HDX vs dbpoweramp rips - new findings and a question.

Hello DQ

Not at all surprised that your rips sound the same, providing time is taken to set up the ripping program, which you have done, all should be set for bit perfect rips.

As for of the choice between AssetNas or a ZoneRipper, well, you pay’s yer money and takes’s yer choice really. AssetNas will of course require you to use your PC for rippng, but this is already setup, ZoneRipper is an all-in-one solution. Both solutions should produce identical rips, as both would be using dbPoweramp.

As I see it your choice could be made on aesthetics, is it going to be on the rack or in a separate room, (does the AssetNas have a fan?), and also how you like to rip your music. If you are happy to let the ZoneRipper rip your music and you then correct any errors fine, with the AssetNas you make corrections before you rip.

Good luck with your choice, it would be interesting to hear how you get on and how well you find your chosen solution works.

Regards

Peter 

Hi DQ -

Reporting that rips from two different rippers sound the same to you is not, IMO, controversial at all.   It simply says that both rippers are relatively accurate, or accurate to a degree where any minor differences between them cannot be heard within the context of your system.

Or am I missing some other, more subtle point you were trying to make?

Thanks.

Hook

I'm not sure that everyone has moved on. Have David Dever or Paul Stephenson withdrawn their claims that Naim rips sound better than dBpoweramp rips? Or is it now that no-one believes them? Or is it that the NDX is upset by the extra (perfectly valid) information dBpoweramp puts in the file headers?

Likes -

IMO, we are at the point where it seems pretty clear that the evidence does not support the claim that Naim can improve on the inherent quality of accurately ripped PCM data.  I believe Simon has also stated that it is highly unlikely that there is anything in Naim's header that could lead to improved sound quality.  And since his commenta, I have not seen anyone from Naim state otherwise.

But Naim has been consistent in telling us to use our ears and make our own judgements.   So, even though the evidence suggest otherwise, there is still left for us to do is what DQ has done, and audition for ourselves.  My bet is you and I would come to the same conclusion as he did though.

I will say that it does seem like the HDX or US does a fine job of creating accurate rips.  And I suppose that something as simple as accidentally selecting a lossy output file format could prevent a novice from using dbpoweramp and other rippers to achieve best sound quality.  So nothing wrong with Naim saying that they offer solutions that "consistently" deliver accurate rips.  But when properly configured, no reason to believe that dbpoweramp and other rippers aren't equally capable of doing the same.

As with your previous challenges, I believe Dave and Paul will continue to ignore you.  So what is the point in continuing?   Do what you want, but unless Naim makes some new claim, I think it is best to move on.

Hook

Fair enough Hook, I hadn't considered the possibility that David Dever and Paul Stephenson could have used dBpoweramp incorrectly.

Tog

John

This is true, but to be honest the difficulties are as fraught as learning to use iTunes or dBPoweramp. Yes sure some might struggle, but are they likely to be the people investing in a CD ripping solution in the first place? Certainly I would think most of the Facebook generation wouldn't be stumped on how ro use iTunes to rip a CD.

But the ripping choices would appear to be over ease of use/simplification, not SQ. As such I have no issue with that at all.

Simon

So, David Dever and Paul Stephenson say that Naim rips are superior to non-naim rips, but the white paper says that it IS possible to create equivalent rips  using non-naim products!

Thanks Peter, Amazing how little controversy this thread created given prior debates! Am leaning to the Asset Nas for a few reasons 1. No better sound quality 2. I will want to see what is going on with the rip 3. Reports of drive failures on the rip as Cheers

HI DQ,

Would be interested to hear if you have decided on the AssetNAS or Zoneripper, and how you found using your preferred option.  I'm currently deciding between these two.  Having downloaded DBpoweramp , configured it on my laptop and ripped a few CDs, I like the flexibilty and control of being able to check everything before ripping the CD.  From the discussions I've had with the guys at Ripcaster it appears the Zoneripper has most of the core DBpoweramp functionality but any issues with metadata etc post ripping would need to be amended using additional software, e.g. 'Tag and Rename'.   Mind you I like the potential ease of use of the Zoneripper and that it can 'live' on the hifi rack (albeit at a premium in £!!).  Like you, currently leaning towards the AssetNAS, but would be interested to hear what you went for and how you have found using it, if you have made your purchase, of course!

Thanks.

Dave

Never been disheartened by simple iTunes rips myself. Almost nothing much to get wrong, actaully. iTunes almost drives itsef properly without intervention from the user ...

ATB from George

The rips should sound the same because hey are the same - I've tested rips from iTunes vs. UnitiServe vs. XLD and done bit comparisons of the PCM and they are identical - and when you convert the files to AIFF using XLD or Max the resultant files are exactly the same. I would expect the rippers in the Vortexbox, Ripcaster and Zoneripper to be the same too. I think we dispelled this myth that it is possible to do a better rip - even if the rips were not identical then I've think it very very difficult to hear a difference. 

Of course a badly damaged CD may be an exception as the error correction will be different, but then it is debatable what the software should do - should it try to guess what was on the CD? 

Never mind - this debate has been done to death. I may be stubborn but I refuse to believe two identical files can sound different when played on the same player. I find it easier to believe that two copies of the same CD might sound different. 

If you rip to MP3 this is not true - iTunes does not do that very well at all. If you go AIFF to MP3 and back to AIFF the files are quite different - more so than if you use XLD. That said iTunes AAC files seem OK in the car. However, folk here usually rip to AIFF. WAV. FLAC or ALAC - they are all the same in terms of music content - true some players may find some formats more difficult to handle than others, but if your player likes uncompressed files then it is easy to change format. 

Still ripping is only a temporary thing because as soon as CD quality or better rips are around then we can just download the stuff and forgetting ripping. 

Now if somebody asserts that the NDX is a better streamer than my Sonus ZP90 W4S then I'm not about to argue, it may well be: it should be. Just as I thought and still think my CDX2 sounds better than a CD5. Playback is very different from ripping. 

So if you have used one of the standard rippers you should have no problems - the sound quality is player dependent not rip dependent. 

All the best Guy 

Hey Dave,

AssetNAS in and working for about 6 weeks. It is rock solid and the indexing via ipad fast enough. I am doing my rips via dbpoweramp using a plexor drive and I find the rips superior to the same via itunes. Why that is the case, i have no idea, but it is my experience.I have not compared the number of bits but I assume I must have a difference.

I had the debate about the zoneripper but in the end since I had the plexor drive already I went for the AssetNAS. it is obviously cheaper which is a consideration. I have capped the speed on the plexor drive to reduce errors.

In general I think very highly of the illustrate software products. They seemed to "just work".I really like the database comparison on dbpoweramp. Very reassuring to know that a bunch of others ended up with the same number of bits as me.

Best, David

George, Guy, David - many thanks for your respective replies.  Really appreciate your thoughts and experiences on ripping. From what I've read on the forum and your replies, I appreciate that the debate on quality of different ripped files is a moot point!

I'm going to stick with DBpoweramp as, like David, I like using it.  I just need to decide between an AssetNAS and a Zoneripper, taking into account the additional cost of the 'convenience' of the Zoneripper.  At the moment I am just ripping a few CDs using my laptop and DBpoweramp (in a few different formats Flac, AIFF, Wav) just to get to grips with DBpoweramp.  If I go for the AssetNAS I will continue to use the laptop to rip CDs using DBpoweramp.

David - did you go for a separate Plexor drive for quality reasons rather than use a PC/Laptop drive?

Thanks again to all for your replies.

Cheers.

Dave

Hi,

Ripping a brand new CD is an easy task and any ripper could do it accurately.

The task is much harder, as I discovered when I ripped my collection of CD, when you rip an old CD which has been played thousand of times. With those CDs the software which is used to rip has a influence on the rip quality but so has the hardware. On the DBPowerAmp site you'll find a comparison of different CD ROM readers. There is a big variation in their abality to read damaged CD.
Not all the players have access to the C2 source of information for example (this option is by default set to false in DbPowerAmp).
According to their tests, the best CD ROM reader is a TEAC and it is the one which is used in the RipNas product. I wouldn't be surprised that it is also used in the Nserve.

Moreover, I'd like to remind you that an example does make a rule. To be sure that different softwares and hardwares produce the same rip you would need to make the test with a big amount of CD (in theorie, with an infinity) unless you are able to prove it by the theorie.

Regards

Gilles

 

Thanks, Gilles.  I am relatively new to the forum and to be honest my question to DQ was really just about which route he had decided on re AssetNAS or Zoneripper (rather than the issues surrounding accurate ripping) as I have been mulling over both.  However, thanks for your thoughts re accurate ripping - I  realise this is by no means a straightforward issue!

Cheers.

Dave

Rippers make a difference on dirty or marginal CD:s.

But the reason I love ripping on the HDX is how simple it is and that I have learnt to trust it to get good consistent results. No computers needed.

That's generally why I let someone else drive....

illustrate have just announced an online backup service for music files called audiosafe - free to use, you pay to restore. It's interesting .. as they have lossless conversion and compression sorted, they only need to store the music data once for all users with the same lossless track, together with user-specific tags and filenames. And what a splendid music collection they should end up with!

Guys, I do not recall but please feel free to remind me, ever saying db poweramp was inferior, I said that the naim ripping engine in conjunction with our selcted drive was better in my opinion and  that the itunes rip,eac rip from the laptop and pc we tried, all the digital files look the same but the sound was different, worse than the hdx direct rip.

I will use db again and report.

I asked "Fair enough. Do you believe that a UnitiServe rip sounds better than an EAC or dBpoweramp rip?

Your exact reply was:

"Easy naim rip via our server easy db and eac good but our rip and our drive choice usually outperforms"

I read that as you saying that your rips outperform dbpoweramp rips.

The original thread is here:

https://forums.naimaudio.com/di...ent/3960068604537349

David Dever has also claimed that dBpoweramp rips have flaws in the file headers and sound inferior - see here:

https://forums.naimaudio.com/di...per*4945617434820987