HDX rip better than iTunes rip?

Good to see this thread page8, Is again back on page 2.
This is a good Rip but only if you have a Mac mini.

And if you need a good hard drive?Try this.

dont forget this classic



or this...

Regarding off-set levels.

Spurred on by a suggestion on this Forum (on of the few interesting ones on this subject) - that offset may affect the boundaries of the data blocks as they enter the DAC - with a resultant an audible affect - a few weeks back I used XLD to rip Thea Gilmore's - Lipstick Conspiracy (NAIM label CD).

Several times - each rip with a different off-set; making sure the off-set auto-correction mode was disabled. Some of the offset ranges I used were so large - that yes - I COULD tell a marked difference in the rip - the rip actually being of the wrong album track (quite confusing). For the range off-sets that resulted in ripping of the target track - the size of the resultant rip files were indeed different - as one might would expect.

However - played through my System - I could detect no audible difference.

If you have a MAC/DAC combination a quick / easy experiment that I'd encourage to you to try and report your results.

A final comment. As per Harry's posts.

IF two copies of data are identical on disk (however each was produced is immaterial) - the sound will be identical when played through the same audio chain.

I'm assuming there is general consensus on this point and that no one is arguing the contrary? If one were to argue the contrary - the implication would be not no ripping system (including the HDX) could EVER achieve consistent ripping results.

Think about it

Richard

David, that is all very interesting, but if we take Kent Poon seriously it is all compeletely irrelevant. The only way the physics of the drive matter is if the analogue states on the drive are not read correctly into the ones and zeros--and that is a very rare occurrence indeed.

According to Poon, there is no way to tell his ten different rips (with different drives and software engines) apart whatsoever, whether by checksum or by looking at the actual waveforms reconstructed from the data. If you line up the iTunes rip with Wavelab or whatever, it is exactly the same.

Furthermore, he shows that the output from itunes as a player is the same as his other software (including his pro stuff). [Note this is on a Mac.]

The onus is clearly on those who claim a difference to show a difference. This is not like arguments over the audibility of different amplifiers or even stands and wires, where physical differences are objective but the debate is over audibility. Here we must first establish that there is even a phenomena to test subjectively.

Like, take digital output of an HDX rip and compare it to an itunes or EAC rip.

Or put several different rips on an HDX and then measure the ANALOG output when playing back. Dump it to digital and compare waveforms. What do we see?

Now I might be a silly audiophile, but I believe if you dumped the output of my CDS to hi-rez digital and analyzed waveforms, it would look different than the output of my 18 year old Rotel. Arny Kruger et. al. could then claim it was of no consequence, but there would be something to argue over.

However, I am not at all sure you would see identifiable differences in the analog out when playing an Itunes rip and an HDX rip on an HDX.

quote:

Originally posted by Eric Barry:
David, that is all very interesting, but if we take Kent Poon seriously it is all compeletely irrelevant. The only way the physics of the drive matter is if the analogue states on the drive are not read correctly into the ones and zeros--and that is a very rare occurrence indeed.

According to Poon, there is no way to tell his ten different rips (with different drives and software engines) apart whatsoever, whether by checksum or by looking at the actual waveforms reconstructed from the data. If you line up the iTunes rip with Wavelab or whatever, it is exactly the same.

Furthermore, he shows that the output from itunes as a player is the same as his other software (including his pro stuff). [Note this is on a Mac.]

The onus is clearly on those who claim a difference to show a difference. This is not like arguments over the audibility of different amplifiers or even stands and wires, where physical differences are objective but the debate is over audibility. Here we must first establish that there is even a phenomena to test subjectively........

Agree completely - exactly my take on the matter. Especially the first and last paragraphs.

Eric,

Agree completely, great post.

quote:

Originally posted by paremus:
For the range off-sets that resulted in ripping of the target track - the size of the resultant rip files were indeed different - as one might would expect.

However - played through my System - I could detect no audible difference.

IF two copies of data are identical on disk (however each was produced is immaterial) - the sound will be identical when played through the same audio chain.

Aren't there a few missing 'bits' of logic here?

Presumably your two (admittedly at extremes of viability) rips were different (on disk) - and yet sound indistinguishable to you.

Does ANYTHING sound different?

There are no missing bits of logic.

All I know is I tried to rip 2 CDs last night in iTunes (on a Mac). Both CDs have pregap information before Track 1. One of them has a three note lead-up that segues directly into the 1st track. The other (ambient) has a fade-in that leads into the first official track.

NEITHER were detected and ripped with iTunes.

So whether or not the parts iTunes DID rip were bit perfect is a moot point. The iTunes rip didn't capture the whole album.... therefore not bit perfect according to my definition.

Harry, iilyama, jazzfan etc,
I am not sure what your points are anymore. Is it that EAC rips as well as the HDX? IF so you are right.

Is it that iTunes is also as "good"? Well, in that case I feel you are wrong.

If you cannot hear a difference between all of the rips, why get caught up in the discussion?

Clearly there is more going on than meets the eye. Perhaps there are a bunch of placebo effects in conjuction with Emperor's Clothes.

In the end, if an HDX/EAC/iTunes user "believes" their rip sounds better, more power to them....

@pc

The points are as they have always been. I do agree with you, though, on the points that you make.

If you cannot hear a difference between all of the rips, why get caught up in the discussion?

Because I know my subject and when I see bad computing science I just cannot let it go. But maybe the challenging has gone on long enough. The points are made and they are here for anyone who wants to find them.

Harry,

Since this isn't a Computer Science Forum, what exactly are you trying to achieve?

What do you want "us" to learn with your comments?

What should "we" be doing differently?

I see that you understand parts of this subject very well. What I am lost on is your motivation. Not being pejorative in the least. Seriously, what am I supposed to glean from this thread?

If you think some are simply wrong about how the 0s and 1s work, I get it.

If it is something else you are getting at, I would be interested in specifically what that is.

quote:

...If you think some are simply wrong about how the 0s and 1s work, I get it....

That's one thing on which we can certainly agree.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
Harry,

Since this isn't a Computer Science Forum, what exactly are you trying to achieve?

What do you want "us" to learn with your comments?

What should "we" be doing differently?

I see that you understand parts of this subject very well. What I am lost on is your motivation. Not being pejorative in the least. Seriously, what am I supposed to glean from this thread?

If you think some are simply wrong about how the 0s and 1s work, I get it.

If it is something else you are getting at, I would be interested in specifically what that is.

Just the zeros and ones - a file is a file and an identical file will produce identical music. That's it.

If everyone were to agree on that then there would be no more on the subject but not everyone seems to agree. If one saw or heard someone say "1+1=3" because that's the way it looked to them one would probably chuckle and move on but by moving on one would leave a community that would eventually convince themselves that "1+1=3" because nobody said otherwise.

This is fine I guess but I would pity the poor soul who offers up two pound coins and claims it is three.

The important aspect of this discussion (for me at least) is that some posters appear to be determined to argue that, somehow, it is possible to hear real differences between two identical files that are played through the same replay mechanism, either because of subjective considerations or because there are more complex mysterious factors at work than whether or not the files appear to be bit for bit identical. However, this is not a subjective matter and there really is no other issue to consider beyond the 0s and 1s in the files - it belongs firmly in the realm of computer science and can be objectively answered using well established techniques. Those arguing to the contrary are either misguided or disingenuous.

quote:

Originally posted by Harry H. Wombat:

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
Seriously, what am I supposed to glean from this thread?

Just the zeros and ones - a file is a file and an identical file will produce identical music. That's it.

Oh good... I thought we were talking about something important, or at least relevant to Naim's stunning reproduction of music.

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:
The important aspect of this discussion (for me at least) is that some posters appear to be determined to argue that, somehow, it is possible to hear real differences between two identical files that are played through the same replay mechanism, ..... Those arguing to the contrary are either misguided or disingenuous.

Jesus Christ Jazzfan.

Are you calling 90% of the forum members liars? Or simply stupid??

If someone thinks, feels, or believes a particular rip or bit of kit, sounds better than another, then it is neither misguided nor disingenuous.

Perhaps they are performing a little self-fulfilling prophecy, but surely that is not out of the norm, even for a hardcore empiricist such as yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
Oh good... I thought we were talking about something important, or at least relevant to Naim's stunning reproduction of music.

Thank you for your most courteous reply.

I'll drop out of this now.

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:
The important aspect of this discussion (for me at least) is that some posters appear to be determined to argue that, somehow, it is possible to hear real differences between two identical files that are played through the same replay mechanism, ..... Those arguing to the contrary are either misguided or disingenuous.

This reminds me of somebody here in this forum was saying that he could hear some differences from the same CD played back by the same CDP, the same system at one time or another. LOL, but I think this may be true as it depends on his mood, etc. at the time of his listening.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
If someone thinks, feels, or believes a particular rip or bit of kit, sounds better than another, then it is neither misguided nor disingenuous.

I agree 100% with you - except when the two ripped files can be shown to be 100% identical using techniques that are widely accepted throughout computer science. In that case, those differences are imaginary - they simply have to be.

And one other thing - by "misguided", I mean "mistaken" (or "wrong" to use the word you chose in your post above) - I am not calling anyone stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by Harry H. Wombat:

Thank you for your most courteous reply.

I'll drop out of this now.

I was just curious if any of this discussion had any bearing on how we should handle "distributed audio".

Otherwise the discussion is of some value to me. Perhaps over a beer though, and not on Naim's forum.

I guess your point is that we shouldn't care about the rips or how we do it. Digital is digital.... And I agree to a certain point.

My choice of ripping method is purely based on my needs, not computer science nor obscure physics involved in writing to a hard disc.

I would assume any method I would entertain is going to be "bit perfect" or at least claimed to be so by the engineers who developed the technologies involved. Therefore I choose the method that works best for me.

Unfortunately I live and listen in the analog world. For my ears to hear the 0s and 1s it must be converted.

In terms of hifi, this conversion is most critical for me. Ripping, storage, delivery, toslink vs spdif, glass vs plastic toslink, streaming vs wired etc, matters not to me.

BUT can I pick out the iTunes rip blindly? Yes, if the original rip contains any pre track information. Seeing that it also omits an error log, cue file, and is unable to have the ripping drive's offset corrected, I cannot see why anyone would use it.

Does a FLAC from EAC sound different than a HDX WAV rip? There is no reason why it CANT. Although I probably cannot hear the difference.

Give me a 320 and a lossless file and I will spot the MP3 everytime.

Why? not sure? our ears all work differently.

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:
I agree 100% with you - except...

doesn't sound like 100% to me.

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:

two ripped files can be shown to be 100% identical

Since you are adhering to the hard and fast LAWS of physics, I will use your own logic....

Quantum mechanics does not allow the possibility that the two files could even be exact.... ipso facto, the files could sound different. IN fact all files should, given a hearing threshold high enough to perceive it.

No laws of physics here, more like mathematics.... a "1" written by EAC when ripping a CD will not be distinguishable (when fed to a DAC) from a "1" written by XLD (I thought about using iTunes here as an example, but I have realized by now that you have very strong feelings about that program, so I decided to mention something else).

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:

In that case, those differences are imaginary - they simply have to be.

Just out of curiosity... what is doing the LISTENING in your "widely accepted throughout computer science" experiment?

What part of computer science describes the utterly complex relationship between perception and reason?

I am fairly sure you can only claim a tautology here. If the files are identical, then they are identical. Sure, A = A.

No one has to do any listening when comparing two files of "0"s and "1"s - see the Kent Poon experiments referred to by the OP.