"there are a lot of things that can ruin the rip."

Posted by: Sloop John B on 20 September 2011

It’s all right to say rip it to your NAS and use EAC or dBpoweramp, but there are a lot of things that can ruin the rip. The quality of the transport, the environment it’s being ripped into. So Naim right now is controlling the ripping, storage and playback and that’s important to us if we go back to the "source first" in terms of where we first started.............



Now after a dying Buffalo NAS and a QNAP NAS whose bundled UPNP server Twonky doesn't seem to read the  tags on  WAV files I can see the attraction of a Naim server BUT..........

 

is there any truth is the inference above that the Naim server will give a better "source" ?

 

i.e. if my dBpoweramp tells me I have an accurate (65) rip of AC/DC's Back in Black am I truly to believe that the Naim environment will do a better job?

 

 

Posted on: 21 September 2011 by Guido Fawkes
Originally Posted by Richard Dane:

 

I'm just airing a few thoughts on the whole "accuracy" debate.... .

I don't care if there's chemicals on it as long as my lettuce is crisp - Grace Slick from Eat Starch Mom

 

If you play back using iTunes then you have a graphic equaliser that you can do all kinds of things with and on occasions make a recording sound more enjoyable and they tell me it is not right, well I'd sooner be happy than right.

 

I wonder if anybody can tell the difference between an accurate rip and a fairly accurate rip simply by listening. And what if the rip isn't accurate, but the playback still sounds great.

 

There is a ripper for the Mac that lets you alter the sound and store the altered version. I guess I wouldn't use it as I'd keep thinking my intervention was less than ideal. However, it is an interesting idea you are putting forward: as at the moment I rely on somebody like Steve Hoffman to rescue difficult recordings with his re-masters.  Yet some hereon pour scorn of re-masters not without justification. 

 

So if I could do the re-mastering myself then ... I guess if I could store my preferred settings in metadata with option to reset when I decided I'd gone overboard then that might just appeal. 

 

On the Cambridge P60 amp of yore you could equalise your music and then record it using the 2nd or 3rd tape output (can't remember which). Whenever I did it I regretted it and wished I used the first tape output which was devoid of such frills.  

 

All the best, Guy 

Posted on: 21 September 2011 by Richard Dane
Originally Posted by likesmusic:

Can Naim unscramble omelettes to make chickens?

I doubt it, but with digital you're already dealing with powdered eggs...

Posted on: 21 September 2011 by winkyincanada
Originally Posted by Sloop John B:
Originally Posted by Richard Dane:

..

 

  Is there a way to unravel some of their manipulation to achieve a better and more satisfying result?

 

 

 

 

 

seriously?

 

 

 

SJB

Well yes.

 

In terms of dynamic range it is totally possible to process a signal to make the quieter parts quieter and the louder parts louder. Think of mucking around in curves on Photoshop. Non-linear input/output mapping is pretty straightforward. Of course, you can't do anything to unpack the signal that has been mashed against the 0db ceiling  or to recover anything that has been reduced below the noise floor, but you can increase dynamic range in some sense. Of course you lose resolution, but it might still be a benficial trade-off.

 

Similarly with EQ. You can undo some EQ, but again at a cost of resolution. The trade-off might be worth it.

 

Winky Burwen-Bobcat

Posted on: 21 September 2011 by Sloop John B
Originally Posted by winkyincanada:
Originally Posted by Sloop John B:
Originally Posted by Richard Dane:

..

 

  Is there a way to unravel some of their manipulation to achieve a better and more satisfying result?

 

 

 

 

 

seriously?

 

 

 

SJB

Well yes.

 

In terms of dynamic range it is totally possible to process a signal to make the quieter parts quieter and the louder parts louder. Think of mucking around in curves on Photoshop. Non-linear input/output mapping is pretty straightforward. Of course, you can't do anything to unpack the signal that has been mashed against the 0db ceiling  or to recover anything that has been reduced below the noise floor, but you can increase dynamic range in some sense. Of course you lose resolution, but it might still be a benficial trade-off.

 

Similarly with EQ. You can undo some EQ, but again at a cost of resolution. The trade-off might be worth it.

 

Winky Burwen-Bobcat

weren't we here before?

 

 

 

Posted on: 22 September 2011 by Hook
Originally Posted by Richard Dane:
Originally Posted by likesmusic:

Can Naim unscramble omelettes to make chickens?

I doubt it, but with digital you're already dealing with powdered eggs...

 

I like this analogy a lot.

 

How would like your eggs, sir?  

 

I'll take two, pressed from the original stereo analog tapes, tyvm. 

 

Hook