HDX rip better than iTunes rip?

It should be pointed out that Naim on the HDX webpage do not claim that rips made on the HDX sound better* than rips from other devices only that it makes rips that are bit perfect.

*with the exception of the track start/end

@matt303

The claim has been made, by NAIM or NAIM guys, that the HDX rips sound better than iTunes and this claim is also made in HiFi Critic.

quote:

Originally posted by Harry H. Wombat:
The statement many of us are making is that two bit for bit identical files including the header when replayed through exactly the same chain have to and will always sound identical.

Agreed.

I'd imagine that you'd have problems with the ASA if you put in print that your bit perfect rips sounded better than another companies bit perfect rips.

If this is really the line taken by Naim I feel it's yet another step away from Naim products being based on quality engineering and towards HiFi marketing and myths. Which is a shame because the Naim products I've owned have been great and they don't need to resort to these types of claims.

@matt303

Ah - but this is not the claim. The claim is that the rips sound better but this is never backed up by a demonstration of the differences in the ripped files or any claims that other rippers are not bit perfect.

See Paul Stephenson's reply here:
Sounds better subjectively

Harry, you've repeatedly comment on the bit perfect/check sums and therefore, the argument seems to be that all of us who have heard differences are essentially "wishing" these to be the case.

I think DD makes some very pertinent points. However, I have listened to different files with different software ripping engines and check sums having been doen to show that they are "bit perfect" yet they sound different and it didn't take more than 20 secs of listening to hear that difference.

I'm not a technical guy, but I can only go by what I hear and my hearing isn't better than the average person's yet the differences were clear and heard by many people. I don't sell stereo equipment so I have no reason to find one better than another. I also listened extensively before I bought.

So, please explain this and I mean this sincerely and not as a challenging remark since subjectively is all I can really go by.

quote:

Originally posted by Harry H. Wombat:
@matt303

The claim has been made, by NAIM or NAIM guys, that the HDX rips sound better than iTunes and this claim is also made in HiFi Critic.

And I'd say it again. Do the comparison on your own, as you don't have to take my word for it. EAC rips ALSO sound better than iTunes rips, when configured correctly.

Ive listened to an HDX against a M/L combo and the HDX wasn't any better, in fact the M/L was to my ears better.

What this reflects is what harry clearly refers to, 'subjectively'

This thread was linked to an article which the author, a sound engineer tested under Scientific conditions different rip software. He found that there was no difference between the software, they all ripped 'bit for bit' this included EAC & iTunes.

So, EAC & iTunes rip bit for bit FACT.

What people are making statements about is their own subjective interpretation, which is fine, hence most of us prefer the Naim sound to other HIFI.

But don't pass of your own subjective interpretation as FACT, it isn't!!

Basically any difference heard between identical files on the same hardware is completely down to your perception being altered by conscious and subconscious expectations. A properly conducted blind test is the only way to check if identical data played through the same player sounds the same. Any other type of test simply proves that "believing is hearing" which is a factor in any none blind test.

@gary1 & David

I repeatedly make the same statement because it is scientific fact. I have no problem intellectually with an HDX rip sounding better than an iTunes rip (to be open and honest I do not believe that it sounds better but I cannot rule out the possibility that it does).

I also have no problems having my tests (which showed and XLD rip to be bit-wise identical to an iTunes rip where XLD is claimed to be superior) to be shown incorrect. No problem at all.

My problem is that people who should or do have the capability to check the files do not do so and do not think it is necessary to do so. In another place, people who believe that bit-identical files cannot sound different are described as "foolish". Now - this really gets me firing on all cylinders

This argument is firmly within my discipline, that of computing. Ripping and replay (until the signal enters a DAC) is nothing at all to do with Hi Fi - it is a pure computing problem to do with data harvesting, transfer and sometimes functional transformation. All subjects that are more than well-understood at the theoretical, practical and pragmatic level. After the signal enters the DAC I am out of my depth and fully admit it. Some of the brightest people who have ever lived have been thinking about and designing this stuff. The statement which I make constantly that two bit-wise identical files replayed through exactly the same chain have to sound exactly the same is a mathematical fact. By denying this (or more accurately denying the need for testing) casts doubt on the whole of mathematics, computing and the basic structure of the universe. Really - I haven't gone over the top there. In this case,would it not be at least respectful to test the files?

I admit that I have not done the subjective tests that you have but I have no immediate access to an HDX neither am I in the market for one. I don't feel comfortable visiting a dealer and taking up their time when I shall not be buying. (Actually I am buying a NAIT for the kitchen so maybe I can use that as an in).

The issues with subjective tests are well-known and any manner of subtle "signals" sent or received from the environment can change one's perceptions of what one is hearing. Indeed, many times a single track played consecutively will reveal different things each time which one should welcome as a joy!

At the limit this becomes a subjective/faith based argument against an objective/fact based argument and these never terminate in agreement The s/f side hears a difference and therefore sees little point in testing. The otehr side tests and see little point in listening. It is a gap that cannot be closed.

I know you guys do not agree with me but thanks for keeping the discussion polite and I endeavor to do the same from my side.

I remember similar objectivist arguments made when discussing differences between CD pressings-the storage and data objectivists claiming that there should be no difference in sound.

Again, and in all fairness, when you ask the people who design these storage subsystems at an electronic level (say, storage ASICs), you get a different take on the process (especially when you understand the degree to which CD data and CD-ROM storage differ from a heuristic perspective).

With all due respect, anybody who claims that two identical bit-perfect files sound different are simply wrong. As has been explained in this thread and in numerous others, they must, full stop.

What is happening, as has been alluded to, is that the process of hi-fisation is taking over from reality. Apparently a German magazine has tested ethernet cables and found ones more musical than others, while there are a steady stream of posts from people who think wire sounds better than wireless. Soon we'll be seeing disk drives tested for their musicality, operating systems (after all, that's why itunes streaming wirelessly from a mac sounds better than from a pc) and, who knows processors.

As has been said, it's only from the dac onwards that differences enter into the equation, really.

However, I'm sure that's not going to stop people "proving" that a spiked platform for the computer doing the ripping and a balanced power supply make a difference to the sound, not to mention selling all the gadgets in the world to help this pseudo science. And the HIFi magazines in their wisdom will support these notions, just as credulous consumers will spend their money on the emperor's new clothes.

@David

I understand the point which if I may summarize in my own terms is that the objective argument requires you know everything there is to know and even if you think you know everything there still may be things we do joy yet know. The unknown unknowns as has been said in another context.

In this case, though, we posit the replay mechanism is exactly the same, the media is exactly the same and the only thing that differs are the files. Now if we posit that the files are exactly the same then there are no gaps for unknowns and the sound must be the same. There is no way out.

Now if the files sound different then given same media and replay the only difference in the system are the files. Therefore the conclusion is the files are different. And this is an easy observation to make only the people making the claims choose not to observe.

I think I can go no further with this or offer better explanations of the position. I am also more than happy for anyone to point out flaws in the logic. I am always happy to be wrong. So the base position which I will not restate is as above and I'm done with it.

[EDIT: There would be a gap in the logic if there were such a thing as a NAIM shaped bit or an iTunes shaped bit. There is not. Writing the bits is the responsibility of the drive - if it is told to write a "1" for instance it writes a "1". There are also no "gaps" between the bits in which a little devil might reside.]

Perhaps we need to clarify a few points, in a relatively simple manner (and I am grossly oversimplifying this):

Every data storage system, by definition, is an analogue process (inductive pickup head, in the case of a Winchester hard disk drive) and, as such, has some degree of data corruption due to transfer of energy or state.

There exists a smallest "cell" of data, if you will, which defines the granularity of the data storage system.

There exists a means to organize these cells into addressable locations. These locations then can be grouped into multiple levels of organization. A scheme can then be developed to manage these addressable levels.

Energy or state transfer is, by definition, a lossy process, which can be quantified by a hysteresis curve. As these are analogue transfer functions, they can be multiplied to show aggregate energy transfer loss.

There is a pair of thresholds that define the transfer from analogue storage to two-state binary digital storage.

If the aggregate energy transfer loss for a specific storage cell biases the stored analogue value to fall between the values that define the two binary states, the cell can no longer be trusted to store and retrieve specific analogue values that match their mapped binary values.

As this can be measured on a per-cell basis, it can be mapped within the storage management schema.

A storage management schema cannot be self-contained within the storage itself (as the integrity of the data itself cannot be determined).

Error correction transfer functions can be classified into two types: homomorphic and polymorphic.

Homomorphic error correction is by definition a one-to-one mapping; the amount of space required to describe a binary homomorphism IN BINARY is equivalent to the cardinality of the number of storage cells. A system such as this requires similar overhead to that required for actual data storage.

The overhead for storage addressing and integrity management (e.g., an inspector within an underground storage vault) can be heuristically tallied and averaged for typical, large data transfer operations, but is still subject to the requirements of individual organized levels for data retrieval, subject to the integrity of the mapping (in the case of a Winchester hard disk drive, of stored magnetic analogue values).

Now for the jump forward...

Disc parity schemes for Winchester hard disk drives based on odd, even or double parity are polymorphic–they cannot be used to reconstruct the data for a specific given organized level, as there are more than one data set that maps to that parity value.

and...

No two hard disk drive platters have exactly identical storage capacities at the cellular level.

so...

No two data files will ever be stored in identical locations or with identical induced analogue values at the hard disk platter level. (This is one of the reasons why, for example, disk access time varies by storage location–just as it does when accessing printed or microfiched data in an underground vault.)

The success of this is dependent upon the drive control electronics achieving the following things:

- correctly mapping analogue values from the pickup head to their two-state binary equivalents (relatively easy in a magnetic storage system, but subject to various electrical wear factors at the pickup head, as well as circuit-speed issues)

- adequately mapping storage at a cellular level to the proper organized levels while mapping out "bad" cells or levels

- providing a schema for error reporting at the appropriate organized level

- filling the buffer with data in a sufficient manner to achieve ideal drive data transfer bus speeds against the heuristic constraints of error correction, seek time and data integrity subject to management overhead

So it is impossible to speak of "identical" files stored on hard disk drives without speaking of other differences, or, on the other hand, ruling out their parametric effects as inconsequential to the discussion.

The degree to which these effects are inconsequential depends on the area of focus when describing the storage system.

And I haven't even hit optical disc or FLASH-memory storage yet....we cannot make assumptions at the file level that two files are identical unless the process use to store and retrieve the data is error-free.

Which it isn't–as every storage medium is analogue, and, therefore, lossy due to the same factors that affect every other physical process.

@David

Relatively simple

Although I do not believe this defeats the original hypothesis as it was intended. If I was to insert a clause such as "the files will either sound identical or if different then different in a non-deterministic manner (no one ripping mechanism can be shown to be superior)"

This is starting to feel like ever decreasing circles though. The first person to mention quantum mechanics in support of the HDX ripping mechanism gets a slap

Can some one start a thread on the colour of the HDX box?
Is it just me?
Is this thread bloody boring or what?
Its run its course imo.

I've had enough as I suspect have many others on both side. The two sides will never meet as there is no middle. But one should not dismiss the underlying importance of this thread and what it means outside of the narrow confines of this discussion.

The thread may, to many, have become boring but do not dismiss lightly what it is talking about.

It is interesting (and somewhat educational) to know that, at the cellular level, stored data is in an analogue form and has to undergo a potentially lossy transfer process to binary form before it is processed further.

However, IMO this is again irrelevant to the discussion at hand since any errors in the (upstream) analogue to digital transformation would show up as differences in the bit by bit comparison between two files. If there are no differences revealed by the bit level comparison, the data being fed to the DAC stage (from the two files that are being compared) are identical and, as stated above, the resulting sound should also be identical.

Must say also that (as mentioned above) it is a sad day indeed when some prestigious and respected hi-fi companies are resorting to pseudo-science and general BS to sell (some of) their products. Better to focus on genuine innovation and engineering excellence to do this, I would think, but ...

With all due respect, jazzfan is missing the point-there are no bit-for-bit comparisons without access to the original 16-bit dithered file (in the case of Compact Disc), which still gets interleaved into its CD-DA storage form, before being "ripped" and re-assembled into PCM samples that resembles (mostly) the original file.

How "mostly", if you will, that data on the distributed media first resembles and secondly is de-interleaved (with PQ subcode removed) and error-corrected to present itself as data is the point of this discussion. There will be errors, and they will need to be corrected. (In the case of discs with Midbar or other copy-protection systems, we know this to be a fact.)

Taking the Compact Disc out of the provenance of delivery eliminates the variable that we are discussing here-but make no mistake, there seems to be perceived differences that require some explanation of what occurs as the CD-DA data is re-constructed, to whatever degree of attempts at integrity is provided.

And then-it must sound good.

quote:

Taking the Compact Disc out of the provenance of delivery eliminates the variable that we are discussing here...

My impression is that this thread is about differences between the digital files produced by different ripping software apps and, if so, that would seem to eliminate the variable you have raised from the discussion, once the data in those ripped files are identical (as was demonstrated by the experiments referred to by the OP).

David... very interesting. Thanks for your efforts.

To the OP....

I have read through this thread, for some reason, and it finally dawned on my to look at the thread's Title.

The answer is YES, anything is better than an iTunes rip! In my research I would only want to rip with EAC or some very similar (HDX Engine).

If I owned an HDX I would be a happy cat. But probably still do my rips on a PC. I like FLAC, tags, etc....

I require the following which I do not believe iTunes can accomplish.

- OFFSET CORRECTION!!!! very important (HDX has work-around by using drive with zero offset)
- Pre-gap tracks (hidden information)
- FLAC
- Log File
- Cue File
- Detection of pre-emphasis (rare I know, but I have some and looking for others Toto IV...Japan)

I am not going to get caught up in "bit perfect", and "sounds better". My hearing threshold, while large in some areas, completely fails me here. I cannot hear a difference between an iTunes WAV rip and an EAC WAV rip, and I imagine an HDX rip. All of which are said to be "bit perfect". Which I dont understand in the case of iTunes. How could it be?

BUT, the EAC rip (and HDX)is surely "better" as it contains ALL of the information on the disc. ALL. Period.

Since it is obviously pointless and bordering on quantum logic to discuss "bit-perfect", all I strive to do is be able to rip and playback a CD and have the experience be identical to playing the CD itself.

If I could perfectly synchronize the start of the playback of a CD and its ripped counterpart, I would expect them to play identically. Perfect match in timing, exact length of gaps between songs, any information (music) before track 1 (exists on thousands of CDs). I should be able to flip back and forth and not even know which one I am hearing.

Of course I am only talking about "information" here. Of course they will "sound" different, even if going through the same DAC.


My point is, rip with EAC if you have a PC, rip with an HDX if your fortunate to have one of those. If you have a Mac, use XLD. iTunes is a store, not a ripper. You might as well just use Windows Media Player..... at least you could use FLAC then

Apple lossless is the equal of the others, there is no difference. Unless, of course, you're talking about AAC 256 kbps?

WAV from iTunes even sounds better than Apple Lossless, just as there's a sonic difference between levels of FLAC compression.