Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

First step taken on the way to "Linear rips" comparison: ordered external DVD drive.

208.47.202.254
Posted on December 15, 2014 at 14:03:17
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Unlike vast majority of modern external drives, which are "slim", and feed off USB power (from 2 USB ports if necessary), this LG clunker is full-size, and is powered by 12V 3A(!) wallwart.

Since I already have 12V 5A linear regulated PS, substituting should be piece of cake.

If nothing else, I'll have at my disposal a more robust drive than laptop's built-in. Oh, and the main thing - my $10 BestBuy certificate won't go unclaimed :-).

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: First step taken on the way to "Linear rips" comparison: ordered external DVD drive. , posted on December 15, 2014 at 14:21:35
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 Vast majority? Not sure where you get that. I have never, ever had anything but a full sized unit powered by a very robust XPS.

 

Check out Amazon - nothing but slim USB-powered drives. N/T, posted on December 15, 2014 at 14:32:21
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 N/T

 

RE: Check out Amazon - nothing but slim USB-powered drives. N/T, posted on December 15, 2014 at 14:34:11
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 Any reputable, computer specific e store will have plenty of choices.

I bought my LG M-DISC multi drive from OWC.

 

RE: First step taken on the way to "Linear rips" comparison: ordered external DVD drive. , posted on December 15, 2014 at 14:42:35
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 I know what you are trying to do here, based on your previous thread. The devil makes time for idle hands. :)

But joking aside, while I have no problem calling out bullshit, I am also open minded enough to hear about others experiences. So certainly it will be interesting.

There was a guy on here who last week claimed he was going to upload some rips done with and without a linear XPS, and so far nuthin'...

Steve Nugent claims 1.5 meters of digital cable ( I am assuming ALL digital cables) sound "better" than 1M cables and used the assclowns at UHF magazine in canada who conducted a blind "test" to back his claims. Love to see the particulars of that test.

Will you be willing to upload different rips with coded file names?

 

Upload rips - why not (not violating copyright). But only if I think there's a difference., posted on December 15, 2014 at 14:51:04
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 But will let everyone know about (my subjective) results in any case.

At the same time, I'll compare rips from 2 different drives - that is also a point of contention, as I understand - and unlike "linear rips", there seems to be at least one more-or-less understood reason why they could sound different (offset).

 

RE: Upload rips - why not (not violating copyright). But only if I think there's a difference., posted on December 15, 2014 at 14:55:51
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 Understood. I will have faith in your methodology, and I get the feeling you are not looking for one conclusion or another.

Nothing grates more than forum members who report differences in the most ludicrous of circumstances, but they clearly have an agenda..EVERYTHING makes a difference.

For what its worth. I had a stack of discs to rip this weekend, and I did them with iTunes on a Mac Mini w/error correction, and XLD.

Not once, ever, could I tell a difference. Not once. I made sure I was unaware of what rip was playing.

 

RE: First step taken on the way to "Linear rips" comparison: ordered external DVD drive. , posted on December 15, 2014 at 17:45:41
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
 "magazine in canada who conducted a blind "test""""

At least all those blind Canadians get free medical coverage...

 

RE: First step taken on the way to "Linear rips" comparison: ordered external DVD drive. , posted on December 15, 2014 at 17:52:49
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
 I think it is an interesting experiment. I though the CA thread was worthwhile, with useful information. Even though it is difficult to imagine how the burner power supply could make a difference to most people, IMO I think it is possible.

What about a sort of sideband effect? Any opinions?

 

RE: First step taken on the way to "Linear rips" comparison: ordered external DVD drive. , posted on December 15, 2014 at 18:09:06
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Are you serious? If so, then I will be delighted to look at the rips. But I think it unlikely that any differences will survive transmission over the Internet. I doubt all the Ethernet cables in between us will be audiophile approved.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: First step taken on the way to "Linear rips" comparison: ordered external DVD drive. , posted on December 15, 2014 at 18:31:00
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
 Tony,

So you think this idea has no merit?

 

RE: First step taken on the way to "Linear rips" comparison: ordered external DVD drive. , posted on December 15, 2014 at 18:36:20
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 More like the blind leading the blind...as usual.

 

RE: First step taken on the way to "Linear rips" comparison: ordered external DVD drive. , posted on December 15, 2014 at 18:46:48
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
 "More like the blind leading the blind...as usual."

Often when people have such a handicap their other senses are enhanced. Might actually be a benefit for the listening tests.

 

RE: Check out Amazon - nothing but slim USB-powered drives. N/T, posted on December 15, 2014 at 21:27:02
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Linear Rip?


 

It is typical, posted on December 15, 2014 at 22:56:00
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 of your negative posts that you will not do such investigations of your own but will query others' efforts when they attempt to do so.

No doubt that if he hears a difference, then you will demand measurements to 'prove' it.

For your information,n Hi Fi News published articles on jitter created in different types of CDRs caused by the burning/stamping processes though the examination of of the pits and troughs on the substrates years ago.

I would not be surprised if voltage fluctuations and noise in the reading process cause speed changes as well as create more jitter in the output streams.

If you want to practice conviction computer audio, that is fine, but please don't expect others to do so.

 

RE: It is typical, posted on December 15, 2014 at 23:11:45
Scrith
Audiophile

Posts: 1169
Location: Los Angeles
Joined: July 19, 2005
 You continue to fail to understand a simple fact: jitter created during the process of reading or writing the data, or while transmitting it, is irrelevant as long as the device receiving it ignores the timing of the incoming data. Unfortunately, facts transmitted to you are likely to remain misunderstood.

 

RE: It is typical, posted on December 16, 2014 at 01:55:06
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 and you will not try to grasp the fact that a data stream is time dependent and clocking is essential.

 

The result of ripping are files..., posted on December 16, 2014 at 03:16:15
Daverz
Audiophile

Posts: 2104
Location: So. California
Joined: September 24, 2002
 The results of ripping are binary files. A byte-by-byte comparison can be done of the files ripped from different drives, though I think comparing md5 sums is sufficient.

I would also suggest using a ripper with AccurateRip support.

If the files are the same, what happens in playback can't be effected by what happened when the files were ripped. If the files are different, one or both of the rips are not accurate, though an inaccurate rip is not necessarily audibly different.

 

RE: The result of ripping are files..., posted on December 16, 2014 at 04:19:57
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 And the files are not affected by the quality of the ripping process? How are the accurip and quality indicators derived? Is the quality of rip not dependent on how well the identations on the discs are read, with in turns is dependent on how the drive is powered and controlled by the servo?

What does 100% or 99.8% given by ripping software mean in terms of the actual data in the file?

The earth may look flat at close distance, but this is a simplistic way of reasoning based on the 'obvious'.

 

Would dig hearing a difference, posted on December 16, 2014 at 07:05:51
JeffH
Audiophile

Posts: 4574
Location: Orange County, So Cal
Joined: April 5, 2000
 please make the rips available. Have to figure out a place to park the files for download. Will give an honest listen and answer. Have a group that gets together, drinks and listens to music. I think there is someone in the group with decent hearing :)

Classe CAM200
Ayre 5xe
Ayre QB9
Tannoy D700

 

RE: First step taken on the way to "Linear rips" comparison: ordered external DVD drive. , posted on December 16, 2014 at 08:04:20
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "So you think this idea has no merit?"

Please go back and reread my post, especially this sentence: "Are you serious? If so, then I will be delighted to look at the rips."

I have found many cases of files that "should" be the same, bit for bit, that are not. Therefore, I would not discount the possibility that any sonic differences could be easily explained. This would be useful if followed up by a detailed investigation as to how this happened. (It might identify a bug in ripping software, for example.) If the files have identical contents but still sound different then it would be much harder to track down what is going on, as it would require careful experimenters who are also good listeners. They would have to be dedicated to tracking down the "why?" behind the "what?" they heard.

As it turns out, the files in question seem to have suffered from the Cyber Excuse, a modern version of "The dog ate my homework." Maybe the original experimenter can be motivated to repeat his experiments or maybe other people will do similar tests.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: The result of ripping are files..., posted on December 16, 2014 at 08:28:46
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Is the quality of rip not dependent on how well the identations on the discs are read, with in turns is dependent on how the drive is powered and controlled by the servo?

So long as the pits on the optical media are correctly read by the optical drive and converted to bits on the computer, there is no such thing as 'quality' of bits on a properly working computer. An accurate rip will produce accurate bits.

I suppose you can bust open a DRAM chip in your computer and look with a microscope for those less than good 'quality' ripped bits. ;-)

Please define 'quality'.




 

RE: It is typical, posted on December 16, 2014 at 08:52:36
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 It is typical of a poorly moderated forum that personal attacks such as yours are tolerated.

When I have asked for additional information it was not because I doubted the "What?". It was that I wanted to find out the "Why?". In most cases, there are multiple causes for a result and it is necessary to conduct more than a single experiment to unravel confounding factors.

The issue here is not real-time playback of a bit stream and whether or not it can produce different results. The issue here is the extent to which the differences involved survive one or more generations of digital copying. As I recall, when you reported hearing differences in rips I asked you to try copying for multiple generations and see if the audible differences survived. You refused to do this in such a way that I concluded, at the very least, that you were not a careful experimenter.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Serious about trying? Definitely. Seriously expecting positive results? Not really., posted on December 16, 2014 at 08:58:53
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Not to mention the very unpleasant consequences, if that is indeed the case (re-ripping).

I'm going to try sighted listening first, using 4-5 tracks that usually are very helpful in revealing slightest differences. For instance, direction of a stock fuse in any given piece of equipment - not to mention aftermarket fuse vs. stock.

If I don't think there's any difference, that's where it will stop. If I do, the next steps will be what I outlined before, including wife's help with randomizing names using GUIDs.

My setup is such that music on audio PC is on 1 TB SATA HD (still waiting for SSD pricess to fall to the ground). I rip to an identical capacity SATA HD in USB enclosure, attached to a laptop, and then copy the music to audio PC. So, there will be at least 1 copying step involved (2, if I use USB stick instead, to move them to audio PC), in case it makes any difference.

Also, as I mentioned, it will be a test for 2 different drives - laptop's built-in vs. external.

 

"Facts", or rather information, suffers greatly, when it's presented by someone..., posted on December 16, 2014 at 09:10:46
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... like you, whose posting history (vast majority of it anyway) falls squarely into "having no idea what I'm talking about" territory - in other words, MIS-information.

 

There's a strong possibility that it won't move past sighted listening., posted on December 16, 2014 at 09:17:13
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 As I said below, that would be the 1st step, using 4-5 tracks. If there's no difference that I can detect, there's no point in continuing with larger sample and randomized file names.

 

RE: The result of ripping are files..., posted on December 16, 2014 at 09:43:50
Ryelands
Audiophile

Posts: 1867
Location: Scotland
Joined: January 9, 2009
 An accurate rip will produce accurate bits but to question the 'quality' of those bits is ridiculous.

Gosh. Another tautology. Note that fmak didn't question the "quality" of the bits - he asked "Is the quality of rip not dependent on how well the indentations on the discs are read, with in turns is dependent on how the drive is powered and controlled by the servo?"

Well, yes and no. I can't comment on dbPoweramp but EAC rips differently according to how it's configured: see link for differences between Burst, Secure and Paranoid mode and other settings. If, say, you use burst mode on a poor CD, there will be nothing wrong with the "bits" - all nice and shiny and perfectly round with it - but there's a good chance your data integrity will be be poor. Not the same thing.

A tolerant setting used to rip a poor CD might well mean less accurate data: when I ripped my core collection, I inadvertantly used Burst mode for a while and had to re-rip over 100 CDs as a few processed using the setting sounded awful.

fmak then asked How are the accurip and quality indicators derived? It's a fair question even if I'd have expected him to know the answer.

Accurip is of course a useful cross-check that your setup is working properly: if 100 or more people get the same checksum after ripping different copies of the same album, the chances of the data being incorrect are nil. If OTOH at least one other person gets the same checksum as you after ripping a more obscure CD, chances are you've both done it right.

My understanding is that EAC's "confidence" figure is the number of matching checksum reports in the database for the target CD and that its "quality" figure reflects how many re-reads the program performed over and above the minimum specified in the configuration to achieve the selected Error Recovery Quality. Don't quote me on that though.

I don't buy the notion that identical rips can sound different mainly because the "tests" purporting to support it were pitifully inept but OTOH I'd not dismiss the likes of SBGK's report on a different thread out of hand either. I have, of course, the advantage of having heard his program.

See: http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=141445

It doesn't hurt and it doesn't cost to stay agnostic on some questions pending meaningful data. Insert hackneyed Galileo quote here.

D

 

RE: First step taken on the way to "Linear rips" comparison: ordered external DVD drive. , posted on December 16, 2014 at 10:14:37
Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17294
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002
 I didn't read through the whole thread but did anyone talk about the redundancy in the stream and how a digital system can and does correct for misread bits as long as the error is short enough to be covered by the redundancy?

That's how digital data is dealt with, audio files or not.

Every time your computer reads a file or opens a program there are errors in the reading (and the writing) but the redundancy of the stream corrects for that.

Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"

 

RE: The result of ripping are files..., posted on December 16, 2014 at 10:21:18
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Please read my reply to fmak again, and in the context of the top level OP.

Once you have extracted an accurate rip (file in the computer) from optical media, it doesn't matter if that accurate rip used a Linear power supply, a Switcher, or Battery. In this case the bits ARE just bits on the computer. Some bits aren't more 'square' than others. If the files are the same, that's it, end of story.






 

RE: The result of ripping are files..., posted on December 16, 2014 at 11:00:38
Ryelands
Audiophile

Posts: 1867
Location: Scotland
Joined: January 9, 2009
 Please read my reply to fmak again, and in the context of the top level OP.

I read both it and the OP carefully. My post was essentially a shot at answering fmak's question as you IMO hadn't.

In this case the bits ARE just bits on the computer. Some bits aren't more 'square' than others. If the files are the same, that's it, end of story.

Thank you. I may be Scotch but, deceptive though appearances may be, I'm not completely stupid and, besides, made much the same point as yours at the end of my post. Please read my reply to fmak again.

Nonetheless, audioengr, SBGK and others have reported audible differences between music data that are, by all accounts, identical. You can either dismiss them as self-deceiving nincompoops, patronise them by misusing terms such as "placebo" or "psychological bias" or whatever the mot de jour happens to be and all the usual biz or you can ask yourself if there might not just perhaps be some phenomenon at work that gives competent and experienced listeners pause for thought. After all, one is a respected equipment designer, the other has written a top-notch music player. It's not unreasonable to assume that they just might have a point.

The unexpected, the chink in what we all know to be flawless armour is, after all, how science progresses. Is there some property of the format or some aspect of the data handling that has been overlooked? It's not so many years ago that the CD was "perfect sound forever" and a mild-mannered Englishman banging on about "jitter" could safely be laughed out of court.

 

The thread to read is the original one at CA (link)., posted on December 16, 2014 at 11:21:18
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Not that it answers any questions.

 

RE: The result of ripping are files..., posted on December 16, 2014 at 11:54:12
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "How are the accurip and quality indicators derived?"

Some of us know the answer to these questions. They are readily available on the web.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Might I suggest..., posted on December 16, 2014 at 12:15:37
Presto
Audiophile

Posts: 5957
Location: Canada
Joined: November 10, 2004
 ...listening to the SAME RIP, simple stored on different locations on the hard drive! Or the same rip on the same place of the hard drive where the single only difference between both files is a file name difference such as file001.wav and file002.wav.

Do modern drives even fragment files at all anymore?
Can fragmentation cause any deleterious effects?

I'm not being facetious here.

Comparing two files to see if they are different is fine, but even two absolutely different files might be somehow different by virtue of just being on different parts of the drive, or, perhaps one is fragmented and the other is not, or, one is simply far more fragmented than the other.

The first step in any good experiment is to ponder all of the variables involved. Failure to do so can result in false corollary between other variables that may or may not even be involved.

Cheers,
Presto

 

RE: There's a strong possibility that it won't move past sighted listening., posted on December 16, 2014 at 12:18:02
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Also, if you move past the first step, you might try comparing the MD5 checksums of a pair of rips. And if they differ, you might try ripping the same file twice with the same hardware and software and see if the bits differ. There are lots of possibilities here, none too logical, but certainly nothing to rule out.

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."


Good luck. And yes, I definitely want the files, especially since the earlier ones seem to have disappeared.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Check out Amazon - nothing but slim USB-powered drives. N/T, posted on December 16, 2014 at 12:34:01
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 If you have a desktop use an internal drive. You can power it separately.

If you use a USB drive, you can try running it behind a powered USB hub if you have one lying around. In that case you would swap the hub's power brick (switcher) for a linear PS.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

A SCOT saying he is SCOTCH!, posted on December 16, 2014 at 15:19:20
rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com
Audiophile

Posts: 3040
Location: Atlanta
Joined: December 15, 2003
 I cannot help but wonder if you are a transplanted Angle?!!! But with your surname I know better.

None of this is new. On the cMP forum there was talk of differing sound from different drives and this was spoken even before cMP. Remember the cult of PLEXTOR? And then there was that drive recommended by the dBpoweramp guy - a USB drive that looked like it used a notebook drive within its tiny plastic case.

So many variables, so many possibilities ...

 

RE: There's a strong possibility that it won't move past sighted listening., posted on December 16, 2014 at 16:16:46
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Tony, if the MD5 checksums of the ripped files are identical, then it doesn't matter what CD/DVD drive they were ripped from or how those drives were powered.



 

RE: It is typical-refuse?, posted on December 16, 2014 at 16:18:23
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 ''As I recall, when you reported hearing differences in rips I asked you to try copying for multiple generations and see if the audible differences survived.''

Exactly as I said. If you want some experiments done, you do it, make your own conclusions, and post it or reject it. This is what inmates who are interested in the subject do.

As I recall, the rips were not mine but were posted. I listened and I concluded. What is your problem?

 

identical???, posted on December 16, 2014 at 16:24:25
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 What does this mean? Checksums? 1000 people with computers and ripping software that are different?

Quality indicators are not indicative if they are not transparently defined and tested.

The sad thing for me are flat earthers who cannot accept a different horizon.

 

RE: The result of ripping are files...correctly read , posted on December 16, 2014 at 16:26:42
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 How is this defined? What is correct?

 

RE: There's a strong possibility that it won't move past sighted listening., posted on December 16, 2014 at 17:41:41
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "Tony, if the MD5 checksums of the ripped files are identical, then it doesn't matter what CD/DVD drive they were ripped from or how those drives were powered."

That is not necessarily so. Unlikely, yes. If I have two files on two different drives and they both have the same MD5 checksum it does not follow that playing them back will result in the same sound quality for reasons that have been thoroughly discussed over the years in this forum. For example, one drive might be an SSD and another spinning rust, etc... The same argument can apply if both files are on the same volume. One might be fragmented, the other might not. For sure they won't share the same sectors on the disk drive. They will have different file names. It is possible to come up with various (more or less unlikely) scenarios whereby two files on the same drive that have the same MD5 checksums might sound different. Of course if you are convinced that there will be no difference and you don't listen carefully there will be a good chance that you will miss the difference that is there. There is the problem of the "unseen gorilla". This is why it is necessary to keep an open mind.

N.B. This line of reasoning does not justify throwing money at scam artists peddling obvious snake oil. But one must keep an open mind and if one does ignore a suspect peddler it may turn out that his snake oil was the genuine article. Although I try to keep an open mind, sometimes this is difficult. However, life is short. Unless someone is paying me well to evaluate a situation or I am devilishly full of curiosity, I tend to pay little heed to suggestions from people whom I've categorized as fools, idiots or assholes. Such characters can be found all over various Internet forums.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: The result of ripping are files...correctly read , posted on December 16, 2014 at 17:48:21
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 How is this defined? What is correct?

For starters....

http://www.accuraterip.com/

http://www.accuraterip.com/software.htm

MD5 Checker for Windows
http://www.winmd5.com/

On Mac, MD5 utility is built-in to the OS. Example, comparing two files:



 

RE: The result of ripping are files..., posted on December 16, 2014 at 17:57:52
Daverz
Audiophile

Posts: 2104
Location: So. California
Joined: September 24, 2002
 Of course a lot can go wrong in the ripping process. That's why I wouldn't rip a large collection without a properly set up EAC or dbPowerAmp (or maybe XLD, but I haven't used that one in a while).

However, if the files ripped with two different drives are byte-for-byte identical, then nothing that happened when reading data from the drive can be responsible for any difference in playback.

 

RE: There's a strong possibility that it won't move past sighted listening., posted on December 16, 2014 at 18:01:09
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 If I have two files on two different drives and they both have the same MD5 checksum it does not follow that playing them back will result in the same sound quality for reasons that have been thoroughly discussed over the years in this forum. For example, one drive might be an SSD and another spinning rust, etc... The same argument can apply if both files are on the same volume. One might be fragmented, the other might not...... etc.

Of course, but that is not what is in question here.

Lets say a music file was ripped from a CD using CD/DVD drive A on a switching power supply. Now if that same CD track is ripped again on the same CD/DVD drive A but this time using a linear power supply, and both files are checked to be identical (AccurateRip / MD5), how would those files possibly be different to cause an audible difference?

The point being, it did not matter whether a switching power supply or a linear power supply was used.




 

Exactly - nt, posted on December 16, 2014 at 18:03:58
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 .

 

RE: There's a strong possibility that it won't move past sighted listening., posted on December 16, 2014 at 18:15:42
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 The point being there are other things that could be happening. Just because a theory says that something is impossible doesn't mean it can't happen. Black Swan Event.

Several possible explanations for these reports come to mind:

1. Files had different checksums.
2. Poster was a liar, sociopath or psychopath
3. Poster thought he heard something but fooled himself
4. Two files differed in location, name or some other factor and this coupled with software bugs/features and hardware characteristics resulted in different sound.
5. There is some new physical mechanism that enables information to be stored in storage devices in "places" that aren't known today.
6. Some other kind of "woo" factor which may be real but doesn't fit into the present world view of Western Civilization and its established religion of Scientific Materialism. (ESP, PSK, Homeopathy fit into these categories. Evidence exists for these, but it is dismissed, even when proponents were well regarded, even former Nobel laureates before they were dismissed as cranks.)




Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: There's a strong possibility that it won't move past sighted listening., posted on December 16, 2014 at 18:32:12
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
Once #1 is proven, files did not have different checksums, then the point is that it didn't matter whether a switching power supply or linear power supply was used on the CD/DVD drive used to rip the files. Both files are as identical as can be.

Taking it further, even if two different CD/DVD drives were used to rip, and both files checkout identical (AccurateRip / MD5 checksum), then one drive didn't produce a better ripped file than the other.

#2 - #6 are possibilities but not what the OP is trying to determine as best I can tell.



 

correctly read ???, posted on December 16, 2014 at 18:50:36
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 Why are checksums and accurip the basis on which streaming files are assessed for sound quality.

There is brain washing and conditioning.

Some 'IT experts' regard the universe as consisting of fuzzy audio concepts that have little transparanecy and clarity.

 

RE: correctly read ???, posted on December 16, 2014 at 19:02:09
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Why are checksums and accurip the basis on which streaming files are assessed for sound quality.

At this point, the files in question are not being 'streamed'. They are being 'ripped' and checked for differences. First the files are checked for any technical differences. If none are discovered, then the files themselves are not the cause of any perceived audible differences.

This will also debunk the theory that a linear power supply might make a better rip than a switcher, on a given CD/DVD drive that is otherwise working properly.

There is brain washing and conditioning.

Nothing to do with brain washing or conditioning at all.

Some 'IT experts' regard the universe as consisting of fuzzy audio concepts that have little transparanecy and clarity.

Some non 'IT experts' do not understand computers, files, and test methods.



 

RE: correctly read ???, posted on December 16, 2014 at 19:48:09
Garg0yle
Audiophile

Posts: 859
Joined: December 1, 2014
 Good golly Miss Molly, lots of wrong in this thread!

Great stuff.

Anyhow all you need is a small grasp of how "digital" works to know that this is complete nonsense.

Your device either reads the disc, or it doesn't.

It simply converts what it reads into an analog waveform. Pits are "zeros", lands are "ones".
It outputs this information in a varying voltage pattern where a voltage above a certain value means one thing, a voltage below a certain value means another, these two voltage levels are separated by voltage that means nothing. That is digital.

Example of a digital format could be

5v = 0
4v = 0
3v = Ignored
2v = 1
1v = 1

So a device that fluctuates between 1v and 4v is just as accurate as a higher powered device that outputs 2v to 5v. They both follow the same discipline.

One pit is not better then another, so long as it is identified as a pit.
Anything that falls between would be ignored and you would have an incomplete file, but the information you do have is correct.

It is not a vinyl record, the source or quality does not matter, so long as it is legible.

The sound does not come from the CD, it is a digital storage medium, it stores commands, which are "repeated" through your computer.

There is no analog chain to preserve.
It is a simple version of Morse Code, that is all.

A DVD uses a smaller wavelength (650 nanometers red) of light to cram more pits and lands into the same area as a CD burned using a 780 nanometer laser.

A BlueRay uses an even smaller wavelength (450 nanometers) to make even smaller pits.

It's not Wizardy.



△This message will self destruct in 10 seconds△

 

Jeez... another serial messiah., posted on December 16, 2014 at 20:15:14
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Your post is a great example of primitive non-experiential "knowledge", which has nothing to do with actual knowledge at all.

Simple question: have you ever, in the years past, compared - on a resolving system - the sound quality of a WAV file, burned to 2 different CD blanks - let's say Fuji vs. Memorex? What was the result?

Because, you know, someone who performed this little experiment, would never post something like you just did.

Could you do everyone a favor, and post ONLY after you gain some actual experience with the matters being discussed?

 

RE: Jeez... another serial messiah., posted on December 16, 2014 at 20:30:42
Garg0yle
Audiophile

Posts: 859
Joined: December 1, 2014
 lol

I could burn a file on a 3.5" floppy disc and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference beyond a coin flip on any system.
△This message will self destruct in 10 seconds△

 

RE: Jeez... another serial messiah., posted on December 16, 2014 at 20:35:50
Garg0yle
Audiophile

Posts: 859
Joined: December 1, 2014



Given enough time and a small amount of code, someone could input the information from a song into your computer with a Morse Code Key obtaining a perfect Checksum yielding a file indistinguishable from the source both digitally and audibly.
△This message will self destruct in 10 seconds△

 

RE: Jeez... another serial messiah.-a little knowledge, posted on December 17, 2014 at 01:08:47
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 is worse than none!!!

 

Partial knowlwdge, posted on December 17, 2014 at 01:11:00
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 is worse than none!

 

RE: It is typical, posted on December 17, 2014 at 03:28:45
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 2426
Joined: July 11, 2007
 You can't prove your statements!! You also fail to understand.
I can't blame you. Nobody nailed the subject!!!!
Otherwise we wouldn't have that weired discussion.
Your problem is, that you don't know what you don't know.
Things are more complex then your rather bold statements would suggest.

In a perfect world upstream generated data jitter and noise shouldn't matter as long the audio interface is able to cope with it. That's correct. That also applies to noise coming in through the backdoors (power supplies/mains/downstream devices/air/ground)

The real world looks different. Each audio interface catches different stuff from different sources. The magnitude of stuff that's been catched also differs from device to device and system to system.
The way that stuff is taken care off differs from device to device and system to system.

Yep. In a perfect world we'd see perfect audio interfaces. There won't be a perfect world though!

Enjoy.



-----------------------------------------------------------------

blog latest >> The Audio Streaming Series - tuning kit pCP

 

RE: correctly read ???, posted on December 17, 2014 at 05:07:29
SBGK
Audiophile

Posts: 444
Joined: March 22, 2012
 I'm thinking of upgrading the clock in my cd player, will it make a difference to the sound quality and if so why ? Surely the bits will be the same.
http://mqnplayer.blogspot.co.uk/

 

RE: There's a strong possibility that it won't move past sighted listening., posted on December 17, 2014 at 07:41:13
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Sorry, the two rip files may have the same MD5 checksum and the same bits stored in them, but they will not be identical. They will have different metadata. They will have different file names and will be stored on different disk sectors. Therefore, the logical axiom of equality is not applicable. Reasoning should be as simple as possible, but not too simple. In this case, your reasoning is too simple.

You can trust me: if I ever get two files that are bit identical that I can hear sound different, I will get to the bottom of the situation, no matter if it is the last thing I do. Every case that I've seen so far has always ended up in one of three ways: (1) the files were not bit identical, (2) the files sounded the same to me on my system, or (3) the files sounded different to me on my system until I found and fixed a problem with my system. For example, I found that two files that had the same bits in them did sound different. Indeed, they sounded different even when playing with the volume control turned all the way down. This was because one file was fragmented and the other was not and it was possible to hear clicks from the disk seeks. The cure was to copy both files to RAM disk and play out of there.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: correctly read ???, posted on December 17, 2014 at 08:42:32
theob
Audiophile

Posts: 3180
Location: ann arbor michigan
Joined: November 4, 2000
 Still need windows 8 OS to run? I have heard a lot of good things about your player but I use XP. But I would sure like to try it.

 

RE: There's a strong possibility that it won't move past sighted listening., posted on December 17, 2014 at 09:27:26
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Two ripped files with the same MD5 checksums are identical.... otherwise their checksums would not match. It IS really that simple.

And remember, we're talking only about ripping a file from a CD/DVD drive, not how or where it is stored on the computer's disk or RAM or how it is played back. All of that is 'downstream' and does not matter in the context of what I believe the OP is trying to determine. Only the files themselves are in question for this particular test.

Any differences in sound cannot be attributed to the files if both rips produce the same MD5 checksum.

If you use a linear power supply on the CD/DVD drive or a switching power supply on the same CD/DVD drive, and both rips produce files with identical MD5 checksums, then it did not matter which power was used.

If a difference is heard, it is not due to the files themselves.... It must be downstream.


 

I bow before your infinite wisdom Fred - nt, posted on December 17, 2014 at 09:38:01
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 .






 

Excellent suggestion (nt), posted on December 17, 2014 at 15:19:33
Dave_K
 nt

 

upgrading the clock , posted on December 17, 2014 at 17:09:26
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 This can make a huge difference. But the right clock and power supply needs to be chosen.

A good starting point is to use the latest generation of 'Femto' clocks with an adaptor and a fast, ultra low noise PS.

Don't try to squeeze in a large clock assembly.

I spent a couple of years playing with different clocks on different machines, doing FFT measurements on the XOs and PSs while listening.

 

RE: upgrading the clock , posted on December 19, 2014 at 09:28:25
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Fred -

What clocks did you test? What were their output frequencies? What did you use to perform the FFTs? What power supplies did you use to power the clocks?





 

RE: upgrading the clock , posted on December 19, 2014 at 15:34:34
Garg0yle
Audiophile

Posts: 859
Joined: December 1, 2014



nt
△This message will self destruct in 10 seconds△

 

too funny !! ;-), posted on December 19, 2014 at 20:52:29
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 .

 

Page processed in 0.048 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]