|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
202.82.134.133
In Reply to: RE: The result of ripping are files... posted by Daverz on December 16, 2014 at 03:16:15
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'.
Edits: 12/16/14Follow Ups:
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.
.
"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
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'.
Edits: 12/16/14 12/16/14
How is this defined? What is correct?
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:
Edits: 12/16/14 12/16/14
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.
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.
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/
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.
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?
nt
.
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.
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?
is worse than none!!!
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.
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.
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.
Edits: 12/16/14
is worse than none!
.
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
Edits: 12/16/14
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: