HDX rip better than iTunes rip?

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:

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?

We actually do this sort of thing in the shop amongst ourselves, sometimes with a good laugh. We've done the blind rip thing a few times but never for Gary in that method. I believe I've told gary which was which when I played them but I honestly don't recall. It's been a while but Ken, Mark and I did this for each other many months ago. Itunes vs Wavelab vs HDX rip and they were all different played from the same drive with Wavelab as the player TC interface and either a SN or Nagra as DAC. Wav only. I don't recall if I did that sort of thing with an EAC type ripper but I've found it quite similar to an HDX when things are working right, enough so that I haven't bothered comparing for nuance in our best setup. Leaving the HDX file on the HDX to be played would be an unfair advantage. One that owners may enjoy but that wasn't the endeavor. It was whether the actual files were similar quality and apparently EAC etc. can do a fine job.

quote:

Originally posted by js:
Enough drink and you can have a true blind audition.

Indeed js! Blind (drunk) testing is surely the way forward

LOL

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.

Of course it's reasonable - it's amazing that some of the same people who would presumably argue that there is a strong element of subjectivity in assessing the sound quality of a recording are also opposed to a technique that is widely used in various fields of scientific and social research as a means of eliminating the impact of various biases such as those due to familiarity, brand loyalty, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by munch:
Always best to play a whole track or two on one source then do the same on the other.
With the volume set at the same level.

Agree with that statement. Which is what we did whether it was listening to different software and files or different DACs.

Actually, double blind studies are the best from a scientific perspective, but if we did that then who would change the input and files and no one would know what we were listening to.

I just read an interesting article in HiFi Critic, in which the author compared computer rips to rips made by the HDX. He stated that there was no question about the results - "The HDX-produced rip was so far ahead of the computer rips that it was alarming." He went on to say that those who claim it's possible to put together an HDX from computer parts for £300 are deluded. Fighting words?!

Maybe he should write a paper on what the differences in the data is. I'm sure philips would be interested in how it's so difficult to get data off their (almost) 30 year old format.

I don't take what's printed in HiFi mags with very much value after seeing one claim that one HDMI cable gave much richer colours.

Any statement from anyone that any rip to an equivalent format played through the same replay chain "sounds better" should be completely ignored unless accompanied by a description of how the files differ.

I must admit to moving from amused to astonished through irritated and finally to rage with this subject.

Listening Be Damned! Semi joking here. I would very much like to find out, technically, what makes the difference but I'll decide on what works for me based on what I'm hearing before I'll let some one tell me what can or can't be better. Been told that too many times over the past 35 (very) odd years to let it bias me. As I've said before, this harkens back to 'perfect sound forever' speak at the dawn of CDs. Knowing why something happens isn't paramount to perceiving that it does. Many don't understand the difference between the way salt and sugar dissolve into water but they do know it works.

If you feed two identical files into a HDX there will be NO difference to hear.

quote:

Originally posted by matt303:
If you feed two identical files into a HDX there will be NO difference to hear.

I agree. Perhaps people should look at what might make two files not identical instead of insisting they are by one test. Results are the only sure way to know what works for you.

quote:

Originally posted by js:
Perhaps people should look at what might make two files not identical....

Who is better qualified to do this than the computer science profession, and haven't the latter developed tools that are adequate for this purpose?

@js

You are right but we are not at that stage yet unless I have missed something. If one accepts that identical files etc sound the same then if a listening test detects a difference then one must first establish the files are different. If they are the same then either the hearing or the test itself is impaired. If they are different then, I believe your point comes into play (if I understood you correctly. Apologies if not).

If the files are different either the header is different or the data is different or both. The header can be materially different (different word/sample rate information) or immaterially different ( a date for example).

When one has the information as to how the files differ then one can discuss how the differences might arise and whether they are material.

All the above matters not one not if one does not accept one of the most basic laws of the universe that two files bit for bit identical are the same and will sound the same.

I have struggled to find a metaphor for this as it is it's own metaphor ( how does a hot knife go through butter)? Consider picking up two identical copies of the same book. You check that all the letters are the same and in order. The books are identical. You read one book and find it is War and Peace. Would you be surprised if you read the other one and found it was Crime and Punishment?

Harry, I'm with you on this. I just don't know enough about it say why these differences exist. I tend to agree that 2 identical files will sound the same from the same source as I can transfer back and forth between drives and it will sound as original in the original drive. Thumb drives are pretty telling and generally worse. It will however often sound slightly different in the interim drive. I could be more to my liking or not depending on the drive. It seems the retrieval method and buffer may be the difference but if compared they must be bit perfect to be transferred back and forth. This doesn't relate to rips unless they actually are the same but it's an example of something I know to be identical sounding different. I'm also not of the opinion that only an HDX can make good rips. It's friendly fast and convenient but there are programs when well setup that also do a good job. I just haven't found the rippers incuded in player programs to be one of those. Anyway, food for thought. I'm off on holiday and need to pack.

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:

quote:

Originally posted by js:
Perhaps people should look at what might make two files not identical....

Who is better qualified to do this than the computer science profession, and haven't the latter developed tools that are adequate for this purpose?

How would I know? I don't recall anyone testing for jitter for years after CDs came out. Scientists often don't get the result they expect or want. They don't insist the experiment was wrong. The retest and move on to find out why the results don't mesh.

Have fun! Just got back from my break and wishing I hadn't sometimes these threads spiral out of control here and elsewhere so even though I suspect we disagree on many points I respect your approach.

I get irritated because I have studied and worked with computers for, jeez, 28 years now and there are some basic facts that seem to be misunderstood or ignored by many.

So please accept apologies now for when I get irritated in the future

quote:

Originally posted by js:
How would I know? I don't recall anyone testing for jitter for years after CDs came out. Scientists often don't get the result they expect or want. They don't insist the experiment was wrong. The retest and move on to find out why the results don't mesh.

I remember an article/post by JV that I came across when googling when he talked about the digital stream read from a CD actually being an analogue waveform and as such subject to RF interference etc. Although I don't believe jitter per se was mentioned it was certainly in the minds of the designers of the first NAIM CDP. It was a very interesting post/article actually - just wish I could remember where I came across it!

Jitter has no effect when ripping a CD to a computer, only when playing a CD in a CD player* where the whole thing needs to be kept in time with the data stream being read from the disc.

I find it hard to understand why people find it so hard the believe that it's relatively simple to make a bit perfect rip from a CD. The discs are even encoded with error correction which will flag up if a sector has an error in it. Unless the software you are using does something very stupid you can't help but end up with the SAME DATA that was encoded on the disc. The worst you get is maybe some lost sectors due to damage/manufacturing errors which might show up as clicks or pops. Unless the software you are using does some post processing on the data you will end up with a bit perfect copy.

I agree with Harry about this, I'm a qualified and practicing software professional. Prior to this I worked in electronics on digital and analogue systems for instrumentation and data acquisition for 10 years.

* except the new players from Rega which rip to memory and play from that.

I believe this is the Julian Vereker interview referred to above (done in 1991):

http://members.shaw.ca/mikesae/jvinterview.htm

And yes, jitter was specifically mentioned.

@jazzfan

Yup that's it, thx! Shall go away and re-read.

Hopefully that link will survive the moderators

[EDIT: But I agree with Matt - this is nothing to do with ripping as there are no timing issues involved as no requirement for instant replay]

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:
I believe this is the Julian Vereker interview referred to above (done in 1991):

http://members.shaw.ca/mikesae/jvinterview.htm

And yes, jitter was specifically mentioned.

Yep, almost a decade after CDs appeared.

Jitter is still an issue but shouldn't be when it comes to the files themselves. They can still get jittered in the process of playing them. Clock needs to be applied accurately and if you look at some of the different methods, you'll see some show less resulting jitter than others. Ie: reclocking circuits are popular even in computer playback due to need for correcting jitter. All CDs are played through a buffer. The size of the buffer in the Rega(very large) and how they use it is what makes it different. Guys, just try some of this and listen. If it makes a dif for you fine and if it doesn't that's fine too. I don't think telling others what they can or can't hear is beneficial.

quote:

Originally posted by js:
How would I know? I don't recall anyone testing for jitter for years after CDs came out. Scientists often don't get the result they expect or want. They don't insist the experiment was wrong. The retest and move on to find out why the results don't mesh.

Maybe the point re. jitter was true for a few years after CD technology was introduced. However, computers have now been a fundamental part of daily life for 35-40 years (maybe more?)and there must be tens of thousands of highly trained people who are researching, studying and working with them on a daily basis, with huge sums of money being invested in these efforts. I would surmise, for example, that Microsoft's R&D budget for one year probably exceeds (by a large multiple) what Naim have spent on their R&D during their entire history. As a result, I would think that it is extremely unlikely that a few people/companies in the audio industry would have stumbled on some aspect of computer files that no-one else in the entire computer industry has discovered.

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:

quote:

Originally posted by js:
How would I know? I don't recall anyone testing for jitter for years after CDs came out. Scientists often don't get the result they expect or want. They don't insist the experiment was wrong. The retest and move on to find out why the results don't mesh.

Maybe the point re. jitter was true for a few years after CD technology was introduced. However, computers have now been a fundamental part of daily life for 35-40 years (maybe more?)and there must be tens of thousands of highly trained people who are researching, studying and working with them on a daily basis, with huge sums of money being invested in these efforts. I would surmise, for example, that Microsoft's R&D budget for one year probably exceeds (by a large multiple) what Naim have spent on their R&D during their entire history. As a result, I would think that it is extremely unlikely that a few people/companies in the audio industry would have stumbled on some aspect of computer files that no-one else in the entire computer industry has discovered.

That quote wasn't in regards to jitter in storage media. Just that there may be more to playing files than we're aware. As I said. I don't know where those specific differences in files arise and I agreed that jitter shouldn't be an issue in storage. I may check back once more before I go. If not. All be well.

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:
I would surmise, for example, that Microsoft's R&D budget for one year probably exceeds (by a large multiple) what Naim have spent on their R&D during their entire history. As a result, I would think that it is extremely unlikely that a few people/companies in the audio industry would have stumbled on some aspect of computer files that no-one else in the entire computer industry has discovered.

Agreed wholeheartedly. That is why I also have problems with certain "white papers" which claim that their way of ripping is superior to all others. Open source programs such as EAC most likely have more contributors than the entire staff of certain audio companies.

Gregg

quote:

Originally posted by jazzfan:
I would surmise, for example, that Microsoft's R&D budget for one year probably exceeds (by a large multiple) what Naim have spent on their R&D during their entire history.

According to PCMag the *annual* MS R&D budget is at $9bn (yes, billion with a B)

A gut feeling looking at serial numbers lists would suggest to me that would comfortably exceed Naim's turnover to date, possibly even by a factor of 10! (I'm basing that on 275,000 units at an average of £2,000 and a current dollar rate of 1.49)

But I could of course be totally wrong!

Cheers

John