressed sound, Cool Edit can do that too...though I think the loudness wars are a race to the bottom of the quality pile. By the way, what's the copyright situation for using ripped CDs and downloaded files in a commercial DJ application? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p.k.roberts Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 By the way, what's the copyright situation for using ripped CDs and downloaded files in a commercial DJ application? The answer to that is here, Bob http://www.prsformusic.com/users/recordedmedia/ProDub/Pages/ProDubLicence.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warrenstuart Posted March 1, 2014 Author Share Posted March 1, 2014 First, if downloaded MP3 tracks sound better than original CD tracks, are you saving at a lower bit rate or something? For that matter, are you limited to using MP3 files? I'm saving and using the main (best) tracks as wav files and only saving/using the archive stuff and/or fillers as mp3 so I'm not limited to mp3 tracks.Sorry looking over my original post again I should of made it more clear this involves both wav & mp3 files that I've converted from CD.I stick to the default 44100 sample rate and 320k mp3 bitrate. Second, if you really want the heavily compressed sound, Cool Edit can do that too...though I think the loudness wars are a race to the bottom of the quality pile. I totally agree so I'm not looking for the heavily compressed sound I just wish some (not all) of the tracks I've ripped from CD were a bit brighter. They're fine when I play the same track on the CD player but a little dull when ripped. By the way, what's the copyright situation for using ripped CDs and downloaded files in a commercial DJ application? Ripped CDs or downloaded files that have been copied and/or modified require a Pro Dub license. Downloaded files that are as original and have not been copied, backed up or modified don't require a licence, that's my understanding anyway BUT who in their right mind isn't going to back up their digital music library?!!!!!! Thanks for the reply, let's hope this thread stays on topic now and doesn't turn into a licensing debate Warren. EDIT: post above about Pro Dub appeared whilst I was typing this one out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbsy Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 When you rip to wave, if the copy sounds any different to the original CD then something weird is going on--as long as you stick to 44.1/16 bit they should be identical. Could your ripper be adding some kind of processing? Offering pre-emphasis sounds a bit weird to me, so... Perhaps you should try EXACT AUDIO COPY just for comparison sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 It could well be the computer hardware that is "de-emphasising" the audio on the clean rips. I've got three computers sat here which all sound different when playing the same track. None of them have any sort of EQ/DSP settings enabled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldradiohand Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 This one's a blast from the past - pre/de emph was part of the original CD spec for the same reason we use it on analogue FM - the very early DtoAs were noisy, particularly at the HF end. It was an analogue process added before and after digitising and it wasn't used very often as the DtoAs improved rapidly. It never got dropped as part of the spec for CDs because some very old recordings will be pre emphed, and it 's still in digital systems today. It's not that subtle and the HF lift on emphasised recordings is fairly obvious if you have the original to compare it to. Recordings with emphasis will be digitally flagged so you can tell.If you've got an audible difference between original CD and ripped version (assuming there isn't some MPEG conversion in the rip) then you have a problem. A 44.1 linear copy should sound exactly the same as the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warrenstuart Posted March 3, 2014 Author Share Posted March 3, 2014 Thanks for the replies, interesting reading.I can also confirm the same track ripped 4 times (wav with & without PE, mp3 with & withoput PE) and tested at the weekend didn't sound any different to me whatsoever!I can only guess from this that the pre-emphasis check box on DiscJuggler doesn't do anything?! Bobbsy I'm using 44.1/16 bit and will try exact audio copy and do a test, thanks for info. Dosxuk I'm playing back on computer, Pioneer car stereo and Cortex media player, all results are the same inc the few wooly sounding tracks. Oldradiohand interesting info, thanks. Warren. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.