thimmy118 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 I have just noticed that the files ripped using the 48Khz options in iTunes instead of the 44.1Khz option produced files that are up to 4.5MB more than those ripped at 44.1Khz. I have played one of the files that I had ripped earlier and the music sounded 'airier' or is it just my imagination? I am now re-ripping all my CDs with this setting. I am playing the ripped music from my QNAP NAS into my NAIM streamer and yes it sounded different. Has anyone notice this or is it just my imagination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rmpfyf Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Sure, it's resampled and inherently filtered. Whatever you're hearing it's not what whomever mastered your CDs intended. A lot is going to depend on what you use to play the data and how they treat it in playback. Best to rip what's there at native (i.e. 44.1/16-bit) and if you want to play with upsampling etc do it after that. This way you've always got a copy of the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicprObe Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Yes........iTunes is not the most reliable ripper or playback program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thimmy118 Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 i am glad I still have the cd in JIC I prefer the 44.1Khz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BATMAQN Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Been there done the 48khz thing don't bother anymore 44.1khz is fine for ripping and playback it's the actual recordings that let us down. I find iTunes rips adequately however a lot of the album art doesn't come through and playback isn't much good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studentmusic Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 I have my collection all copied at 48/96 using itunes and AIFF. Big files but hard drives are cheap and I too found it 'airier 'for want of a better description. Much prefer it to 44.1. Each to their own I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agisthos Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) It depends on your DAC, the DAC's own chip processing power, and what clocks the DAC has. For example a DAC that natively outputs 96Khz will only have to do a simple 2x upsample of a 48Khz file. It will have to do more work on a 44.1 file. So this may give the appearance of a nicer sound, because your PC has already done part of the work (going from the 44.1 to 48 multiple). Even better if you have pre-converted it to 24/96. Similarly, sometimes WAV sounds slightly better than FLAC. Its not because the end data is different, its because FLAC to PCM decoding and extraction has already been done with the WAV file, putting less load on the DACs own processor. Edited January 31, 2018 by agisthos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydrology Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 If you're Mac-based, download XLD and use that to rip your CDs - far better and more accurate than iTunes. Couldnt believe the difference so re-did my entire collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts