All rips not equal...?!

[Frank Harvey]

manicm: Again, 'lossless is lossless', then again to my ears Apple Lossless sounds the worst - dull and flat - of all the lossless formats - WMAL included.

Believable....specs and figures don't tell the whole story.....

 

[Craig M.]

aaaarrrrgggghhhhh!!!!!!!!

so if you rip to (for example) flac have a listen and then transcode that flac file to alac, you think the files will sound different? somehow the alac will be worse? what about if you then transcode it back to flac again, will it suddenly sound better again? please bear in mind that the decoded data will be identical in each case.

david, please do some reading on the subject if you can't try it for yourself. and by reading i don't mean someone who doesn't understand how computers and lossless files work.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I knew you'd be the first

 

[Craig M.]

it's just cos i'm sat here bored, waiting to go pick the missus up from her twilight shift. she's a nurse, not some sort of vampire. or lady of the night.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Don't worry, I wasn't going to question her profession

 

[Alec]

FrankHarveyHiFi:

I knew you'd be the first

And you probably knew what he would say.

I'm not sure why some people are intent on finding some mystical something that renders current evidence irrelevant and confirms their current strange inklings.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I'm sure anyone can find some 'published' item which backs up their belief, whatever that may be. Who do we believe? I don't just believe something because someone has posted it on the internet. Global warming?

And just because I can't hear a difference, it doesn't mean there isn't one.....

 

[Alec]

but if there is a difference you cannot hear, its as good as none to all intents and purposes.

 

[Anonymous]

manicm:

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.

Oh dear, lets look at this...EAC would have verified its rip with AccurateRip, this will guarantee a 100% bit perfect rip (if your rip matches bit for bit someone else's rip, then there can be no errors, because you and someone else would not both have the exact same error!). You cannot get any better than bit perfect, it is exactly the same data as went to the disc pressing plant.

RipNAS also uses AccurateRip and a specially selected TEAC drive (one with a laser specifically for Audio CDs), again if that verified with AccurateRip then both EAC and RipNAS would have identical files.

RipNAS is created by Illustrate, who also created AccurateRip and dBpoweramp.

 

[manicm]

Dogma, dogma, dogma - I'm not disputing any technicalities, but I've made perfect rips using EAC and AccurateRip, and I wasn't totally satisfied with the sound.

Oh, so now it uses a specially specified Teac drive?? Oh wait, but I thought using EAC and AccurateRip is supposed to be drive agnostic right??

So it comes back to what I used to say - that the drive can still affect results. Or am I wrong? Becareful not to contradict yourself now.

 

[manicm]

Craig M.:

aaaarrrrgggghhhhh!!!!!!!!

so if you rip to (for example) flac have a listen and then transcode that flac file to alac, you think the files will sound different? somehow the alac will be worse? what about if you then transcode it back to flac again, will it suddenly sound better again? please bear in mind that the decoded data will be identical in each case.

david, please do some reading on the subject if you can't try it for yourself. and by reading i don't mean someone who doesn't understand how computers and lossless files work.

This is where I completely disagree with JD - I tried this a million times - unlike FLAC where you WILL unpack the WAV file from it using the free FLAC encoder/decoder software - you simply cannot use iTunes to similarly unpack WAV from ALAC - the conversion consistently sounds worse. iTunes seems to re-convert every time - it does not unpack when ripping.

Also, as I repeat ALAC sounds the worst of all the lossless formats I've tried e.g. B&W's music club at one time offered the same downloads in FLAC and ALAC - when I unpacked the WAV from the FLAC it always sounded better than the ALAC - which sounded a bit rolled off - consistent with my own ALAC rips.

 

[Anonymous]

Drive quality plays a difference where the disc has errors, ie better drives can read through errors other lessor drives cannot. It is estimated that on average 98% of all rips are error free (by running statistical analysis on submissions to AccurateRip), it does not matter which drive is used (there are some poor drives though to avoid). So nothing special is required to get bit perfect rips from the majority of discs, you do not even need a special ripping program. A secure ripper is required to identify those discs where there are errors and to report the errors to the user, where as non-secure rippers (will not report errors).

For the statistical analysis on drives see:

http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?t=18088

 

[Craig M.]

manicm:Craig M.:

aaaarrrrgggghhhhh!!!!!!!!

so if you rip to (for example) flac have a listen and then transcode that flac file to alac, you think the files will sound different? somehow the alac will be worse? what about if you then transcode it back to flac again, will it suddenly sound better again? please bear in mind that the decoded data will be identical in each case.

david, please do some reading on the subject if you can't try it for yourself. and by reading i don't mean someone who doesn't understand how computers and lossless files work.

This is where I completely disagree with JD - I tried this a million times - unlike FLAC where you WILL unpack the WAV file from it using the free FLAC encoder/decoder software - you simply cannot use iTunes to similarly unpack WAV from ALAC - the conversion consistently sounds worse. iTunes seems to re-convert every time - it does not unpack when ripping.

Also, as I repeat ALAC sounds the worst of all the lossless formats I've tried e.g. B&W's music club at one time offered the same downloads in FLAC and ALAC - when I unpacked the WAV from the FLAC it always sounded better than the ALAC - which sounded a bit rolled off - consistent with my own ALAC rips.

ah, i see, it's not the format now but itunes?

 

[Alec]

manicm:

Dogma, dogma, dogma

Well, you said it.

And you do appear to be disputing technicalities; if you think formats (and again you are mainly talking formats and not rips) sound different, you must think there's a reason.

 

[the record spot]

I'm currently adding some CDs to the new laptop, via iTunes, converting into WAV files, replaying back through the Airport Express, linked to the Sansui AU-217 and out through the 752s. Sounds excellent. I've listened to 192kbps tracks, same findings.

As a latecomer to the party, not least listening to music from the laptop to the amp, I've been imperssed by the sound quality. I still use the Marantz, haven't done an AB comparison (or ABX for that matter) but will do.

What is clear is that it's pretty obvious there's a bunch of mythology flying round this whole topic, we all have our preferences, but some of the chat is built round worshipping holy grails that are likely more akin to false gods.

 

[manicm]

al7478:manicm:

Dogma, dogma, dogma

Well, you said it.

And you do appear to be disputing technicalities; if you think formats (and again you are mainly talking formats and not rips) sound different, you must think there's a reason.

I would not really argue or dispute with anyone regarding digital music, but the formats might indeed sound different - but not for any apparent obvious reasons - not even Linn disputes this now - and I've read users' experiences on the Linn and other maker forums - the problem can indeed lie with how the hardware decompresses the audio - more horsepower is needed to unpack WAV from FLAC or ALAC etc than playing straight WAV.

Linn have admitted that WAV will place a bit more strain on the network, and FLAC/ALAC will place a bit more strain on the player itself - whether measurable or not, whether audible or not. Some owners claim to hear differences.

It seems there are quite a few variables - a good rip is just a start.

WRT ALAC - well there are other players out there - but 99.999 percent of us will listen to ALAC on iTunes isn't it? Maybe iTunes has some deficiencies which could explain to me why I think AL sounds slightly dull/rolled off.

Might also explain why Wadia recommend WAV over ALAC for their iTransport dock - the iPod unpacking ALAC maybe introduces some artifacts.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi guys;

Here is nice information, I want to also shared with you.

Thanks

 

[iMark]

I have ripped hundreds of CD's to ALAC with iTunes (with error correction) and send them to a DACMagic with an Airport Express. I have also tested ripping CD's to AIFF and play them directly from the MacBook to the DAC. Can't hear any difference with wireless setup.

All files sound better than my old Sony MDX-D3 (CD/MD combo, unfortunately without digital out, so no upsampling) or my Pioneer DV-565 (through the DACMagic). I think I would have to invest in a very expensive CDP to come even close the quality of the ALAC's. I can hear quite a big improvement of the sound of the Pioneer when upsampled through the DAC. It sounds like a proper CDP now.

I find computer based music very convenient and I can't find anything wrong with ALAC files. Maybe the rest of my system is not revealing enough.

 

[juxter1]

Having read all the posts in this thread very carefully I am a bit mystified. Everyone mentions the Linn as being a swine to set up. When I purchased mine it was installed by a very competent chap who did all the voodoo of setting it up for me. I then moved house to the other end of the country, unpacked the Linn and lo and behold, it all worked completely flawlessly. I think that kind of contradicts the difficulties people say about the Linn set up. And the sound is still wonderful when using a WD My World NAS. Perhaps it's all to do with the type of NAS being used. The engineer who installed my Linn told me that the WD NAS I use is the type he reccomends and has plenty of installations using the WD drives.

Perhaps WHF can do a piece on the NAS drives attached to something like the Linn, Naim and the others streamers to see if there is a difference in sound quality and setting up.

 

[The_Lhc]

juxter1:Having read all the posts in this thread very carefully I am a bit mystified. Everyone mentions the Linn as being a swine to set up. When I purchased mine it was installed by a very competent chap who did all the voodoo of setting it up for me. I then moved house to the other end of the country, unpacked the Linn and lo and behold, it all worked completely flawlessly.

So you haven't actually set it up yourself then? The very fact that you got someone else in to do the donkey work for you suggests it's not as simple as other solutions but I can't comment as I've never used it.

 

[Lee H]

What about cassettes?

 

[juxter1]

As far as I am aware, any Linn dealer will install the equipment and it doesn't cost any extra. It's a service, why not use it.

As to setting it all up, yes I did it all myself after I had moved and it all came together nicely, once the initial installation is done by a Linn representative it's all plug and play.

I don't consider that being difficult to set up and I don't see why people want to say it is when Linn dealers will install the equipment for no charge.

 

[Alec]

juxter1:

As far as I am aware, any Linn dealer will install the equipment and it doesn't cost any extra. It's a service, why not use it.

As to setting it all up, yes I did it all myself after I had moved and it all came together nicely, once the initial installation is done by a Linn representative it's all plug and play.

I think that was the_lhc's point, in a way.

 

[juxter1]

Perhaps it was, but as it's a service they provide to get you up and running then it can't really be relevant to the ease of set up.

 

[The_Lhc]

juxter1:Perhaps it was, but as it's a service they provide to get you up and running then it can't really be relevant to the ease of set up.

HUH? You've NEVER set it up, all you've done is plug it in! You have no idea what setting it up involves, Plug and Play means "get it out of the box, hook it together and it pretty much works", it does not mean "I have a man to do these things for me!".

Linn wouldn't offer the service if they thought there was a hope that the average user could do it themselves, ergo, it must be a right royal pain in the bracket!