Linear Powered Rips & flash drives sound better - Alex was right !

[prot]

This discussion is pretty much identical to the one you'd have if you tried to argue a believer in homeopathy out of their delusions.

1. It's impossible in theory.

2. It fails all properly conducted (ie: blind) tests.

3. Ergo, it probably isn't true. Move on, and leave the believers to it.

 

So short. So clear. So true

[RealAudio]

Martin Colloms performed a series of 6 separate Blind A/B/A/ 3minute sessions with the files that I had uploaded, and his panel of listeners were still able to correctly identify which version of the track in each instance.

 

You repeat that claim. I'd like to see a verified, detailed discussion from Martin Colloms about how that test was conducted and the actual results.

[Jud]

 

People with the background you're asking are shaking their heads in disbelief!

 

Yo - if you're gonna do mockery, make it witty enough that we can all get a good laugh, OK?

 

What I'm trying to do isn't prove anything or win any arguments (and I'm doing a fine job not winning them - yup, be here all week, folks). What I'm trying to do is learn a few things.

 

John's been kind enough to provide the sort of detailed information I've been looking for. So far, what I've learned is the following:

 

- With regard to magnetic storage (HDDs), my scenario of a more or less one-to-one correspondence between variations in ripped signal strength, stored field strength, and read signal strength is too simplistic. Nevertheless, there is a possible scenario whereby noise level during ripping impacts noise level of the signal during playback, with a storage step in between. John has actually measured the noise at the various steps of this scenario. However, whether it is sufficient to affect sound quality is, to quote John, "conjecture."

 

miguelito, I look forward to reading the link you provided in your response to John, and his reply, if any.

[wgscott]

Like the acerbic wgscott, you really are a sarcastic piece of work !

The only drinks consumed were cold glasses of water kindly provided by the host. Both audiophile neuroscience and a friend of his were also present at the previous session at his friend's house, (a different location) and no alcohol was consumed then either.

 

Was the water fluoridated?

[kumakuma]

Yo - if you're gonna do mockery, make it witty enough that we can all get a good laugh, OK?

 

Unfortunately whether you consider something witty or not usually depends on whether you are the mocker or the mockee.

[alfe]

No comment here on the sound quality of those bits. I'm amused by the lack of content of your post.

 

I'm just impressed by the fact that you scratched internet 2 days ago and since you put your finger print on Reed-Solomon you claim to be a CD master.

[miguelito]

I'm just impressed by the fact that you scratched internet 2 days ago and you putted your finger print on Reed-Solomon and since that you claim to be a CD master.

I read. I was trained as a scientist. If you have anything to refute, please go ahead!

[alfe]

I read. I was trained as a scientist. If you have anything to refute, please go ahead!

 

Scratch, finger print you didn't read enough about error correction, It's called humour.

[kumakuma]

Scratch, finger print you didn't read enough about error correction, It's called humour.

 

Maybe it's funnier in French.

[wgscott]

Or at least more obscene-sounding.

[thesurfingalien]

Hi all,

I see I'm being referenced here, I haven't had much time to keep up with these threads, but I thought I should quickly go over my thoughts on this. First off I have NOT done extensive actual research on the subject, this is conjecture on my part from some knowledge on how things work and how it MIGHT affect sound quality.

 

Hi John,

 

Not sure if you are aware of this, but there are quite a few other (albeit related) claims made. For example the claim that that when A.WAV is compressed to B.FLAC, B.FLAC then is uncompressed to C.WAV, C.WAV is degraded in quality (compared to A.WAV). According to Dr. Chuck Zeilig (author of the infamous TAS articles of some years back), this degrading effect is cumulative (as in: C.WAV to D.FLAC to E.WAV etc...), but only up to 5 cycles! Then the degradation stops.

 

Another one is that music-files, when uploaded to - and then downloaded from - an Internet storage-location have degraded compared to the original version. However, if one first copies the music-file to an uncompressed .ZIP-file (which contains exactly the same data, but adds a few header-bytes to identify the container-type), uploaded the .ZIP to - and then downloaded it from - an Internet storage-location, and unzip it again to its original format, the resulting file, somehow, is less degraded than the download version that was not "protected" by the zip-container.

 

The last one I want to mention is that some people say bit-identical rips from different rippers differ in quality from each other. I have exchanged e-mails with a Dutch reviewer who claimed he was able to identify which ripping software was used because they all had their own unique sound-signature...

 

I would very much like to ask your to give your opinion on cases like this.

 

Thanks in advance & kind regards,

Peter

[miguelito]

Scratch, finger print you didn't read enough about error correction, It's called humour.

Oh sweetie... I don't pretend to be a master of anything. I read the information available, I think about it, and I learn. I am always happy to be proven wrong - I learn more that way. It's called the "scientific method". Please teach me something of value or shut up.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

David,

Apologies if I've been instrumental in dragging this thread down an unwanted avenue.

I've said all I need to now so will desist from further posting

 

Not your fault but thanks. The thread has now merged into a thousand just like it. If you feel like participating by all means do so.

 

 

Who talks to convince anyone?

 

It is a simple tale of experiences of people who bothered to do a test taken and reported.

 

Innocent and well-meaning people like David, who had the courage to report in this impolite forum ....

 

Hi Roch, thanks for the kind words. And yes I agree a tale of experience and opinion...Alex was right, IMO according to my and others experience and with caveats stated.

 

Unfortunately there are a few trolls here determined to railroad such discussions. There is one in particular who seems to get a kick out of trying to bully and ridicule people under the guise of legitimate thought challenge shrouded in sarcastic wit. I suspect he may benefit from some professional counselling. Not an ad hominem attack, just an honest opinion.

 

Certainly, I know of one very knowledgeable audio professional that declines to participate in CA forums now because of such childish and rude behaviour by certain individuals.

 

Cheers

David

[prot]

Hi John,

 

Not sure if you are aware of this, but there are quite a few other (albeit related) claims made. For example the claim that that when A.WAV is compressed to B.FLAC, B.FLAC then is uncompressed to C.WAV, C.WAV is degraded in quality (compared to A.WAV). According to Dr. Chuck Zeilig (author of the infamous TAS articles of some years back), this degrading effect is cumulative (as in: C.WAV to D.FLAC to E.WAV etc...), but only up to 5 cycles! Then the degradation stops.

 

Another one is that music-files, when uploaded to - and then downloaded from - an Internet storage-location have degraded compared to the original version. However, if one first copies the music-file to an uncompressed .ZIP-file (which contains exactly the same data, but adds a few header-bytes to identify the container-type), uploaded the .ZIP to - and then downloaded it from - an Internet storage-location, and unzip it again to its original format, the resulting file, somehow, is less degraded than the download version that was not "protected" by the zip-container.

 

The last one I want to mention is that some people say bit-identical rips from different rippers differ in quality from each other. I have exchanged e-mails with a Dutch reviewer who claimed he was able to identify which ripping software was used because they all had their own unique sound-signature...

 

I would very much like to ask your to give your opinion on cases like this.

 

Thanks in advance & kind regards,

Peter

 

Are you citing from the trustyourears bible?

 

Your "study" samples and Qs simply left me speechless. Only one word comes to mind: atrocious. And a fuzzy image tries to form in my brain ... one that depicts the portion of space that comes after "beyond ridiculous"..btw, is there an english word for that?

 

"Dr" zeilig and his "only up to 5 cycles" conclusion are my favourites.

Here is the neverbeforeheard preview of the the part2 of that study.

"

The quality actually starts to improve from the 7th cycle on. Becomes exponentially better after the 23rd. And you start hearing angels after the 33rd. Unfortunatelly, after the 37th cycle the sound quality overcomes the absolute sound quality of god's voice and he smacks you into oblivion cause he doesnt like competition.

"

I swear that's true. I heard it!

 

On a somewhat more serious note thesurfingalien, the answer to all your above Qs is no..pronounced as "oh my dear god NO WAY"

[prot]

I'm hearing an incoming admin with the pockets full of bans...

[sandyk]

I have exchanged e-mails with a Dutch reviewer who claimed he was able to identify which ripping software was used because they all had their own unique sound-signature...

Peter

BTW. I am on record many times here in C.A. as giving the dissenting view that I prefer EAC over dBpoweramp .

I haven't tried more recent versions of dBpoweramp, but to me it gave the appearance of a slightly louder but more diffused centre image, but with less channel separation. Some may prefer that kind of presentation which accentuates the voice of a centrally placed vocalist.

I tried very much to like it because of it's many other advantages over EAC at the time though.

Regards

Alex

[kumakuma]

Peter

BTW. I am on record many times here in C.A. as giving the dissenting view that I prefer EAC over dBpoweramp .

I haven't tried more recent versions of dBpoweramp, but to me it gave the appearance of a slightly louder but more diffused centre image, but with less channel separation. Some may prefer that kind of presentation which accentuates the voice of a centrally placed vocalist.

I tried very much to like it because of it's many other advantages over EAC at the time though.

Regards

Alex

 

Alex,

 

No sarcasm intended here but I would be interested in knowing if you have any theories on how software programs like this would impart a unique sonic signature to ripped data. If they designed correctly, there shouldn't be any difference at all between lossless data ripped with one or the other. Lossy might be a different story though due to different compression rates, etc.

 

KK

[sandyk]

I'm hearing an incoming admin with the pockets full of bans...

 

Prot

If you had been a member for a longer period of time , you would realise that Peter is firmly in the Objective camp, but does not have a closed mind to other possibilities, He does however ask for proof wherever possible.

I have worked behind the scenes with Peter on several occasions, and greatly appreciate the assistance he has given me , especially with a special tool he wrote to detect incorrect headers in.wav files ,and another to remove those chunks that caused these .wav files not to be playable with some software.( cPlay for example.) Sound Forge 9 also reported faulty header information with certain files that his S/W was able to correct.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

"Move on, and leave the believers to it"......So short. So clear. So true

 

Now, is that so much to ask for, hmmmm ?

 

sorry,this sarcasm thing must be catching ;-)

[sandyk]

Alex,

 

No sarcasm intended here but I would be interested in knowing if you have any theories on how software programs like this would impart a unique sonic signature to ripped data. If they designed correctly, there shouldn't be any difference at all between lossless data ripped with one or the other. Lossy might be a different story though due to different compression rates, etc.

 

KK

 

I am not qualified to answer that question, however, the K.I.S.S. principle may perhaps have some bearing here ?

For example, the designer of cPlay talks about software " Jitter" It does seem sensible not to try and make an audio software program "Jack of all trades" like Foobar 2K for example.

I simply report my observations as I hear them, and normally only after confirmation by several technically qualified friends. A CSIRO scientist from Brisbane Au. also came to exactly the same conclusions about the differences between EAC and dBpoweramp at the time . We wished that the results had been the other way around as dBpoweramp was a great software with much to like about it. The latest version of dBpoweramp may be different in this respect, but I am more than happy with the latest version of EAC which can also search for Images and lyrics if required.

[sandyk]

According to Dr. Chuck Zeilig (author of the infamous TAS articles of some years back), this degrading effect is cumulative (as in: C.WAV to D.FLAC to E.WAV etc...), but only up to 5 cycles! Then the degradation stops.

That has not been my experience. I find that the amount of degradation appears to stabilise at a level set by how electrically quiet the computer is. For example, I find the differences between flac and wav files much less obvious with my more recent i7 processor based W8/64 PC. This may also be as a result of further PSU improvements.

[kumakuma]

I am not qualified to answer that question, however, the K.I.S.S. principle may perhaps have some bearing here ?

For example, the designer of cPlay talks about software " Jitter" It does seem sensible not to try and make an audio software program "Jack of all trades" like Foobar 2K for example.

I simply report my observations as I hear them, and normally only after confirmation by several technically qualified friends. A CSIRO scientist from Brisbane Au. also came to exactly the same conclusions about the differences between EAC and dBpoweramp at the time . We wished that the results had been the other way around as dBpoweramp was a great software with much to like about it. The latest version of dBpoweramp may be different in this respect, but I am more than happy with the latest version of EAC which can also search for Images and lyrics if required.

 

Thank you.

[Paul R]

Are you citing from the trustyourears bible?

 

Your "study" samples and Qs simply left me speechless. Only one word comes to mind: atrocious. And a fuzzy image tries to form in my brain ... one that depicts the portion of space that comes after "beyond ridiculous"..btw, is there an english word for that?

 

"Dr" zeilig and his "only up to 5 cycles" conclusion are my favourites.

Here is the neverbeforeheard preview of the the part2 of that study.

"

The quality actually starts to improve from the 7th cycle on. Becomes exponentially better after the 23rd. And you start hearing angels after the 33rd. Unfortunatelly, after the 37th cycle the sound quality overcomes the absolute sound quality of god's voice and he smacks you into oblivion cause he doesnt like competition.

"

I swear that's true. I heard it!

 

On a somewhat more serious note thesurfingalien, the answer to all your above Qs is no..pronounced as "oh my dear god NO WAY"

 

Oh dear, I think people did not understand or have ignored the spirit of my original posts with requests not to turn this into yet another pointless bits is bits (or related) argument. This is not to imply that people are not entitled to their opinion or that valid points have not been made on either side but simply that it has all been argued before. Moreover, without resolution.

 

My humble suggestion to Chris Connacker or other admins is that when parts of threads have gone off topic or have been hijacked, that they are moved to a new topic. I appreciate that this may not be possible due to time constraints but without such a mechanism I fear that any topic dealing with subjective perceptions will be smothered by the same argument.

 

You can always start a new thread and link back to the original reference thread. Indeed a whole forum could be created with the relevant topics dealing with subjective perception vs subjective interpretation of data ( and yes I realise that statement is in itself controversial). It could be kicked off with the thread I started, "Where is Audio Truth". So I am not averse to these discussions per se just disappointed that nearly every thread seems to get suffocated.

 

I am simply asking people to respect that if an OP asks to stay on topic and to quarantine areas of discussion, that this is respected.

 

That said, a) it is too late for this thread and b) I think both tran #3 and Peter(thesurfingalien) #4 ask legitimate questions (my apologies to others as I have not read too much beyond that). I can say that neither Dennis nor Alex where responsible for orchestrating the listening order of music or equipment. We had available both linear and nonlinear rips of the same track and played back from a HDD or Corsair flash with and without the JLH/LPSU. At different sessions ( with 4 of the same 5 people present) everyone preferred linear ripped material over nonlinear ripped material (all other variables being held equal) with the strongest preference for linear ripped tracks to a corsair flash drive played back via a JLH/LPSU…..as Ripley said, believe it or not!

 

As for Dennis, present only at the last session, he heard

Linear Rip + Corsair/JLH-LPSU/PC

Linear Rip + HDD/JLH-LPSU/PC

Non Linear Rip + HDD/JLH/LPSU/PC

Linear Rip + HDD/Macbook Pro

 

His clear preference was for Linear Rip + Corsair/JLH-LPSU/PC. I was accused of sabotage as I inadvertently forgot to use the JLH/LPSU with the mac….but, as we all know pc's are better than macs anyway …just kidding ;-). IIRC his preference in Linear Rip + HDD/JLH-LPSU/PC vs Non Linear Rip + HDD/JLH/LPSU/PC was for the former. No point in asking Dennis as he often did not know what combinations he was listening to.

 

FWIW the pc and mac have similar specs, OS not tweaked (yet), use JRMC20 using memory playback.

 

Once again, this is not a scientific test, just an observation. It is not aimed at sparking measurements vs listening debates or whether differences are real or imagined.

 

David

 

Reading your post, I am struck by the way you presented that. Why was Dennis not able to listen to and compare a Non Linear Rip +Corsair/JLH-LPSU/PC?

 

It seems fairly clear to me there may be a preference for the Corsair , which would be explainable and could create exactly the same results?

[sandyk]

Reading your post, I am struck by the way you presented that. Why was Dennis not able to listen to and compare a Non Linear Rip +Corsair/JLH-LPSU/PC?

 

It seems fairly clear to me there may be a preference for the Corsair , which would be explainable and could create exactly the same results?

 

From David's Post 2.

(We also had access to an iFi USB, which performed even better when used in tandem with the external +5V JLH PSU when powering the external USB HDD.)

Alex K was present and we had access to an external LPSU+JLH with linear ripped material on a corsair flash drive. This was compared to the same tracks played from a HDD and non-linear rips on the Corsair

[Paul R]

Are you citing from the trustyourears bible?

 

Your "study" samples and Qs simply left me speechless. Only one word comes to mind: atrocious. And a fuzzy image tries to form in my brain ... one that depicts the portion of space that comes after "beyond ridiculous"..btw, is there an english word for that?

 

"Dr" zeilig and his "only up to 5 cycles" conclusion are my favourites.

Here is the neverbeforeheard preview of the the part2 of that study.

"

The quality actually starts to improve from the 7th cycle on. Becomes exponentially better after the 23rd. And you start hearing angels after the 33rd. Unfortunatelly, after the 37th cycle the sound quality overcomes the absolute sound quality of god's voice and he smacks you into oblivion cause he doesnt like competition.

"

I swear that's true. I heard it!

 

On a somewhat more serious note thesurfingalien, the answer to all your above Qs is no..pronounced as "oh my dear god NO WAY"

 

From David's Post 2.

(We also had access to an iFi USB, which performed even better when used in tandem with the external +5V JLH PSU when powering the external USB HDD.)

 

 

That is not what David put in his post. Nor did you answer the question.