HDX rip better than iTunes rip?

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.

pc, I too don't use itunes for ripping, both for the reason you mention (though it is very rare) and because AcccurateRip on EAC or dbPowerAmp (or XLD?) provides assurance there were no glitches in the ripping process, and I've previously had glitches (admittedly on much less powerful computers) ripping with itunes.

Now, the history of psychoacoustics is extraordinarily clear about how inaccurate the ear is particularly where suggestion is at all involved. I can cite you the literature if you would like. Now I am someone who "hears" differences that some people don't acknowledge, and "hears" things differently than some. But I know just how shaky those judgments are. As I said, you can argue up and down whether a Naim 140 sounds different from a 250 at low power, but we at least know they are not electrical identical.

That's not the case with ripping. So if there is no plausible reason to believe in a difference--not a meaningful difference, mind you, but a difference AT ALL, I'll put my money on the known unreliablity of the ear being at fault.

I won't say there is no difference, but I've yet to see any plausible explanation of how there could be. Until I do, I'd rather put my time into things I think might have an effect on the sound--like the feet under my turntable, or my cartridge or phono stage.

Or, like you, within the realm of distributed audio, I am interested in streamers and DACs and how they construct and alter the clock and the bitstream, and the audio circuits that make sound. There is plenty to worry about there without worrying about whether rips are different, when the preponderance of evidence and theory says they are not and can not be.

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:

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

This is the crux of the matter. If the waveforms are identical, then the difference you hear MUST arise from some other source, be it imagination or something else. It cannot be the rip. To believe otherwise is your right, but it is not logical.

If the files and waveforms are not identical, then either Poon is not on the level, or his methods are flawed. I admit it's possible (though his entire livelihood would be in jeopardy), but I've yet to see either his integrity or methodology impugned.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:

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.

I couldn't find a way to mail or PM you so just a quick reply here as Portland seems an awfully long way to go for a beer and does not seem entirely practical although strangely enticing

I won't be returning to my original oft posted points (because I promised myself not to) but I just wanted to say I agree with your post. I would much prefer discussion centered around how the bits are converted to an analogue waveform and how this signal is treated with the respect it requires internally to the DAC and maintained all the way to your ears. There are many people who think that DAC technology is mature and a 100 quid DAC is basically equivalent to a 5,000 quid DAC. There are also some who believe the digital nature of the signal should be maintained all the way to the speakers.

Is a DAC with an internal RAM buffer intrinsically better than one without? Is the JET stuff implemented in the WEISS DAC better or not?

What is best - I for sure don't know and don't have any experience to even have an intuitive feel but would welcome anybody's knowledge or experience because IMHO this is where value lies and and ... I cannot return to the original point .... must ... must resist .....

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:
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.

My point is that MANY people (not me) are hearing noticeable differences. So my question regarding the listening in that guy's "experiments", is how do we account for people's preferences? We are not computers, our ears are NOT "bit-perfect"... yet I cannot chalk this all up to an error of perception and reason.

Regardless of the similarity/identity of the files, and despite the contentions that the above mentioned people could be suffering from delusion, placebo effect, prevarication, people are hearing differences.

We dont need to explain it away, and dismiss it as folly. We need not even care.

Perceiving an HDX rip to sound better is a personal opinion and a valid one at that. People have thought they were justified in believing far more bizzare things than that.... Easter anyone?

Maybe we should read some Wittgenstein.

quote:

Originally posted by Eric Barry:
There is plenty to worry about there without worrying about whether rips are different...

Agreed. For example, how they SOUND!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Eric Barry:
To believe otherwise is your right, but it is not logical.

Sincerely,
Monotheism

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:

My point is that MANY people (not me) are hearing noticeable differences. So my question regarding the listening in that guy's "experiments", is how do we account for people's preferences? We are not computers, our ears are NOT "bit-perfect"... yet I cannot chalk this all up to an error of perception and reason.

Errors of perception and/or reason is exactly what they are, AFAIAC.

Eric Barry refers above to literature that explains how inaccurate the ear is, and how vulnerable hearing impressions are to suggestion. Maybe you should ask him for some references, and they would assist you to answer the question you are asking above.

Jazz,

Right.... but seeing that our inaccurate ear, and our even more imprecise self-reporting, is our ONLY option, it matters not how fallacious it is.

Without invoking a god or some sort, there is no external reference for anything.

You have come 180 degrees. You are now admitting that EXACT files (if they could actually exist and be confirmed as exact) would sound different to everybody given these iniquities of perception. Therefore, all who claim to hear differences are completely justified.

Now the question becomes, why are people sharing the exact same errors in perception. Why does Gary, DaveD, and others "hear" the same difference?

Perhaps not a subject for the Naim Audio Forum but certainly interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:

You have come 180 degrees. You are now admitting that EXACT files (if they could actually exist and be confirmed as exact) would sound different to everybody given these iniquities of perception. Therefore, all who claim to hear differences are completely justified.

My position is the same as before - listeners may claim to hear differences between identical files, but it has to be recognized that there is no rational reason for any differences that may be claimed and that they are purely the result of the "iniquities of perception" (bias, suggestion, etc) associated with hearing.

As mentioned earlier, I expect that blind testing would prove this by showing that each listener claiming to hear differences in "sighted" conditions would be unable to consistently identify which file he was listening to in "blind" conditions.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
Now the question becomes, why are people sharing the exact same errors in perception. Why does Gary, DaveD, and others "hear" the same difference?

Unless I am mistaken, they may all be claiming to hear a difference, but I have not read anywhere that they are hearing the same differences (can you point me to where this is said?). And BTW if there is indeed no consistency to the differences being reported, this too would tend to undermine the credibility of their claims.

Adam,

Not at all - completely logical. To repeat:

1) Identical files on disk WILL sound identical - no matter how they are produced.

2) I experimented with off-set and this resulted in files which were not identical. But I could detect no audible difference when listening.

The first statement - any rational person would accept. The second may be a result of deficiency of hearing on my part. No doubt others will be able tell the difference - some without even needing to do the experiment.