French Rooster posted:

Huge posted:

The decoded audio data shouldn't be any different as the data on a CD are a unique encoding of a series of numbers.  The encoding is well known, so the process of ripping is simply the process of reading the data on the disk and mathematically decoding it to extract these number.  There's nothing here that's subject to any ambiguity, so the extracted numbers should always be the same.  Given that numbers these are simple 16 bit integers (i.e. from -32,768 to 32,767) there's also no uncertainty in the mathematical data contained in the file.  If the file format is uncompressed or compressed lossless, then if the decoded data are different from the decoded form of the data on the CD then this constitutes an error.

Differences in the electronics of the playback device can occur due to the work entailed in extracting the data from different file formates or compressed data stream encodings

For you, how can you explain the experience of DB, preferring the sound of the rip made by the melco 100 vs dpoweramp and a third software ? 

placebo

French Rooster posted:

Huge posted:

The decoded audio data shouldn't be any different as the data on a CD are a unique encoding of a series of numbers.  The encoding is well known, so the process of ripping is simply the process of reading the data on the disk and mathematically decoding it to extract these number.  There's nothing here that's subject to any ambiguity, so the extracted numbers should always be the same.  Given that numbers these are simple 16 bit integers (i.e. from -32,768 to 32,767) there's also no uncertainty in the mathematical data contained in the file.  If the file format is uncompressed or compressed lossless, then if the decoded data are different from the decoded form of the data on the CD then this constitutes an error.

Differences in the electronics of the playback device can occur due to the work entailed in extracting the data from different file formates or compressed data stream encodings

For you, how can you explain the experience of DB, preferring the sound of the rip made by the melco 100 vs dpoweramp and a third software ? 

Until someone compares the files we do not have  enough information to explain DBs experience. This is a few minutes work.

I'm with Huge on this one....

best

David

With dBPoweramp eligible rips are compared to the accurate rips database.

If the Melco is producing different rips then it implies that rips - with a Melco - are personal. Every device will produce different rips.

What about a downloaded album? At 16 bit, the same as a CD rip? 

As suggested  let’s compare the files... we did this a few years ago on the forum the last time we had the cyclical are all rips the same debate and it was enlightening... the extracted PCM was identical across severeal Naim and non Naim rippers including iTunes, dBpoweramp and others. The iTunes rips had a timing offset difference.. that is tracks started a few milliseconds later.. that was probably due to bad CD-ROM mapping. However there was a variation of WAV structure formats, including the ‘canonical’ format as well as the preferred ‘extended’ format that supports hidef. It is quite conceivable readers that use public/generic libraries to read the RIFF structures may use different procedures depending on the structure hence the possibility of differences in the replay processor noise profile... just like some hear a difference between WAV and FLAC on some processors/renderers.

Darke Bear posted:

I just ripped a new copy via Melco D100 of an early Linda Ronstadt album CD of that name and put it alongside the renamed folder containing the Rip I did a few days ago on my PC, so I have both sets of files on the same server in folders side by side and can select and play from each - and they sound different and the D100 version has better low-level detail and note-purity.

Don't know why, but I can hear it.

DB.

I am sorry to say that these kind of comparisons are not helpful for solving the issue that you originally raised. Worse, they can actually be very misleading.

As a first step, you should compare the two rips for equality or, better, send them to SIS who has offered to make a comparison for you.

This would provide you (and us) with some basic understanding of what you are reporting about.

Once the essential diversity of the rips has been established, the next question is whether at least one of the two rips is bit-perfect. This is, again, a question that cannot be addressed by listening test.

If the two rips turn out to be identical, the results of your listening tests become relevant. There are many possible reasons why you might prefer one (of the two identical rips) over the other. You might have given one of the rips a name that triggers in you a change in your attention or disposition. Or perhap the sound quality of your system varies in time and you have simply happened to replay one (of the two identical rips) at more favorable times. It would be nearly impossible to provide a definite explanation for your observations in this case. Still, it could be interesting discussing possible explanations.

Admittedly I only have a Core and a NAS. CDs ripped from computer to Nas sound different when copied to the Downloads folder of the Core (better) and played through the Core than when copied to the NAS and played directly from the NAS. OK I know it's only bits. This makes me think that for whatever reason different NAS, and after all the Core is a NAS, sound different. So why shouldn't different methods of ripping sound different to? Incidentally I find that I do like the the sound from Core or NAS and could happily live with either, it's just that to my wife's ears and mine, we think the Core more musical, but of course others may not or think the difference is significant or actually prefer the NAS. Rich 

Rich, I think severeal posts have already addressed and answered your questions and observations  in this thread alone....

Remember a NAS is a mini computer with OS just like the Core.. I am not sure where the bit are bits come in that context.. it’s like saying all software runs the same in terms of total performance  on all computers irrespective of computer type, processor, memory etc... the software is just bits after all....

Don't forget the little ho har created when some companies brought out products that makes a cd play better.

Whenever I rip I always use a little 'L'Art Du Son' cd spray cleaner/SO.on them.  

Can always tell a rip that digs a bit deeper than those not treated.

"digs a bit deeper"?  Such as reading the depth of the 'pits' in a CD?

Hmmm...

Deeper in the pits is where the inky blackness lurks Eleanor. Surely you knew that?!

Best

David

nbpf posted:

Darke Bear posted:

I just ripped a new copy via Melco D100 of an early Linda Ronstadt album CD of that name and put it alongside the renamed folder containing the Rip I did a few days ago on my PC, so I have both sets of files on the same server in folders side by side and can select and play from each - and they sound different and the D100 version has better low-level detail and note-purity.

Don't know why, but I can hear it.

I am sorry to say that these kind of comparisons are not helpful for solving the issue that you originally raised. Worse, they can actually be very misleading.

Well that is it from me then!

It is not an 'issue' for me, I have a conceptual model based on my albeit only degree-level physics understanding of what may be happening - that I tried to explain before. If you only perform the measurement at a high-level abstracted level then you miss the effects of the fomat-packing of the data - it will not 'measure' that and it will just prove that things are the same and there is no difference - shut-up you are crazy...

I had this many years ago when I preferred a Naim Amp (NAP160) that had worse distortion figures than the Quad 405 that was 'perfect' - therefore I was crazy and not hearing things right.

The data at a summing level is not the same as how it is arranged and ordered and packed in the real physical devices that hold it - and hence, possibly, the amount of electrical noise required in servicing that data may vary depending on how the software and firmware chooses to capture and represent the data in memory.

But I'm not trying (although it seems am succeeding) in upsetting anyone. People have their opinions and will want to only look to the level they are capable of grasping that does not offend them too much is fine with me.

We could close-out this thread with a DB is deluded - or whatever suits in making people happy - not bothered.

DB.

so maybe the rips can appear the same but in fact the bits inside are ordered inside differently.  I am not sure Simon in S would agree with this possibility, but personally i can believe in it.   There must be something, if not DB could not perceive differences in several rips of the same album.    

Darke Bear posted:

nbpf posted:

Darke Bear posted:

I just ripped a new copy via Melco D100 of an early Linda Ronstadt album CD of that name and put it alongside the renamed folder containing the Rip I did a few days ago on my PC, so I have both sets of files on the same server in folders side by side and can select and play from each - and they sound different and the D100 version has better low-level detail and note-purity.

Don't know why, but I can hear it.

I am sorry to say that these kind of comparisons are not helpful for solving the issue that you originally raised. Worse, they can actually be very misleading.

Well that is it from me then!

It is not an 'issue' for me, I have a conceptual model based on my albeit only degree-level physics understanding of what may be happening - that I tried to explain before. If you only perform the measurement at a high-level abstracted level then you miss the effects of the fomat-packing of the data - it will not 'measure' that and it will just prove that things are the same and there is no difference - shut-up you are crazy...

I frankly do not think that one needs any particular conceptual model or degree in physical sciences to realize that different files might sound differently.

What would be mildly more surprising is if identical files would sound differently. But that also can be easily explained. 

I have no idea of what kind of measurement you are referring to and I do not knoe what an "high-level abstracted level" is. My suggestion was simply to check if your files are identical or not. This is be done by inspection: no measurements are needed, just a plain bit-by-bit comparison. 

French Rooster posted:

so maybe the rips can appear the same but in fact the bits inside are ordered inside differently.  I am not sure Simon in S would agree with this possibility, but personally i can believe in it.   There must be something, if not DB could not perceive differences in several rips of the same album.    

Appear to whom? Any two files can be easily compared for equality, for instance with 'cmp' or 'diff' from the command like. If two files happen to have different lenghts, it is not even neccesary to compare them because then they cannot be identical. [1,4,5] is identical to [1,4,5] and different from [4,5,1]. It is as easy as that and there are no whatsoever measurements or levels involved in the comparison.

I wouldn't get too.concerned about the comments here DB. There's lots of inbuilt prejudice in what people write, including what I write, I acknowledge. The discussion is mostly interesting though and for one, although I don't know you at all, I always find your postings in the forum interesting, informative and thought-provoking.

best

David

i too. +1

nbpf posted:

..I do not know what an "high-level abstracted level" is. My suggestion was simply to check if your files are identical or not. This is be done by inspection: no measurements are needed, just a plain bit-by-bit comparison. 

That is the problem - not understanding what I'm actually describing.

What do you think a 'bit' is? Can you hold it in your hand? no.

Abstraction is looking at things at too high a level and missing the trees for the wood to reverse that old saying. It is very useful - and essential - to be able to use high-level view on things, but it does not explain what is happening when actual non-abstract devices handle all of the data via physical media and electricity and hence magnetism - and then 'electromagnetism'.

We are not talking 'woo woo' stuff here, this was taught me 40 years ago in my First Year 'Electromag' course when I was a naive youth. 

A bit is stored via a media (usually) - my 'Solid State' first year coarse... not weird science (good film though).

I'm trying - unsuccessfully and on verge of giving up - to explain you can't ignore the underlying reality because the higher-level abstraction is naturally easier to grasp when the former may - just may - have something to do with the perceived effect.

But people often want things simple and is worse when they think they understand something but actually are missing it. The 'unknown Unknown' of Donald Rumsfeld fame - in my case it is the 'known Unknown' is all.

DB.

dave marshall posted:

Just my 2p worth, with, it has to be said, no real understanding on my part, of the technical aspects of why the following should be true.

My HDX was sent off to Naim for a service, and all the music on it, 100% Naim WAV CD rips, were copied to my QNAP nas so that I would still have access to my music whilst the HDX was away.

Now that it has returned, with Naim having copied all the music to a new 2TB drive installed by them, I can hear a clear difference on playback between a track served over UPnP to my ND 555 by the HDX, and one using the nas, via Minimserver.

Now, since they are identical rips, how is this possible, as it would seem that the chosen UPnP server does indeed have an effect, identical files notwithstanding. 

I take it that your HDX has a solid state drive inside, whereas the nas is not of the solid state variety?

In comparison’s of standard and solid state drives (identical information) inside my Core they did sound different, and I preferred the sd serving up the music (albiet one is a Sandisk the other a WD). For me the sd was cleaner, faster, had more detail and better ambiance retrieval.

I believe some others, but not all, on the forum had a similar experience in such a comparison.

Darke Bear posted:

I just ripped a new copy via Melco D100 of an early Linda Ronstadt album CD of that name and put it alongside the renamed folder containing the Rip I did a few days ago on my PC, so I have both sets of files on the same server in folders side by side and can select and play from each - and they sound different and the D100 version has better low-level detail and note-purity.

Don't know why, but I can hear it.

DB.

Have been following this with interest  - presumably they are all ripped to the same format.

I'd imagine that if all the rippers are AccurateRip based that the actual audio data should be identical, metadata, position of audio data within the file and so forth may not be.  

Differences could be down to the actual encoder for the particular format you're saving in.  Quite possible the encoder/ripping software could be buggy even if metadata looks ok, no guarantee the audio saved is true to source even if the software says (and has) ripped it accurately if errors creep in creating the audio file.

I assume as far as possible each file is being played from the same USB device or NAS, though it might be difficult to differentiate one from another unless you can actually play based on a specific filename ?

I think in all honesty this may be the kind of thing you'll obsess with for a little while then ultimately forget in the grand scheme of things unless the sonic difference is huge.  Played with 'audiophile' ethernet cables for a while, have now forgotten about them and just use what I have.

Quads posted:

dave marshall posted:

Just my 2p worth, with, it has to be said, no real understanding on my part, of the technical aspects of why the following should be true.

My HDX was sent off to Naim for a service, and all the music on it, 100% Naim WAV CD rips, were copied to my QNAP nas so that I would still have access to my music whilst the HDX was away.

Now that it has returned, with Naim having copied all the music to a new 2TB drive installed by them, I can hear a clear difference on playback between a track served over UPnP to my ND 555 by the HDX, and one using the nas, via Minimserver.

Now, since they are identical rips, how is this possible, as it would seem that the chosen UPnP server does indeed have an effect, identical files notwithstanding. 

I take it that your HDX has a solid state drive inside, whereas the nas is not of the solid state variety?

In comparison’s of standard and solid state drives (identical information) inside my Core they did sound different, and I preferred the sd serving up the music (albiet one is a Sandisk the other a WD). For me the sd was cleaner, faster, had more detail and better ambiance retrieval.

I believe some others, but not all, on the forum had a similar experience in such a comparison.

Nope, it's a traditional spinny 2 Tb drive, freshly installed by Naim ................. weird, innit? 

Yes, Interesting 

French Rooster posted:

On the Nd555 impressions thread, Dark Bear found that 3 different rips from the same album, by 3 different softwares, sound different for him.

I hope i make no mistake here in resuming his idea.   Some members don’t agree with that, thinking or hearing no differences at all.

Dark Bear found that the rips made by the melco 100 ripper sound the best.

I am asking myself if the differences can be explained, if they really exist, by the quality of the cd drive mechanism.  The one in the melco must be better made than the cheap one in a pc or mac (?).

Can you just copy all the files to same machine and test? 
I know that there are some command lines utils such as diff, checksum, sum, etc to check if the file contents are the same, try that first and then listen.

Frank Yang posted:

French Rooster posted:

On the Nd555 impressions thread, Dark Bear found that 3 different rips from the same album, by 3 different softwares, sound different for him.

I hope i make no mistake here in resuming his idea.   Some members don’t agree with that, thinking or hearing no differences at all.

Dark Bear found that the rips made by the melco 100 ripper sound the best.

I am asking myself if the differences can be explained, if they really exist, by the quality of the cd drive mechanism.  The one in the melco must be better made than the cheap one in a pc or mac (?).

Can you just copy all the files to same machine and test? 
I know that there are some command lines utils such as diff, checksum, sum, etc to check if the file contents are the same, try that first and then listen.

The problem I suspect will be that even if the audio data is the same the files won't be due to subtle differences in metadata, perhaps even just a field specifying the ripping/encoder software.

Alley Cat posted:

Frank Yang posted:

French Rooster posted:

On the Nd555 impressions thread, Dark Bear found that 3 different rips from the same album, by 3 different softwares, sound different for him.

I hope i make no mistake here in resuming his idea.   Some members don’t agree with that, thinking or hearing no differences at all.

Dark Bear found that the rips made by the melco 100 ripper sound the best.

I am asking myself if the differences can be explained, if they really exist, by the quality of the cd drive mechanism.  The one in the melco must be better made than the cheap one in a pc or mac (?).

Can you just copy all the files to same machine and test? 
I know that there are some command lines utils such as diff, checksum, sum, etc to check if the file contents are the same, try that first and then listen.

The problem I suspect will be that even if the audio data is the same the files won't be due to subtle differences in metadata, perhaps even just a field specifying the ripping/encoder software.

Yes, I would suspect that the diff tools would say these files do not have the same contents even the data are the same. I have seen that many times, but my goal is to encourage folks here to dig deeper and investigate if there are any noticeable diffs in the actual data and why.

I know this can be challenging for some non-computer data specialists, but for some who are computer software professional or data experts would know what I meant here.