|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
91.125.32.130
In Reply to: RE: The result of ripping are files... posted by AbeCollins on December 16, 2014 at 08:28:46
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: 12/16/14Follow Ups:
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: