Rippers Revisited

[PinkFloyd]

Any of you guys tried Clone CD? I find it simple and it does the job ;D

[FritzS]

Oct 5, 2009 5:57:31 GMT @sandyk said:

I normally use the LG BluRay writer, as the rips sound better than those from the other Pioneer DVD drive. DESPITE identical checksums ! (both calibrated by EAC server)

Alex,
if two music file's exact bit per bit the same, they could not sound different - the only one difference they reside on different places on the harddisk. There is no reason why they could sound different

Please test the Windiff.exe utility from Microsoft to compare two files bit per bit
support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb%3Ben-us%3B159214&x=10&y=11

[Deleted]

Alex,if two music file's exact bit per bit the same, they could not sound different - the only one difference they reside on different places on the harddisk. There is no reason why they could sound different Please test the Windiff.exe utility from Microsoft to compare two files bit per bithttp://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb;en-us;159214

Friedrich
Did you actually read the reports, and look at the included links that I sent you from Computer Audiophile?
I don't give a damn what the checksums or other utilities are saying. You are also refusing to accept the findings of the Computer Audiophile Symposium where many Industry heavyweights were also present, and they agreed that the files played from a SSD sounded better.
From Computer Audiophile :

" Posts: 48

@ taniane
Dear Taniane:

It was not by accident the demonstrations at the symposium were selected for dissemination. Differences in playback were:

1. First identified by an individual using a specific playback system.
2. A/B comparisons made, not SSD vs. HDD but identified as "A" and "B", "A" and "C", and "B" and "C", "B and "A".
3. Listeners were instructed to leave and re-enter the room.
4. Comparisons were conducted on several different occasions by several individuals on a one on one basis for over a year.
5. At several different locations using several different systems.
6. PCs and Macs.
7. Results referenced to as close to the "original" capture as possible. In some cases, the "original".
8. Listeners from the audiophile and music production community were involved. This means, recording artists. recording engineers, mixing engineers, mastering engineers, and audiophiles.

The results were conclusive.

On a final note, I have the understanding it is a matter of implementation. There are servers built that defy the results in discussion - custom player software, custom drivers, custom housing.

Regards,

Tim Marutani
Emeryville, CA"


A SSD is not subject to noise and vibration, and does not draw high and continuously varying currents like a HDD does as it rotates and hunts for the segments of the file. All this heavy and erratic current draw is reflected right through the rest of PC, including sound cards etc. This is rather like the same effect in a CD player as the motors attempt to track the data, and also correct data.A high quality CD-R such as a 24K gold CD makes life easier for the tracking motor, and associated electronics, and the sound is noticeably improved. Many of the processes in HDD storage and CD data extraction are actually very analogue in nature. Which may be a surprise to many.
You are also discounting the reports from members such as JeffC,Allan,Will, Miguel,Gavin, Nick, Leo,Robin,Sol and TonyG etc. , who have been able to hear the differences. Nick ,Gavin and Tony have also heard the differences directly from my PC. Tony also took some files from my PC home, and confirmed that he could hear differences through his own valve amplifier and speakers.
Posted by Gavin :
Re: Modify a PC's CD/DVD Transport
« Reply #56 on Aug 1, 2009, 10:03am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was over at Alex's place on Monday and had the opportunity to hear the difference between the two files and there is no doubt in my mind, that there was a clear distinction between the two.

Not knowing the source or the headphones, Alex let me blind test the two songs (forgot the name of the songs! XD) and two files and the distinction between the one which had been ripped with the damped was better in all aspects.

Initially, as a computer person (computer building business), a science person(Engineer) and low-level audiophile, that the sound difference came from a possible increase to gain. However two things showed me that this was not the case. I think the best section to describe this was heard in the guitar solo in the second song, and the sound via the damped drive was so much more musical. And also through both songs that I listened to, separation between vocals and instruments was clearly more transparent.

The second change is similar when I change headphones from my Sennie 595's to my Audio Technica A-900's, with the Sennies having a very blurry midrange where as the A-900s have much better instrument/vocal distinction.

However this was a mere change in what, personally what I personally came to the conclusion of is that, the more precise blu-ray laser helps this cause and also the decreased level of jitter due to a) the 3M tape and b) the actual construction of the blu-ray drive is superior. These views are shared by Alex and myself, I think.

And there is no denying that the proof is definitely in the pudding.

There is nothing worse in this world that ignorance, and what do you have to lose from breaking free from traditional thought and just having a listen, that's what this hobby is all about. More to the point, closed narrow minded thought, destroys a forum community where if every new thought gets shot down, you lose valuable knowledge from ostracizing people and making them less free about sharing their experiences and then you lose in diversity, lose lose baby.

Some people are out there to make a buck from some tin-foil-hat shit like those linked in the first page, but I hardly think Alex is there to do that.

Cheers

Gav


Friedrich
Get yourself some decent PC ancillaries such as a high quality SPDIF DAC, and a high quality headphone amplifier, such as the Class A built by several members and you will clearly hear these differences for yourself. Miguel has also been able to identify the differences when using valve amplification.
We are saying that the vast majority of people do not understand the part that PC storage plays in the overall scheme of things.
Nobody would deny that audio files sound very different when played back via amplifiers with very different signal to noise ratios or cleaner power supplies.
What is happening is that the sound of these files is being degraded by the electrical noise and vibration inherent in the PC itself, which is stored along with the actual .wav file by some as yet unexplained mechanism. Replacing SMPS with linear supplies, also gives an improvement.
Are you also going to tell me that I imagined the sound quality differences due to very close matching of the input differential pair transistors in an amplifier ?
www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133018&highlight=current+mirror&page=15
See in particular the posts by Ostripper.
ALSO posts 15-19
www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134221&page=2
These have also been confirmed by the RG members who have actually built the Class A HA.
Do you also doubt that both JeffC and myself can hear differences between the various Rippers ? If you doubt that the various rippers result in different sounding audio files, I am prepared to upload a couple of comparison tracks as mentioned in the testing of the new ripper mentioned earlier,(Ripstation Micro DS) but only to members with suitable high resolution PC playback.
Alex

[FritzS]

If the files are bit by bit equal - the only difference could be jitter caused from the PC hardware - conventional HD's they have different seek time, the music files could be fragment, etc.

SSD have no mechanics, and have the same seek time, the same delay - less jitter.

[Deleted]

SSD have no mechanics, and have the same seek time, the same delay - less jitter.

Check out this quote from Computer Audiophile :
I just checked on newegg, and the article seems correct about similar performance, although it was comparing the vertex to agility, not the vertex turbo.

the turbo IS marginally faster than the vertex, if 10 Mb/sec counts as marginal.

I'll call tomorrow and see if I can switch my order, I think.

www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227462&cm_re=oc...

The Agility 120 Gb is $259 after $30 mail-in rebate, whereas the (only) 60 Gb Vertex Turbo I ordered is $249.

The Agility goes up to 230 Mb/sec read, and up to 135 Mb/sec write with the Vertex Turbo being 10 Mb/sec faster for each. Both SSDs come with 64 Mb cache.

The Agility 60 GB (same specs) is only $169 after rebate. that's cheap enough for any audiophile to afford, IMO.

[Deleted]

SSD have no mechanics, and have the same seek time, the same delay - less jitter.

Really ?
I deliberately chose a review from a German source. It was one of very many.
TweakPC (Germany)
“The OCZ Vertex shows a marked improvement over the last generation of SSDs. The performance almost makes the mouth water. While reading the economic SSD up to 250 MB/second and write 128k blocks from their maximum of nearly 200 MB/sec. These are truly outstanding values in this test. If you are looking for maximum performance for a system disk, the OCZ Vertex is the SSD you are looking for. A Windows 7 Boot Time on an SSD of just 17.9 seconds speaks for itself and earns our Performance Award for the OCZ Vertex.”

[Deleted]

I have just received confirmation from the developer of the XXHE playback software, that 2 of them were able to hear differences between 2 .wav files with identical checksums that I uploaded. Peter St. will now be doing some indepth analysis to try and find out the reasons for these audible differences.
Many thanks for the continuing support by many RG members in this mad crusade of mine.
Alex
The link to this thread is :

www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Windows-7-anyone-using-it-yet#comment-29013

[Deleted]

I have been playing with EAC, after getting to know its quirks and get freedb working (had me going for a while).

I've set it to rip from my laptops standard DVDR/W and dump .wav straight to a pretty standard USB pen.

These have been compared to the same tracks ripped using WMP also dumping .wav directly to said pen.

Listening via the HA NG27 there is a difference, not enough to select one as "better" than the other, but subtle differences for sure.

I then dumped both versions of the tracks back down to a CDR and listened via the HiFi setup (Meridian 506.24/Nordost Blue Heaven/MF xcanv2 with mods and pinkie) but the same headphones. Hit random and off we go. Skipping to get like for like, hang on folks, this is more obvious, one version is more fluid, the other sounding a tad restrained. Ran through a few times, finally noting the track numbers I prefered, to be checked against the track listing back on the laptop.

Well, waddya know, EAC every time!

If I can tell this on my limited ripping hardware, I am not surprised others have been getting excited when improving/tweaking the hardware as well.

It's obvious that there is a lot of mileage here. The only result that comes out negative is that the original CD still sounds better via the Hifi setup. If the guys here, with better PC setups than the basic stuff I'm using, claim they can improve on the orgininal disc, I won't argue based on the obove findings.