CD Tweeks...Improve Ripped SQ?

"assuming that the ripping software assures bit perfect accuracy. "

That's an optional setting and not a guarantee on some ripping programs, so its possible that read errors could come into play, depending on the implementation of the ripping software.

Even in that case though, I would seek out a rip program that does assure bit perfect accuracy as the best solution. Then, its just a matter of how long the rip takes. Rips with more error reads from disk will take longer to re-read, so any improvement to the physical disc reading system might help produce faster rips perhaps, how much faster depending on disc quality and how well the optical disk reader does its thing. With most decent modern commercial grade optical disc readers, I find only CDs that are visibly in very bad shape (like some from the library) or physically defective in some other way rip significantly slower when bit perfect accuracy is in play, but of course YMMV.

The same reasons why treated CDs sound better than untreated CDs apply to why ripped files produced by treated CDs sound better than ripped files produced by untreated CDs. This is precisely why I say the bits is bits argument doesn't hold water. Ditto for the argument that ripping treated CDs can't work since perfect bits can be guaranteed. That's actually the same argument used for thirty years to try to dismiss treating CDs in the first place. Reed Solomon codes and laser servo mechanism and all that jazz.

09-10-13: Geoffkait
The same reasons why treated CDs sound better than untreated CDs apply to why ripped files produced by treated CDs sound better than ripped files produced by untreated CDs.

I disagree completely. Let's leave it at that, s'il vous plaît.

Regards,
-- Al

I disagree completely as well. CDP cannot, playing in real time, reread sector with wrong checksum. When it happens it corrects errors on small scratches (roughly up to 4mm along), interpolates data for medium scratches (4-8mm) and loses data (pops) for longer scratches. Ripping CDs is different and can be done bit perfect. On my MAC I use program called MAX with selected option "Do not allow to skip" that forces laser to go to same sector for as long as necessary to get proper checksum. I can remove disk, scratch it a little, rip it again and it will produce exactly same file. It might only take a little longer, as Mapman mentioned. This file has no timing (being data) and therefore has no jitter. Jitter will be promptly added by device that creates timing for D/A converter, digital cables and D/A converter itself.

Rodge827,

I reread this thread again and I noticed, including me, no one asked you if you ran the test and listened for any differences.

So I will ask now, did you?

No I haven't ripped and compared an untreated to treated disc.
Fact is I have never ripped a disc to a hard drive, computer, NAS, etc...

I have however compared treated to untreated discs and found that there is a difference in sound quality for the better. When my girlfriend moved in (now my wife) we had a lot the same CD's. As I learned about different CD treatments I did A-B tests by treating my discs and comparing them to hers. As mentioned in my first post I wondered if said treatments made a difference in ripped discs to a file.

I have been wanting to go to a disc-less set up for some time but until now haven't felt that the effort was worth the reward. Comp audio has come a long way and there are many new products and software that have brought the sound quality up to where it is acceptable to these ears.

I had planned to sell off my modded 47 Labs Flatfish transport and the CD treatments to help fund a server, dac, power supplies, and NAS. If the treatments made a difference I would keep them if not then they would go.