All rips not equal...?!

[Dan Turner]

I read with interest (and dismay) in the latest issue of HiFi Choice that one of the reviewers had achieved different results ripping CDs to several different devices. His contention was that rips via a Naim HDX were noticably superior to those made on a rip-NAS, the latter being roughly equivalent to ripping a CD on a MacBook in his opinion/experience.

Having invested rather a lot of time quite recently re-ripping all my CDs in Apple Lossless format on my MacBook Pro, I find this rather concerning.

Is there any truth in this in the experiences of anyone else out there? And if so, exactly how much of a difference are we talking about?

I have got an application called Max which has options for using a 'comparison' ripper requiring user-specifiable number of matches per sector and 'paranoia' (?! brilliant) error correction - is re-ripping with this kind of software going to yield better results that using iTunes? As good as an HDX?

The idea of re-ripping all my CDs is rather upsetting, but I hate the idea that I'm not getting the best at the moment!

 

[Anonymous]

Did the reviewer compare the bits in the two files?

Or was it just his perception?

 

[Dan Turner]

Taylor74:
Did the reviewer compare the bits in the two files?

Or was it just his perception?

Apparently it was based on the difference he had heard when comparing them.

 

[Anonymous]

It could have been imagined.

I did a lot of reading on this before starting to rip my CDs and found that iTunes creates perfect rips, although doesn't give any confirmation. The article showed the output from two rips using the a Bit Compare feature in Windows software, EAC.

The test seemed straight-forward so you may be able to carry it out yourself.

 

[Dan Turner]

Taylor74:
It could have been imagined.

I did a lot of reading on this before starting to rip my CDs and found that iTunes creates perfect rips, although doesn't give any confirmation. The article showed the output from two rips using the a Bit Compare feature in Windows software, EAC.

The test seemed straight-forward so you may be able to carry it out yourself.

Thanks - that is some reassurance!

Of course I imagine that any rip the reviewer made on an HDX were replayed on the HDX, whereas presumably rips made other ways weren't. Although from how the comment was written it made it sound like he had made a direct comparison.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Dan Turner: I read with interest (and dismay) in the latest issue of HiFi Choice that one of the reviewers had achieved different results ripping CDs to several different devices. His contention was that rips via a Naim HDX was noticably superior to those made on a rip-NAS, the latter being roughly equivalent to ripping a CD on a MacBook in his opinion/experience

I think there's one solution. Those that want 100% from their music should stick to a good quality CD player.

I've not done any comparisons of CD vs high quality storage, but even if there were no difference, wouldn't there be something in the back of your mind telling you that you might be missing out on something? I've not yet gone as far as shifting my CD collection to hard drive, but if I do, I want to feel completely confident that the whole system is not suffering at any one point.

I'd like to read that article, as I've never been fully convinced by HD storage.

 

[Dan Turner]

FrankHarveyHiFi:
Dan Turner: I read with interest (and dismay) in the latest issue of HiFi Choice that one of the reviewers had achieved different results ripping CDs to several different devices. His contention was that rips via a Naim HDX was noticably superior to those made on a rip-NAS, the latter being roughly equivalent to ripping a CD on a MacBook in his opinion/experience

I think there's one solution. Those that want 100% from their music should stick to a good quality CD player.

I've not done any comparisons of CD vs high quality storage, but even if there were no difference, wouldn't there be something in the back of your mind telling you that you might be missing out on something? I've not yet gone as far as shifting my CD collection to hard drive, but if I do, I want to feel completely confident that the whole system is not suffering at any one point.

I'd like to read that article, as I've never been fully convinced by HD storage.

I have to say that I listened long and hard before making the decision to go computer-based and in the end I concluded that lossless files on my macbook via a Cambridge DacMagic (which I had at the time) were better than the Arcam CD37 that i had in most regards - enough combined with the huge increase in convenience to swing it in favour of computer based storage and replay for me.

I think that even if there is a possibility that one rip might be slightly more or less accurate from another then I'd still be more inclined to worry that I might be missing out on something with the CD - after all the CD player has to read and error-correct the information coming off the disc in real-time, which is a challenge that hard disk replay doesn't have to contend with either when ripping or replaying.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I suppose it depends on the CD player - I'd still be inclined to keep my CD's handy, so not much benefit for me really!

 

[The_Lhc]

I can't believe the number of people who don't believe a computer can read a (undamaged) CD properly!

 

[Anonymous]

Hi, Frank.

I definitely think that HiFi is moving towards computers as an audio source, so it might be worthwhile talking to your employer about going on some training?

A quick Google has retrieved two articles that I read in the past:

Kent Poon, Mastering Engineer and

Link removed by Mods - House rules violation

 

[Dan Turner]

FrankHarveyHiFi:
I suppose it depends on the CD player - I'd still be inclined to keep my CD's handy, so not much benefit for me really!

Hi David - I know what you mean - I'm certainly not going to get rid of my CDs and until high-res downloads in my taste of music are a reality I'll still be buying all my music on CD.

But they can at least be relegated to the spare room, and I can select all my music via my iPhone rather than getting up to swap CDs every few mins!

 

[Dan Turner]

Taylor74:
Hi, Frank.

I definitely think that HiFi is moving towards computers as an audio source, so it might be worthwhile talking to your employer about going on some training?

A quick Google has retrieved two articles that I read in the past:

Kent Poon, Mastering Engineer and iTunes creates perfect rips

Brilliant - that's set my mind at rest nicely!

I would still like a Naim HDX tho..... :0)

 

[idc]

I have not read the article, but I was thinking that the rips would be the same, but the playback is not and in that case Naim beat Macbook, which is not that surprising when you think about it.

 

[Anonymous]

Audio cd's (unlike data cd's) do not have checksums to correct and reread wrong data. So rips can be different, in theory. And are often different, with surface scratches. That's why accuraterip was invented: to check your results with the rips by others. If they are the same, you almost certainly got the data intended by the manufacturer, as it is unlikely that two independent rips have exactly the same mistakes (in theory whole cd series could be wrong but that is not a ripping problem). So don't worry, and this HifiChoice person should know better.

 

[Craig M.]

i think the hifi choice reviewer was talking rubbish! if there was an audible difference then the hdx was less accurate or the dac wasn't up to it.

as long as your dac rejects jitter well then a hdd is the best option.

as someone else said, the reviewer should know better. was it malcolm steward?

 

[Dan Turner]

Craig M.:
i think the hifi choice reviewer was talking rubbish! if there was an audible difference then the hdx was less accurate or the dac wasn't up to it.

as long as your dac rejects jitter well then a hdd is the best option.

as someone else said, the reviewer should know better. was it malcolm steward?

It was...

 

[manicm]

Craig M.:

i think the hifi choice reviewer was talking rubbish! if there was an audible difference then the hdx was less accurate or the dac wasn't up to it.

as long as your dac rejects jitter well then a hdd is the best option.

as someone else said, the reviewer should know better. was it malcolm steward?

Yes it was Malcolm Steward and no he's not talking rubbish - I've read the review too, completely - in the physical magazine.

What he did say was that he preferred, in this exact order, 1. the HDX, 2. his own EAC rip, and 3rd and worst the NASRip(whatever the name was of the NAS based auto ripper). He took the first two as acceptable and the last one as poop.

So no - the HDX and DAC both were very 'up to it'. And so was the Linn DS-I - the subject of his review where he stated this piece of equipment was very sensitive to different rips - and with what he used to compare HDX to EAC to NASRip - all through the Linn - remember the HDX can now be used as a wireless source (Naim's recent software update, and what also makes the Uniti talk to it now).

To the_lhc - rips are indeed different - why else would people make such a fuss over EAC?? And I hear differences as well - but my favourite format is AIFF.

I find with with pure digital audio there's a lot of dogma being thrown around - everything's 'jitter-free' so CD is inferior by default blah di bloody blah. Remember this same mag has recently given the Marantz pearls the full fivers. I absolutely agree with David from FrankHarvey - right now, right here I don't think the one medium is superior to the other and I'll explain why:

I still don't believe the PC is the best for digital playback in the long term - especially looking ahead to the future for hi-res files like 24/192 - and that's where Linn's DS comes in - Malcolm did state that Linn's 24 bit rips were absolutely breathtaking through the DS. The PC for higher res audio is too much of a pig to setup - and from what I've read switching from vanilla 16/44 to 24/96+ requires intervention.

Likewise Linn DS is a pig to setup and it's usability is not up there yet, and it's a bit pricey as well.

And which is why Naim must be applauded - horrendous price apart - for the HDX - be as cynical as you want but they've obviously put some thought into it - and no PC required - but still too pricey.

Still, I wouldn't buy another CD player but still buy CDs, and I would investigate the PC for playback as well for now.

 

[The_Lhc]

manicm:To the_lhc - rips are indeed different - why else would people make such a fuss over EAC??

Did you bother reading the "Kent Poon" link posted earlier? Yes, with a name like that I thought it was a joke as well but, comedy english aside, it's actually very interesting, ten rips of the same CD on different hardware, different OS's and with different software and all of them, all of them, are identical. He explains why EAC was important in the early days of limited resources but now, frankly, it doesn't matter.

And I hear differences as well - but my favourite format is AIFF.

You're talking about formats, I'm talking about the initial rip, the initial read of the data from the disc.

I find with with pure digital audio there's a lot of dogma being thrown around - everything's 'jitter-free' so CD is inferior by default blah di bloody blah. Remember this same mag has recently given the Marantz pearls the full fivers. I absolutely agree with David from FrankHarvey - right now, right here I don't think the one medium is superior to the other and I'll explain why:

I still don't believe the PC is the best for digital playback in the long term - especially looking ahead to the future for hi-res files like 24/192 - and that's where Linn's DS comes in - Malcolm did state that Linn's 24 bit rips were absolutely breathtaking through the DS. The PC for higher res audio is too much of a pig to setup - and from what I've read switching from vanilla 16/44 to 24/96+ requires intervention.

I'd agree with that, I wouldn't recommend a PC for playback purposes, but that doesn't have any bearing on their suitability for ripping.

Likewise Linn DS is a pig to setup and it's usability is not up there yet, and it's a bit pricey as well.

And which is why Naim must be applauded - horrendous price apart - for the HDX - be as cynical as you want but they've obviously put some thought into it - and no PC required - but still too pricey.

You could easily pay more for a CD player though, if you wanted to.

 

[Craig M.]

he is talking rubbish, how many times does it have to be proven?

until it reaches the dac it's not music, it's easily compared digital data.

as the lfc said, eac is not necessary, it's just reassuring.

in what way is a cdp better at retrieving this digital data, given that it's doing it in real time and often with a computer disc mechanism?

 

[JoelSim]

the_lhc:I can't believe the number of people who don't believe a computer can read a (undamaged) CD properly!

Nothing to do with that, but Apple Lossless only takes 60% of the data from the CD so how can it possibly be as good?

By the way that's something I only found out after I'd done my A/B testing, finding that music streamed from my Macbook wasn't as good as the CD, when using the same DAC.

 

[Craig M.]

do some reading about lossless file packaging.

it does not discard any data.

i've compared a cdxtse (supposedly about as good as transports get) to my mac, do you see it in my kit list?

 

[Anonymous]

Given that I understand this comparison was subjective, I would take it with a pinch of salt.

I also get the impression that there seems to be a bit of scaremongering from Hi-Fi manufacturers that offer expensive music servers, and no doubt a bit of subtle pressure on reviewers to sway the masses.

If you have a PC playback chain that offers bit perfect playback to a high quality DAC, and you have used the best possible ripping software, I am 99.9% convinced you will have a system that can compete with any of theses machines, and more importantly at a fraction of the cost.

I very much doubt that anyone that uses a good quality ripping software with built in accurip (EAC is my preferred choice) is not getting the very best possible transfer of data from their discs. As has been mentioned before the only way to test the various merits of each machine is to compare the data of each rip against the original.

What I do accept is that certain CD transports are better for real time audio reading (not ripping) than others, which is why Quad recruited Jon Green from Philip's Optical Transport Department to develop their own one speed audio read transport system for the Quad 99CDP2 when Philips announced they were no longer going to manufacture the CDM transports for audio. The general consensus is that transports optimised for single speed audio reading give better results than multi-speed hybrid DVD/CD transports when playing back discs.

However ripping is a different process (not real time) and EAC/accurip will read disc sectors more than once if necessary to ensure accuracy.

Finally as an extremely happy owner of the Quad 99CDP2 with a bit perfect 24bit playback chain from the PC, I don't think I would ever upgrade to one of these media servers when my PC does what I want and can be updated very easily as and when it needs to be.

 

[The_Lhc]

JoelSim:the_lhc:I can't believe the number of people who don't believe a computer can read a (undamaged) CD properly!
Nothing to do with that, but Apple Lossless only takes 60% of the data from the CD so how can it possibly be as good?

Errr, what? Did you really just say that? Are you basing that solely on the size of the files compared to wav?

 

[Frank Harvey]

the_lhc:I can't believe the number of people who don't believe a computer can read a (undamaged) CD properly!

It's not that I don't believe it can't, it's just some things leave you with a niggling doubt in the back of your head - know what I mean?

 

[Frank Harvey]

Taylor74: Hi, Frank.

I definitely think that HiFi is moving towards computers as an audio source, so it might be worthwhile talking to your employer about going on some training?

It's David, the clue is in the sig

We won't be getting involved in PC's or HTPC's. There's even less money in PC's that there is hi-fi, and when you take into account the reliability of PC's, once it goes wrong, you've lost your profit margin. And from what I've read on the net about NAS drives (or more so the companies that make/supply them), back up service isn't great. We've dropped major companies before because their back up service was poor - when the end user experiences this, they view the retailer as the culprit, not the manufacturer/supplier. It's just something we're staying away from - we have enough to do as it is!