Explain this

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?

Almost certainly down to the fog on the Tyne.

Ohhh, good question. I'll check.

No compression, ripped to WAV

I like WAV. Can't think of a reason not to use it.

Yes, speed was the same.

Single speed? No

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

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.

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.....

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 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.

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.

Well I know when I hear a naim system I am certainly not hallucinating its still grim sighted or unsighted

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.

Shouldn't be too difficult to guess Oli, you've only got one friend;-)

Some good posts here. Language is always a problem when trying to describe subtle differences.

Perhaps a better word in this context is 'perception'.