HDX rip better than iTunes rip?

Mr Tibbs I agree. What I am trying to get to the heart of is why the HDX rips sound better because if they sound better the files are different. Not only slightly different in a handful of words but significantly different through the whole file. I do not believe that this can be the case but as always reserve total certainty until someone can do the test with the HDX or let me have a file.

Perhaps somebody could upload a couple of tracks that demonstrate the superiority of one software ripper over another. We could have a listen for ourselves and then discuss further.

Richard hi --

To test my process I also compared a 256 AAC against a WAV. The resulting wave is therefore all info in the wav not in the AAC. When played you hear the original track in a constrained form illustrating how much information is lost. All apropos nothing but maybe interesting for someone else to look at.

quote:

Originally posted by Harry H. Wombat:
Mr Tibbs I agree. What I am trying to get to the heart of is why the HDX rips sound better because if they sound better the files are different. Not only slightly different in a handful of words but significantly different through the whole file. I do not believe that this can be the case but as always reserve total certainty until someone can do the test with the HDX or let me have a file.

EAC makes perfect rips. iTunes makes perfect rips (so long as the CD is undamaged). I don't think Naim can claim the HDX can do better than perfect, can they? That's the ripping issue put to bed, then.

Replay? That's different! The bits are still just bits, but perhaps the HDX is capable of recovering a really clean jitter-free bitstream (knowing Naim, I'm sure it is excellent in this respect). That could account for the 'better sound' claim.

Mr Tibbs

Played back on a revealing setup, the rips sound different with one being clearly more like the original. I have no idea why. Done the a/b numerous times and it doesn't have to be the HDX. EAC/DBpoweramp when correctly set up sound virtually alike to an HDX with .wav but different/better than Itunes. If EAC isn't set up correctly it's also clearly worse yet probably still bit correct on good discs. I don't know why but it's a problem I ran into when I lost it's settings in an early trial. Rechecked settings after questionable results and found everthing at the defaults.

Can't prove it without doing a blind dem for you but I haven't found anyone that can't easily hear it through a well setup Media Monkey and TC, ASIO connected to a SN via a DC1 and competant speaks if I dem it. Wavelab rips and playback also sound better than Itunes even without ASIO and it also doesn't rely on offset. No HDX needed though the same result happens if I play back and rip through it. Just easier and more informative. I'm just going to duck now and not respond further. These are my results and I'm really not in a good enough technical position to be able to explain why. Perhaps MAC Itunes rips better than PC Itunes but there's also no technical reason for that. I'm genuinely at a loss to explain it and as I said it's not just Itunes. Every media player rip I've tried had similar results. (Wavelab is not a media player.)

Harry

Excellent! Like it.

quote:

Originally posted by Harry H. Wombat:
Connon hi --

I ripped the same song, same format in iTunes and XLD I think. Don't have exact details with me. Then I imported both files into a sound wave editor. You then align both waveforms (different rippers have longer or shorter periods of silence at start of track). You then invert one wave form and at it to the other. If the waves are identical the result is silence. On about four tracks I tried it on the resulting waveform was flat. No wave. This means the waveforms are identical. Either file played through any system will sound identical.

yup ! Myself and some of my colleagues have also performed the same classic "invert the wave" test with the same results. The important thing here is "all other things being equal". I am certain an HDX will sound significantly better than a Sony Discman, although they are playing the same bit perfect disc. (unless of course someone prefers the sound of the discman! )

The respected mastering engineer Bob Katz has a book called " Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science ". Now in it's second edition , it has become something of a bible in the pro-world but is fantastic for anyone to read if you have wondered what happens to all those 1's and 0's ( quite often bad things happen to them ! ) or if you ever wondered why the same release sounds different from different countries etc etc.

Very very very recommended and you don't have to be an audio engineer to learn quite a lot of interesting things.

good thread though

cheers

It is interesting as the sony discman or a sony media player in lossless or wav may also cancel the HDX wav and I think we all agree there's a difference in sound. Distortion measurements are extremely low in both at line level.

Hi Js, there is a difference in sound because the HDX and the Sony have very different parts inside (DA converters, power, layout, clocking etc etc etc ) . If the recorded "audio" out, of both players playing the same disc (bits) produced waves that cancelled each-other out after being perfectly lined up and inverted ( all process being eaqual ), it would mean both machines sound completely identical and that they are the same inside, and it would mean we are all barking-mad !! Getting back to "ripping" and the HDX, the advantage the HDX may have with regards to ripping is consistency. That is, it makes perfect rips more often than another system which is also very capable of making perfect rips which is of course important, but to say that two completely and absolutely perfect rips from two different "rippers" sound different played back on the same third player simply means that one rip was indeed... not perfect.

I need more coffee

cheers

Mr Tibbs,

I totally agree with you, Naim haven't developed software that is better than what is already in use, as Mr Poon clearly proves they all rip perfectly.

It's what you do with that 'rip' that counts, if you like the Naim sound you will like the SN or HDX replay, or Linn etc.

But as far as the HDX goes it is doing nothing more than is already available in different combos, after all the HDX is a PC DAC,It just replays in the Naim way, all be it at a high price.

HDX rip is not better than iTunes rip. It just that HDX re-plays music better than some DACs out there.

quote:

Originally posted by haroldbudd:
Hi Js, there is a difference in sound because the HDX and the Sony have very different parts inside (DA converters, power, layout, clocking etc etc etc ) . If the recorded "audio" out, of both players playing the same disc (bits) produced waves that cancelled each-other out after being perfectly lined up and inverted ( all process being eaqual ), it would mean both machines sound completely identical and that they are the same inside, and it would mean we are all barking-mad !! Getting back to "ripping" and the HDX, the advantage the HDX may have with regards to ripping is consistency. That is, it makes perfect rips more often than another system which is also very capable of making perfect rips which is of course important, but to say that two completely and absolutely perfect rips from two different "rippers" sound different played back on the same third player simply means that one rip was indeed... not perfect.

I need more coffee

cheers

We all acknowledge that DACs sound different yet given the same file I suspect that you won't hear anything if 2 are cancelled against each other in most instances. It's a conundrum I can't explain. I'm no longer going to comment on what I hear in the rips but I do find this aspect of the discussion quite interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by QTT:
HDX rip is not better than iTunes rip. It just that HDX re-plays music better than some DACs out there.

Oh yes it is.... much better. Well, to be precise, the HDX rip will be more "proper" and surely "bit-perfect".

how many times to i have to say this here...

ITUNES DOES NOT, and CANNOT, produce a bit perfect rip!!! Unless by blind luck.

YOU CANNOT EDIT THE READ OFFSET OF RIPPING DRIVE IN iTUNES. Period.

The only way it could make a proper rip is if the drive used within a MAC/iTunes, or PC/iTunes, was determined to have a factory offset of "0".

If ALL Mac drives have a zero offset, I will sincerely apologize for yelling.

dbPoweramp users are in the same boat.

There might be some others besides EAC and the HDX (XLD i think) that address this, but I certainly dont know what they are.

I FULLY admit that this might not make an audible difference. But for me it is important. Why? Why not. If you can achieve an accurate rip, why wouldn't you?

If you rip on a Mac get XLD, i think you can correct offsets with it. At least it creates a log file for you.

quote:

ITUNES DOES NOT, and CANNOT, produce a bit perfect rip!!! Unless by blind luck.

But it has been proved that iTunes actually does produce a perfect rip (given the CD is not damaged). You need only look to the contents of this thread to see that some folk have properly verified this for themselves. Where is your evidence to the contrary? (jumping up and down and shouting is not evidence BTW).

Mr Tibbs

quote:

Originally posted by js:
We all acknowledge that DACs sound different yet given the same file I suspect that you won't hear anything if 2 are cancelled against each other in most instances. It's a conundrum I can't explain.

Not sure I follow that js.

If you mean that the resulting waveform produced by two different DACs fed exactly the same file will be the same I would tend to disagree - but I am out of my depth on that side of the equation.

A DAC is a complex piece of electronics doing sexy stuff with a digital signal carried by an analogue wave - there is also an analogue output section one would assume where all sorts of gruesomeness could occur (note my careful use of technical terms).

If the NAIM rip sounds better than an iTunes rip (same format, same replay mechanism, same room) then the files will be substantively different and this can be easily proved. If the files are the same the sound will be the same. All else is fiction.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
ITUNES DOES NOT, and CANNOT, produce a bit perfect rip!!! Unless by blind luck.

YOU CANNOT EDIT THE READ OFFSET OF RIPPING DRIVE IN iTUNES. Period.

My issue is that I do not believe that this effects, say, the middle of a song or piece of music. For an HDX rip or any rip to sound better all parts of the file must be different in some way. If I have misunderstood what this offset means, apologies.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Tibbs:

quote:

ITUNES DOES NOT, and CANNOT, produce a bit perfect rip!!! Unless by blind luck.

But it has been proved that iTunes actually does produce a perfect rip (given the CD is not damaged). You need only look to the contents of this thread to see that some folk have properly verified this for themselves. Where is your evidence to the contrary? (jumping up and down and shouting is not evidence BTW).

Mr Tibbs

Patrick - You need to prove clearly why you think HDX rip is better. Your ears may not be sufficient.

good points pcstockton, and it's great that you admit that " this might not make an audible difference". I used XLD a while back for my old discs from when I was young as many were not in great shape and I am a bit anal on that (or am now anaway !). It would be interesting to see the difference with and XLD rip and HDX rip. I say "see" because any few wrong bits here and there would require bat ears to hear. I cannot hear an audible difference with iTunes error correction on and XLD, with the same disc, on the Beresford, on the Metric Halo ULN-2 or the Apogee, so it's not bothering me. ( Those dacs all sound clearly different, and all very good )

With regards to OFFSET, well that is getting very deep indeed. We might as well discuss the differences between the quality of Bass from the same perfect rip when played on the same gear in a high altitude city like Madrid or a low altitude city like Seattle ! The quality of D/A is much more important than the itunes offset "problem" - If the source disc is clean, no worries.



When I have a big chunk of time I am going to use different rippers ( iTunes included ) and actually post the detailed waveform result pics, hopefully next week.

cheers, it's the weekend ! Wine and music !

quote:

Originally posted by haroldbudd:
ROTF,

How did the 1's and 0's get on your CD's ? And from were did they come from ?

During the manufacture

A compact disc is constructed of 5 separate layers…

1. First a thick, soft, clear plastic layer. This layer comprises the majority of the CD's thickness and weight. It serves two purposes. First, it protects the data layer from damage on the play side and Secondly it acts as a lens to focus the CD player's laser onto the data layer so it can more easily read the data (much the way lenses in spectacles help eyes focus on the words on a page).

2. Next the data layer is where the music and any other information are stored. It's the layer that the CD player "reads" in order to create the music, graphics, etc. The data layer is molded or pressed into the top of the clear plastic layer. The data in the data layer is arranged in tracks that spiral like the grooves on a vinyl record (except CDs are read from the "inside out", the opposite of vinyl records).

3. Now a reflective, metallic layer is located on top of the data layer. It allows the disc to function like a mirror, reflecting the CD player's laser back to the detector in the CD player after it reads the data layer It's this layer that gives the CD's play side a shiny appearance.

4. A thin, hard protective layer is an ultra-thin plastic coating that is added to provide some protection for the reflective and data layers, while also forming a surface upon which the label information can be printed.

5. Finally the label layer is printed on top of the protective layer. It contains the title, graphics, band and other information to identify the contents of the disc. (label side).

I don't have to do anything other than play them on my humble old CDX2/555PS and they sound pretty good - why would ripping them make them sound any better. Seems like a bit of a faff to me.

Of course if I download music then I just want to play that without any need to burn to CD, cut to my own vinyl press or any other such things. I'm just a simple man, doing the best I can. I play records on a record player, CDs on a CD player and downloads on a ..... well that wondrous device is yet to come to chez moi.

ATB Rotf

Rotf, I was waiting for you !

How did the 1's and 0's get from the analog 2" master tape to the mixing platform. How did they then get to the mastering stage ? How did they get them onto the glass master disc that gets sent to the pressing plant ? After that it's exactly as you listed. The point I was trying to make is that there is quite a lot of "ripping" going on at several stages before the disc gets pressed. It's just not called " ripping" but is essentially the same thing- the copying and movement of files consisting of a stream of 1's and 0's from one location to another as accurately as possible. This can happen a surprising number of times depending on the recording/mixing/mastering/pressing process. They just don't call it "ripping". I guess what I am trying to say is people who are put off by "ripping" have no need to be as everyone has been listening to the end result of thousands of different levels of "rips" in their cd collections when they enjoy their discs. It is the process that happens before your (excellent !) outline I was refering to. My fave is vinyl and will probably always be, but I am really enjoying MAC/DAC, two extremes and love both. Odd, I buy so many compact discs but don't actually own a CDP

( it is also quite common for a disc to be sourced from good vinyl, usually when the master tape is either in bad condition or simply non existent, and the results can be wonderful if the mastering engineer does not butcher them ! )

all the best as well

j

The term would be data transfer or a tape dump.
not really 1's and 0's on tape more +/-

It is played off the Playback(reproduce) head. Through the MIX Bus to the Channels back to the Mix bus and out the 2bus to the 1/4 (2) track tape or CDR. (plus some summing amps comps eq verb delay)

then you have the 2 track with in digital is usually a high res file. or a 2 track analogue tape. Mastering E. does a transfer into comp.


ETC

ETC

ETC

Then for vinyl you have another Mastering E. that sets the proper levels for the Glass master.

ETC

ETC

I like " data transfer " myself, sounds so much nicer than " tape dump " or "rip "

Also, many times these days, there is no "tape" analog or digital involved at all....

LOL I almost had to check if I was on the right forum!

cheers

there are a few of us that still use 2 inch. albeit few and far between but its still there, and still a few companies making it.

Although the machine is older than I. but it still keeps ticking.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:

quote:

Originally posted by QTT:
HDX rip is not better than iTunes rip. It just that HDX re-plays music better than some DACs out there.

Oh yes it is.... much better. Well, to be precise, the HDX rip will be more "proper" and surely "bit-perfect".

how many times to i have to say this here...

ITUNES DOES NOT, and CANNOT, produce a bit perfect rip!!! Unless by blind luck.

YOU CANNOT EDIT THE READ OFFSET OF RIPPING DRIVE IN iTUNES. Period.

The only way it could make a proper rip is if the drive used within a MAC/iTunes, or PC/iTunes, was determined to have a factory offset of "0".

If ALL Mac drives have a zero offset, I will sincerely apologize for yelling.

dbPoweramp users are in the same boat.

There might be some others besides EAC and the HDX (XLD i think) that address this, but I certainly dont know what they are.

I FULLY admit that this might not make an audible difference. But for me it is important. Why? Why not. If you can achieve an accurate rip, why wouldn't you?

If you rip on a Mac get XLD, i think you can correct offsets with it. At least it creates a log file for you.

Don't worry, after another glass of wine you won't notice the difference between rips.

Enjoy your music, it's all that matters.

they can break into my place and take everything at gun-point but the robbers would have to pry my Otari mix-down two track 1/2"tape recorder from my dead hands, and it would have to be "they" as the thing is massive and heavy! They can even take my girl ! Love tape, sadly inconvenient these days though and pricey, oh well

...did I just say " robbers " ? is that word even used anymore?

cheers

there was a time it was over 1 k per reel of 2inch. I am glad ampex/quantegy has been revived.

Studer A800!!! got a fork lift.