HDX rip better than iTunes rip?

quote:

Originally posted by CharlieP:
Several posters have reported hearing differences in the (playback) sound or musical qualities of various rips, formats. I know it is hard to describe perceived sound with words - BUT - could you please describe the kinds of differences you hear? Are these differences localized or throughout a song?

Charlie,

The differences that I noted with the various formats, software programs were noted throughout the entire song.

Things that I noted were that many were bright, thin, and somewhat harsh in presentation with no real depth to the music. Not enjoyable.

As I've said I thought the HDX rips were better than the EAC rips, but had I not had the comparison I probably would have been satisfied with those from EAC. The main difference was that I thought the music with HDX rips more resembled the original intent of the music and had a bit more fullness and depth to the presentation. Again I thought EAC was good until I heard the other.

Have you compared these rips blind?

Came across this thread - pretty interesting.

I don't think it's quite accurate to compare the file and say that if they are identical apart from the offset that they will sound the same. This is because the CD data is arranged in frames of 2352 bytes length, played back at 75 frames per second. If the samples for the DAC are unpacked in the decoder using very different frame boundaries than they were packed with in the encoder then this could be audible since the time intervals between samples being fed to the DAC will be slightly different on playback.

Just a thought. Hope someone with time on their hands can try to prove this. If someone can try two files having the same frame alignment within the WAV file data chunk ie zero offset or 2352 bytes offset it could be a clue.

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:
Have you compared these rips blind?

No. The purpose of the demo was to show that the files didn't sound the same and clearly they didn't. Having done it "blind" would not have changed that.

You must conduct a blind test, otherwise your opinion counts for nothing, nothing more than your imagination.

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:
You must conduct a blind test, otherwise your opinion counts for nothing, nothing more than your imagination.

DHT, it was pretty obvious that you were baiting for my response so that you could make that comment. Your response was expected. Probably had it pre-typed and just "pasted" to the forum.

My imagination has nothing to do with what my ears heard.

DHT, should we ignore all your posts about the Weiss because you compared it other things in your own home sans blindfold? Every post should be taken with a grain of salt but those comments are over the top.

The comment about "blind testing" is more than reasonable. I see no other way that the underlying bias of the listeners can be avoided in such subjective matters.

In a blind test - I confident that I would always pick the 555 over my CDS2 - no problem. Also the highline over grey.

If the differences are real there should be no objection in trying this with rips. We're not talking subtle - if difference between rips can be heard in the car (someone reported this a while ago).

JeremyB - interesting point. If this the case - this should be testable by using EAC and choosing different offsets during the ripping processes?

Harry - WDYT?

quote:

Originally posted by paremus:
The comment about "blind testing" is more than reasonable. I see no other way that the underlying bias of the listeners can be avoided in such subjective matters.

In a blind test - I confident that I would always pick the 555 over my CDS2 - no problem. Also the highline over grey.

If the differences are real there should be no objection in trying this with rips. We're not talking subtle - if difference between rips can be heard in the car (someone reported this a while ago).

JeremyB - interesting point. If this the case - this should be testable by using EAC and choosing different offsets during the ripping processes?

Harry - WDYT?

I'm all for blind testing but claiming ones imagination was used could be done against virtually any opinion at any time. I don't think the blind testing is being objected to. It's the tone of the comment thay any opinion is no more than imagination without it. That would include your opinion about the 555 vs cds2 which I agree with by the way. Can't say I ever compared them in a blind though so of course, we're imagining it.

Offset did seem to make a noticable difference for me. I once setup EAC to check it out and got less than stellar results only to discover that the settings were back at it's defaults. Kind of blind situation. Either user error or because it was the shops PC with multiple access. Anyway, I've been happy with the results since correcting the settings........ but of course it could just be my imagination. I think this disclaimer should follow every post that wasn't confimed blind tested from this point on.

JS -

Its so easy to convince oneself of something ;-)

Interesting comment re your EAC experience. Backs up Jeremy's suggestion. So I'm going to have a play with offsets with XLD - and see if I can detect any effect - yes it will have to be consistent repeatable & done blind

Cheers

Richard

I also agree with the convincing of ones self comment. Seen it often and I think we're all aware of it. I just thought the call out a bit heavy handed.

My PC uses a huge amount of offset. I wonder how much that changes the game and if some systems are less prone to this issue?

I am going to blindy re-enter the discussion--confirmed, my eyes were closed when I wrote this and a member of my staff confirmed this for me.

We all agree that "blind testing" is the best, but to imply that I imagined the differences to justify the end result that I was looking for is ridiculous. I certainly was not looking to justify an outcome so that I could spend more money.

Jeremy, paremus --

Interesting points. On iPhone atm so a considered response too difficult to check (this forum message window sux a bit on iPhone). One thing , though, this point moves beyond my competence. My gut feel is that it is not important but I freely admit this is talking with no specific knowledge More later or tomorrow depending on how many beers I get to drink!

Enough drink and you can have a true blind audition.

quote:

Originally posted by gary1 (US):
We all agree that "blind testing" is the best,

I don't.

I don't either as extended listening is always prefered but blind testing is still a valid method. It just doesn't have time to reach your soul.

quote:

Originally posted by js:
It just doesn't have time to reach your soul.

Then what good is it is where I am coming from.
A quick AB or blind testing put too much emphasis on the sound difference and does not focus in kits ability to make good music.

I made many mistakes and misjudged components that way.

quote:

should we ignore all your posts about the Weiss because you compared it other things in your own home sans blindfold? Every post should be taken with a grain of salt but those comments are over the top

JS I listen to all potential new products 'blindly' paying careful attention to match output, it is the only way, why not conduct the test again, ask a friend to mix up the rips, and then honestly report back?

quote:

Then what good is it is where I am coming from.
A quick AB or blind testing put too much emphasis on the sound difference and does not focus in kits ability to make good music.

Kuma blind tests can be carried over weeks if you choose.

quote:

and then honestly report back?

Which infers what precisely

Barrie

I am with Kuma and js on the blind testing. It can be useful some of the time.

I recently tried comparing macbook output in 16bit vs 24bit. I could switch back and forth. When doing this quickly, the difference was small or not noticeable. But the difference seemed to become more obvious the longerI listended. I clearly felt the 24bit was mor musical, less stressful. Of course, I could have been imagining it all...

Let's see what was the topic? Oh yeah....

quote:

Originally posted by CharlieP:
I am with Kuma and js on the blind testing. It can be useful some of the time.

I recently tried comparing macbook output in 16bit vs 24bit. I could switch back and forth. When doing this quickly, the difference was small or not noticeable. But the difference seemed to become more obvious the longerI listended. I clearly felt the 24bit was mor musical, less stressful. Of course, I could have been imagining it all...

Let's see what was the topic? Oh yeah....

Same here, 24bit . Perhaps when the others have the little get together, they could post exactly what they were listening to and descriptive findings on each recording so that we may do the same at home. We may all have different replay chains , rooms, and be at different levels of the Naim ladder but it would be easy to rip the same discs and see how the different sonic impressions vary. I could at least compare iTunes with error correction on, to XLD with different offset correction settings. ( don't really want to install Windows so I will leave the other rippers to someone else to try )

* please not too much Fleetwood Mac, I have a severe allergic reaction to Stevie Nicks, Peter Green stuff is O.K though.

cheers

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:
Kuma blind tests can be carried over weeks if you choose.

Whilst, nothing more unproductive than debating over the validity of an ABX testing, you got me curious.

What's your method for a long-term blind testing?

Don't look!

My appologies for possibly fueling an off-topic BT or DBT debate...

It is perhaps the mark of a professional that they possess the intellectual honesty to avoid deceiving themselves most of the time; and for the rest they revisit their conclusions and also look for possible confirmation from others. No offense intended, just my 2 cents.