Enquiry on the ripping software

The question has been discussed to great length here on the forum and essentially the general consensus, with the exception of those working for Naim, is that an accurate rip is an accurate rip.

Try the search button, plenty of threads there waiting for you....

I too am one of those strange breed that cannot hear any difference between two identical files played back on the same player - whether they were ripped by iTunes, EAC, XLD, dBPowerAmp or a Naim US - the files I have looked at were identical when the header data was removed - as the header data does not affect playback then I think it doesn't matter - please note this only applies when ripping to lossless formats - not MP3. 

It also doesn't matter whether the rip is WAV, AIFF, ALAC or FLAC - they are all the same in terms of music content. I am still undecided if playback is affected by the need to decompress ALAC or FLAC on the fly. I prefer AIFF to WAV because I don't like the way WAV handles Tags.

Also AIFF comes from the Amiga Interchange File Format rather than Windoze so it goes without saying that it must better. (OK that bit is nonsense, but the rest is true and anybody who has used an Amiga bemoans having to use Windoze)

You will get some folk who attack my logic on this, but I stand by it as do many posters hereon - it doesn't matter what software you rip with - if it checks out with Accurate Rip database then it is as near to being a bit perfect rip as you are ever likely to achieve. 

EAC or dbPowerAmp or iTunes with error checking will do absolutely fine. 

All the best, Guy

Guy nearly :-)

I experimented ripping with dBpoweramp with forced multiple CPU cores to speed things up. Ie one core ripped and another up to three cores encoded. All rips from CD were fine with Accurate Rip BUT the PCM produced had tiny occasional glitches in and sounded wrong. I went back to single CPU core processing and all was ok again.

Simon

Agreed.

Stay away from iTunes if possible.  Not a "proper" rip.  Use XLD if on Mac.

I rip with iTunes on my Macbook and thinks that the audio quality is acceptable through wireless strem via an airport express. Nothing fancy, just direct rip into Apple Lossless with correction enable with airport express connected by 3.5mm jack to din into my 202.

Although with my sensitive ears, I'm one of those breed that could not distinguish the difference between WAV which seems to be favourite among lots of people apart from FLAC and Apple's Lossless file . Having said this, they're no where as good as my cd replay with my CDX2 with external power supply. The stream sounds a bit "turbo charged" and slightly bright to me with the expense of detail and coherent!

My question is, what XLD will do better than iTunes? Will the audio quality sounds better with my setup? Can I stream wirelessly into my airport express? I do like the flexibility of streaming from my sofa and iphone at dinner party. Thanks in advance.

People get very sniffy about Itunes but really I think it is the intentional lack of feedback and "tweakability" that upset audiophiles. If you want something that tells you all sorts of arcane stuff about the ripping process, produces logs and can rip to Olympic standards without costing £12 billion then XLD fits the bill perfectly.

Max is also pretty good and for tagging Picard.

As an aside I use Bliss for cover art and tag management - it failed over the weekend and the developer Dan spent 40 minutes after 9pm (BST) talking me through command line repairs on my server - brilliant service!

Tog

Is this analogue out into 202? Correct me if I'm wrong but this option probably delivers the worst audio result possible as it makes use of your MBP's own internal DAC. You'd be much better off using an optical cable with a decent DAC in between. FWIW, feeding a lossless file into the DAC of my SuperNait at the time and using a Sonos ZP90/Naim DC1 the result was pretty close to that of my CDX2.2 replay. Better still, use a USB/SPDIFF converter a la HiFace, a good coax cable and propper DAC.

Yeap, I know this is not the best connection/ method in streaming music off my Macbook but it's just an extra convenience that I'm using base on the hardware and iTunes that I already have.

For sure, a decent DAC hook up to my AE with optical out is the plan for future when funds allow. Will streaming wirelessly from my Macbook to a DAC via AE sound worst off compare to hard wire from Macbook to DAC?

The current "not too audiophile" streaming setup will do for now.

Doesn't make any difference in tests I've done as the PCM in the resultant AIFFs are bit identical - iTunes rips are absolutely fine unless you have a damaged CD. I prefer to use Apple software when I can on my Mac. Don't understand why it is "Not a proper rip" when it produces exactly the same results. I did use XLD - just in case so I could compare with Accurate Rip, but I done a few with iTunes and compared and as I keep saying it mattered not one jot. 

> My question is, what XLD will do better than iTunes?

Nothing if you rip to ALAC or AIFF - it might add some tags and it will enable you to compare with Accurate Rip. You configure it so it automatically adds the results to iTunes. 

- Will the audio quality sounds better with my setup? 

No nor any other set-up - the music in the files is identical. 

Can I stream wirelessly into my airport express?

Yes - you are still using iTunes to manage and play your music - it is the same. 

I used XLD to rip my files, but whenever I've done a comparison between XLD and iTunes the files were the same. One exception was a CD by "M" - you know Pop Muzik. iTunes couldn't rip it, but XLD could. XLD is also better at getting cover art. 

This question always brings lots of arguments, but I can't see how the ripper matters if the end results are identical. If error correction comes in to play the files will differ. 

Hands up those who can hear the difference between two CDs of the same music? 

I compared some tracks ripped with Naim's ripper in the US and the same iTunes. Converting both sets to AIFF. I found the two files were bit for bit identical. 

All the best, Guy

That's great Guy, thank you for your explanations!