HDX rip better than iTunes rip?

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.

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:

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

Well I think that most on here that can hear a difference ARE hearing the HDX rips to be "better".

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:

My position is the same as before - listeners may claim to hear differences between identical files,

Despite there being no rational reason as you can see it, they are still HEARING a difference. You cannot discount this.

Once again, whether bat ears, placebo, hallucinations or self-fulfilling prophecy are at work, they are still having a different experience.

Gettier aside, they could even claim Knowledge of these differences, in having a true, justified belief of hearing a difference.

Why does it matter to you what the source is, that makes them hear a difference.

You can put an eyelash in each of my hands. Surely they have different masses. But I could not tell you which one is heavier. It is below my threshold. If there was no technology that would allow for a measurement, it would be postulated that they are the same.... because human perception says they are.

There is no definitive test to say how you or I "hear" something, then intellectually process that information, in order to verbally describe that experience.

Why do you think some people prefer the CD5X with a Flatcap over a bare CDX2, and vice versa? Because of their completely SUBJECTIVE experience.

If an HDX rip sounds better to someone, it is.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:

If an HDX rip sounds better to someone, it is.

And if an iTunes rip sounds better to someone, is it better also?

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
Well I think that most on here that can hear a difference ARE hearing the HDX rips to be "better".

That's not the same as ALL hearing the same difference, so my point stands.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:

Despite there being no rational reason as you can see it, they are still HEARING a difference. You cannot discount this.

Once again, whether bat ears, placebo, hallucinations or self-fulfilling prophecy are at work, they are still having a different experience.

Gettier aside, they could even claim Knowledge of these differences, in having a true, justified belief of hearing a difference.

Why does it matter to you what the source is, that makes them hear a difference.

What matters to me is whether those differences could be identified in "blind" listening conditions. If (as I expect) they are not identifiable under those conditions, they do not exist anywhere outside of the listener's mind.

Anyway, I think we are beginning to go around in circles and, unless a new aspect of this discussion emerges, I'll drop out at this point.

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:

Anyway, I think we are beginning to go around in circles ....

I am in complete agreement - although I would never have expected otherwise.

Still a few loops out of the circle.

Peter, isn't the fact that no one ever claims the lesser-pedigreed rip is better suspect? I mean ever? We have in the history of audio all sorts of varying preferences, often for "worse" over "better." Some like the Ittok over the Aro, some like the CDX/XPS over the CDS, others wouldn't have one at any price, some would take an LP12 over anything, some say a Rega P3 is better than a VPI TNT, and so forth. Yet no one thinks itunes rips are better than HDX?

quote:

Originally posted by Adam Meredith:

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:

Anyway, I think we are beginning to go around in circles ....

I am in complete agreement - although I would never have expected otherwise.

Another loop.

I am not so daft as to say that an HDX rip can not sound different than an iTunes rip in any given playback instance as some have said.

However, I am absolutely certain that if I have understood how bits get thrown around a computer and eventually come out as sound, any difference is not because of the rip. It simply cannot be.

Put it another way. You can listen all you want, but you are not listening to the difference in the rip, because there is none to listen to.

That's not ideology. I welcome any correction to the following. In computer audio, there is no time clock until a bitstream is reconstructed from the bits by the soundcard/controller. But the bits, when stored on a drive, or transmitted in network packets, are just bits. They come off the drive, they go in a buffer, they get fed to a soundcard buffer. Then the soundcard makes a timed stream of them with a clock and sends it to a DAC.

What happens to the bits before they leave the buffer of the soundcard--who ripped them, how many times they were converted or transferred, is irrelevant as long as the bits are unchanged, and we know that they are unchanged.

To believe otherwise is simply to not understand how a computer works.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
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.

Peter, this is the same fallacy as David's above.

There is a platonic set of data, of 1s and 0s. Then we make a physical representation of it. That representation, like all things physical, is analog. So we develop a system to make sure that the representations of 1s and 0s don't get confused. The disk drive reads an analog wave and makes 1s and 0s out of it--and it does this extremely reliably, or else the entire world as we know it would come crashing down.

So the quantum states of the matter on the disk drive don't matter. Yes, a file written by one drive, or on one media, will have a different physical being than another. But we've engineered these difference out of the system, so they have no effect on the 1s and 0s that hit the controllers and CPUs.

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:

And if an iTunes rip sounds better to someone, is it better also?

Yes, now you are catching on!!!

Regardless of any differences or identities, "better" is completely subjective and owned solely by those who feel it.

quote:

Originally posted by Eric Barry:
isn't the fact that no one ever claims the lesser-pedigreed rip is better suspect?

Erin,
if by "lesser pedigreed", you mean iTunes, well there are plenty on here who think the iTunes rips sound superior to EAC.

I personally dont hear that myself, and I think they all sound the same....

I haven't seen anyone say that iTunes rips were better than EAC, but I'll take your word for it.

pcstockton,

What are you trying to prove?