Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,152
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jan 6, 2021 22:18:17 GMT
Ok boys and girls, same CD.....ripped by EAC, DBpoweramp, NCH, Windows. I picked a fairly decent CD and set everything i could to emphasise quality over speed. CD in question: Every single rip sounds different. Tell me why.. BTW, i have chosen EAC as my favourite out of the options as it appears to retain a more dynamic and clean sound. Windows being the worst.
|
|
|
Post by misterc on Jan 6, 2021 22:28:30 GMT
It is purely down to data transfer inside the pc/laptop and the way the ripping programme actually copies have said before I have six ripping programmes they all give different sounds despite being bit perfect Now here's a question probably for Jerry as he's a misunderstood genius Think about how PCM data streams work, the bits maybe indentical but what else needs to correct and in place as well?
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,152
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jan 6, 2021 22:30:21 GMT
It is purely down to data transfer inside the pc/laptop and the way the ripping programme actually copies have said before I have six ripping programmes they all give different sounds despite being bit perfect Now here's a question probably for Jerry as he's a misunderstood genius Think about how PCM data streams work, the bits maybe indentical but what else needs to correct and in place as well? Ok, that I understand......but the bit I FORGOT to put in was that I used three different cd drives as well, and they all vary in SQ too.
|
|
|
Post by stevew on Jan 6, 2021 22:31:48 GMT
Almost certainly down to the fog on the Tyne.
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jan 7, 2021 7:50:43 GMT
lol
Are the files all the same size?
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,152
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jan 7, 2021 8:42:04 GMT
lol Are the files all the same size? Ohhh, good question. I'll check. No compression, ripped to WAV
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2021 9:13:35 GMT
Wav? Is thatbthe best option? What speed did you rip the CD at? Did you try single speed?
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,152
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jan 7, 2021 9:42:03 GMT
Wav? Is thatbthe best option? What speed did you rip the CD at? Did you try single speed? I like WAV. Can't think of a reason not to use it. Yes, speed was the same. Single speed? No
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2021 10:26:25 GMT
Single speed with be less prone to errors.
Somewhere there is a list of the better CD drives for audio ripping in programs like EAC.
|
|
|
Post by misterc on Jan 7, 2021 10:32:14 GMT
Just to make an observation to rip a CD say 720Mb in WAV correctly should take around 6-9 minutes depending on number if tracks and density contained within those tracks. Tip 2 if you have a 'hot' sounding disc the I would suggest WAV copies (Though, this does use twice the disc space!) if you have a flatter sounding duller disc then FLAC I feel gives a better result. However they're SHOULD be zero difference between these methods if everything is 100% copied correctly (note, not just bit perfect) yet you can clearly hear a different, this is not an earth shattering difference but one you can detect. Remember NOT all coping programs and the copying environments are created equal. In the studio's we used exclusively WAV unless one of the recording guys ('Dave' the cardboard box as he is affectionately known) is a hard core FLAC miester For when I can be arsed to copy a CD I use a PC I built especially just geared for ultra low noise for downloading an ripping. IT has no other function what so ever other than those two tasks
|
|
|
Post by sq225917 on Jan 7, 2021 13:38:47 GMT
Youre imaganing it. I know it's not a popular statement, as people believe their ears, but you need to accept that you're simply hearing differences because that's what your are disposed towards.
Assuming there are not gross bit errors on the tracks. Run a checksum on the files, if they are the same, they are the same, and it's you.
Been there done this. Ripped 1 minute of tracks from half a dozen differ cds, using 3 laptops and different rippers. Stored identication tags in the file meta data, renamed them at random and then burnt to disc. I spent days trying to identify differences between the files hoping I could identify the rip sources. Then once I had a set of results I believed were true I looked at the metal tags to see which rippers there came from. Was there any correlation, was there f-ckers like.
Same result when files stayed on HD.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,152
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jan 7, 2021 13:46:45 GMT
Youre imaganing it. I know it's not a popular statement, as people believe their ears, but you need to accept that you're simply hearing differences because that's what your are disposed towards. Assuming there are not gross bit errors on the tracks. Run a checksum on the files, if they are the same, they are the same, and it's you. Been there done this. Ripped 1 minute of tracks from half a dozen differ cds, using 3 laptops and different rippers. Stored identication tags in the file meta data, renamed them at random and then burnt to disc. I spent days trying to identify differences between the files hoping I could identify the rip sources. Then once I had a set of results I believed were true I looked at the metal tags to see which rippers there came from. Was there any correlation, was there f-ckers like. Same result when files stayed on HD. Really? I honestly felt that the DB Poweramp rip lacked a lot of dynamic energy Vs the EAC rip. I only did it on headphones though, so I could be wrong but I will do it via the DAC over the weekend.
|
|
|
Post by sq225917 on Jan 7, 2021 18:44:36 GMT
Honestly mate, a rip is a rip is a rip.
Phrases like 'one seemed less dynamic' are just daft, that would imply that different rippers couldn't all make bit perfect copies. Which by and large, heavily damaged disc that skip aside, they all do. If they didn't cds wouldn't work for storing audio data, and the idea of a bit perfect rip proven via checksum would be impossible.
For a ripper to squash dynamics it would have to selectively compress the peaks and the recode it back onto the disc. It's just not possible if the files are the same.
And if they're aren't your software is set up wrongly.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,152
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jan 7, 2021 19:20:32 GMT
Honestly mate, a rip is a rip is a rip. Phrases like 'one seemed less dynamic' are just daft, that would imply that different rippers couldn't all make bit perfect copies. Which by and large, heavily damaged disc that skip aside, they all do. If they didn't cds wouldn't work for storing audio data, and the idea of a bit perfect rip proven via checksum would be impossible. For a ripper to squash dynamics it would have to selectively compress the peaks and the recode it back onto the disc. It's just not possible if the files are the same. And if they're aren't your software is set up wrongly. I'm going to dig a bit further, because even though it may sound daft, it does not sound the same to me. I see what you're saying, but still.....
|
|
|
Post by sq225917 on Jan 7, 2021 19:48:09 GMT
Checksum the files. Easiest way to tell if they're identical, you might have to trim them, as the first few bits may be different depending on settings.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jan 7, 2021 23:43:56 GMT
Quote from SQ to Bigman "Youre imagining it. I know it's not a popular statement, as people believe their ears, but you need to accept that you're simply hearing differences because that's what your are disposed towards." Does this mean all Bigman's reviews are tainted?
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,152
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jan 8, 2021 9:06:09 GMT
Quote from SQ to Bigman "Youre imagining it. I know it's not a popular statement, as people believe their ears, but you need to accept that you're simply hearing differences because that's what your are disposed towards." Does this mean all Bigman's reviews are tainted? The use of the words "imaginary" or "expectation Bias" or "disposed towards" are usually met with a defensive response when they are suggested as the reason for hearing differences in things that others simply do not either hear, or believe are possible. Thats certainly not the case here. Whats interesting about the Terms "imaginary" Expectation Bias" or Disposed towards" is that those terms are not bound in one direction. I know there a folk who are adamant that cables, DAC's and so forth "all sound the same" Their "expectation bias" means i could throw ANY cable into their system and they would subconsciously refuse to hear any difference, or if they did...they say they must be imagining it. I know of an engineer and manufacturer (whom i have visited but wasn't allowed to write about) who was 100% adamant that swapping cheap brass terminals for "copper bling" was pointless. Yet in the listening, when he heard the difference he acknowledged it. EVEN THOUGH scientifically, it made no sense...as he said. That bias was the equivalent to mine, just in the opposite direction. What matters is that people have an open mind, as i do. I *could* be imagining it. I might not be....but i accept both options are equally valid. As for my reviews...... Thats up to whoever reads them to decide. Those that know me, know i am just honest about what i hear. If it's good, isay so...if it isn't i say so too. the reason i dont review as much stuff anymore is that folks are reluctant to let me borrow stuff. Thats a good sign IMO. If they are concerned about what i say, then that means i am doing it right. If my taste of sound reproduction and personal goals for my system match yours, then whatever i review should be pretty accurate in your opinion. If they don't, then my opinions will not match yours. It's that simple. People over complicate HiFi...like they do most things. If i listen to "Device A" and compare it to "Device B" and perfer one over the other, then thats is what i will choose to listen to. I don't care if "it's not possible" or "you are imagining it" My imagination has been consistent
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jan 8, 2021 12:45:06 GMT
The problem here is, to an extent, one of language. Words and phrases that have a specific meaning are misinterpreted to have a more general one.
There are various types of unconscious bias, one of these is expectation bias however this is routinely mis-understood on hi-fi forums.
Someone tries an unlikely tweak and reports 'I didn't expect it to make a difference but it does! Therefore it must be real and not expectation bias.'
However expecting it to do nothing (or expecting it to do something) is a conscious bias, not an unconscious one. The problem with unconscious bias is that we are completely unaware that it is happening and we have absolutely no control over it.
For example, I do not think that mains cables make the slightest difference. Someone says to me 'Come round and I will prove they do.' So we listen with a standard freebie cable, then he swaps to a fancy cable and we listen again. The likelihood is that I will hear a difference, even though my conscious mind is already made up. Just the fact that I know the cable has been swapped will cause me to hear a difference regardless of that. No-one is immune to this effect and no-one can do anything about it.
There are various traits to human psychological behaviour which are proven and well documented. One of these is our capacity to perceive differences where none exist. All that is required is that we have a cue that makes us think there may be a difference. We will then hear a difference whether one exists or not. We may be completely unaware that we have received that cue, or we may be aware, either way it makes no difference and what we perceive is completely beyond our conscious control.
With hi-fi/music we are quite prone to this as some aspects of hi-fi, perception of soundstage and imaging for example, require the brain to 'construct' an impression based on the auditory clues it receives. This means that depending on a whole host of factors, what we perceive is embellished by our 'imagination' (for want of a better word). This affects all of us and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
In short we cannot be certain that if we hear a change or a difference or an improvement, that that is 'real' in any objective sense unless we conduct a properly controlled blind test. Mostly this is not necessary as there will be a good reason for the difference - changing the speakers for example. However if the change is due to something that really should not make a difference, then a blind test is the only way to find out if it is real.
As in the case of these CD rips, if testing blind indicates that they do sound different then we can go looking for the reason. The reason is highly unlikely to be something 'unknown to science' but something far more mundane that we have simply not accounted for. In this case, it may be that the files are not identical after all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2021 13:04:15 GMT
I had a friend who coukd tell the difference between a CD-R and a "real" CD. I coukd put on a CD, and he could tell me what the disc was, if he was familiar with the album. I tried to catch him ourlt, but I was never able to.
They sounded pretty much the same to me...
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jan 8, 2021 13:24:11 GMT
for very slight differences you can train yourself to hear them. Ask him to show you specifically what he listens out for then listen out for it yourself. It may be the slightest artefact but once you get used to listening for it you will be able to spot it repeatedly. This is how some people can discriminate between different sampling rates. They aren't listening to the overall sound quality, just for artefacts that should not be there.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jan 8, 2021 13:38:20 GMT
What we need on here is a psychiatrist, or maybe he'd find us all 'to far gone' to help
|
|
|
Post by misterc on Jan 8, 2021 13:41:40 GMT
Well I know when I hear a naim system I am certainly not hallucinating its still grim sighted or unsighted
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jan 8, 2021 18:05:08 GMT
What we need on here is a psychiatrist, or maybe he'd find us all 'to far gone' to help I told my Psychiatrist that I was hearing voices in my head. He told me that I don't have a Psychiatrist.
|
|
|
Post by sq225917 on Jan 8, 2021 18:26:07 GMT
Just because one person thinks they hear a difference, does not mean they do. Conversely, just because someone claims they do not hear a difference doesn't mean that a generally audible difference does not exist.
We are all prone to bias, both ways, it is simply beyond our control not to be.
Good audio testing seeks to minimise the effects of all sources of bias and to use statistical means to eliminate chance.
It's the best we can achieve.
I'm firmly in the camp of "there is nothing we can hear which we cannot measure". But that's not the same statement as saying " we always measure everything we can hear".
Simply put, a measure is a represrntation of a single parameter, in hearing, we assess all parameters simultaneously, some we may not be measuring at that time.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,152
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jan 8, 2021 20:09:51 GMT
Just because one person thinks they hear a difference, does not mean they do. Conversely, just because someone claims they do not hear a difference doesn't mean that a generally audible difference does not exist. We are all prone to bias, both ways, it is simply beyond our control not to be. Good audio testing seeks to minimise the effects of all sources of bias and to use statistical means to eliminate chance. It's the best we can achieve. I'm firmly in the camp of "there is nothing we can hear which we cannot measure". But that's not the same statement as saying " we always measure everything we can hear". Simply put, a measure is a represrntation of a single parameter, in hearing, we assess all parameters simultaneously, some we may not be measuring at that time. Yup. Great post that. And until someone can tell me how I know my phone is going to ring (and usually who it is) before it does, I'll continue to believe that things happen that we don't yet understand or have figured out how to measure. I may be bonkers. Who knows!
|
|
|
Post by sq225917 on Jan 8, 2021 20:35:16 GMT
Shouldn't be too difficult to guess Oli, you've only got one friend;-)
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,152
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jan 8, 2021 21:09:18 GMT
Shouldn't be too difficult to guess Oli, you've only got one friend;-) Hahahaha! That made me chuckle 🤣
|
|
|
Post by firebottle on Jan 9, 2021 8:23:24 GMT
Some good posts here. Language is always a problem when trying to describe subtle differences. The problem here is, to an extent, one of language. .. what we perceive is embellished by our 'imagination' (for want of a better word). Perhaps a better word in this context is 'perception'.
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jan 9, 2021 8:43:01 GMT
Just because one person thinks they hear a difference, does not mean they do. Conversely, just because someone claims they do not hear a difference doesn't mean that a generally audible difference does not exist. We are all prone to bias, both ways, it is simply beyond our control not to be. Good audio testing seeks to minimise the effects of all sources of bias and to use statistical means to eliminate chance. It's the best we can achieve. I'm firmly in the camp of "there is nothing we can hear which we cannot measure". But that's not the same statement as saying " we always measure everything we can hear". Simply put, a measure is a represrntation of a single parameter, in hearing, we assess all parameters simultaneously, some we may not be measuring at that time. Yup. Great post that. And until someone can tell me how I know my phone is going to ring (and usually who it is) before it does, I'll continue to believe that things happen that we don't yet understand or have figured out how to measure. I may be bonkers. Who knows! In a wider context, yes, reality can be very strange. In the narrow field of the replay of recorded music, not so much.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,152
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jan 10, 2021 16:27:24 GMT
----------------------------------------------- Statistics for: Gary Moore - Spanish Guitar.wav Number of Samples: 9971712 -----------------------------------------------
left right
Peak value: -0.86 dB --- -0.86 dB Avg RMS: -14.58 dB --- -14.15 dB DR channel: 11.40 dB --- 11.02 dB -----------------------------------------------
Official DR value: DR11 ===============================================
Ha! I can also check dynamic range now lol
Found a download for the Gary Moore album i wanted.
|
|