Jump to content
IGNORED

Best (reasonable) CD Ripping Practice


kilroy

Recommended Posts

Warren

I would suggest that you try ripping them both again a couple of times , and then see if you can find one of each type that has the same checksums using the application that Chris suggested.

As I said earlier, even a couple of minor errors should NOT cause audible differences like this.

I presume that they are in .aiff format, not .wav ?

 

Alex

 

P.S.

"Come Together" from Abbey Road, is a good track for these kinds of demonstrations.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

I have an Acoustic Revive USB Terminator RUT-1 which is a shunt type USB fixer, works reasonably well with a USB audio signal, and thought to give the process a try ripping two tracks, one with, one without the terminator. The device doesn't show up in USBTreeview, so it's really just a filter, no regen of any kind.

The drive is a Samsung portable USB BD SE-506.

 

The two rips have the same checksums. Attached file details. Used dbpoweramp current version.

Differences.txt

AS Profile Equipment List        Say NO to MQA

Link to comment
Warren

I would suggest that you try ripping them both again a couple of times , and then see if you can find one of each type that has the same checksums using the application that Chris suggested.

As I said earlier, even a couple of minor errors should NOT cause audible differences like this.

I presume that they are in .aiff format, not .wav ?

 

Alex

 

P.S.

"Come Together" from Abbey Road, is a good track for these kinds of demonstrations.

Hello Alex,

Yes aiff. Not wanting to spend too much time on this so just thinking it would be interesting to have a listen. Why would two rips of the same CD have a differing checksum?

Link to comment
Hello Alex,

Yes aiff. Not wanting to spend too much time on this so just thinking it would be interesting to have a listen. Why would two rips of the same CD have a differing checksum?

Warren

This can happen occasionally, which is why I suggested doing the above. Good for you for at least trying these things for yourself!

BTW, did you DL the files yourself to see if differences are still audible after uploading, downloading and saving them again ?

I.M.E. this can degrade the differences heard substantially, and why I prefer these days to use a CD-R or USB memory stick for this purpose.

Regards

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

Well they do have the same exact audio bits and null out to nothing. Not sure why they have different checksums (haven't checked it myself). Of course a quick listen over my headphones they sound the same too.

 

Okay took a minute on the checksums using GTKHash. Same number of samples in each track. They do in fact null completely out in a sound editor. Yet do not have the same checksums. Metadata could be it, but unless I missed something the metadata is the same.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Warren

This can happen occasionally, which is why I suggested doing the above. Good for you for at least trying these things for yourself!

BTW, did you DL the files yourself to see if differences are still audible after uploading, downloading and saving them again ?

I.M.E. this can degrade the differences heard substantially, and why I prefer these days to use a CD-R or USB memory stick for this purpose.

Regards

Alex

 

Thinking we could just listen but it seems we should be reviewing checksums.

No worries, enjoy your checksums...

Link to comment
Well they do have the same exact audio bits and null out to nothing. Not sure why they have different checksums (haven't checked it myself). Of course a quick listen over my headphones they sound the same too.

 

Doubt I could successfully prove a DBT on these but one had, to my ears, a lower noise floor and somewhat better dynamic contrast. How we fool ourselves?

It is a great song nevertheless.

Link to comment

MD5 for the first one:

 

bf27eba213deb094365035db836526cd

and the second:

d89a6e1078e5abe246f31abd7c91f751

 

The difference is in the metadata. Two lines about source being CD lossless and the composer's name are transposed. This is why the hash is different. The actual music samples are the same.

 

Sorry for those not enjoying the checksums.

 

I do like the Beatles and this music. It still sounds the same to me over my headphones. I have been letting it repeat both copies while messing about with the checksums.

Beatles metadata.txt

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
MD5 for the first one:

 

bf27eba213deb094365035db836526cd

and the second:

d89a6e1078e5abe246f31abd7c91f751

 

The difference is in the metadata. Two lines about source being CD lossless and the composer's name are transposed. This is why the hash is different. The actual music samples are the same.

 

Sorry for those not enjoying the checksums.

 

I do like the Beatles and this music. It still sounds the same to me over my headphones. I have been letting it repeat both copies while messing about with the checksums.

I guess the moral of the story is that the Jitterbug transposes metadata :~)

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Thinking we could just listen but it seems we should be reviewing checksums.

No worries, enjoy your checksums...

 

Warren

Personally I think checksums are over-rated and even a few minor, perhaps masked errors, shouldn't make any difference to how a music file sounds overall anyway. You are obviously hearing the difference that the Jitterbug has made , presumably for the better ? .

What were the names of the tracks? As I don't play .aiff files I didn't look .

 

Why should transposition of the metadata make any difference as to how a file sounds ? .

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

On the Beatles checksums, if the filenames are made the same, I get the identical checksums as Chris Connaker as being different.

The file sizes are the same down to the byte, or so windows says.

 

Beyond Compare program using binary differences shows #2 file has padded out data with zeros as the only difference.

 

she's a woman file differences.jpg

 

The music sounds the same to me (that lovely split 60's "stereo") with HD800s phones and the usual amp chain. Ripping works, despite minor differences in the file structure. So what's next to do? Dishes.

AS Profile Equipment List        Say NO to MQA

Link to comment
I guess the moral of the story is that the Jitterbug transposes metadata :~)

 

Finally definitive proof it does do something. BTW, just attached the metadata in a text file. So now we have jitter in metadata. The jitterbug doesn't remove metadata jitter it creates it. Should have come out with my own product before letting this out in public.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
MD5 for the first one:

 

bf27eba213deb094365035db836526cd

and the second:

d89a6e1078e5abe246f31abd7c91f751

 

The difference is in the metadata. Two lines about source being CD lossless and the composer's name are transposed. This is why the hash is different. The actual music samples are the same.

 

Sorry for those not enjoying the checksums.

 

I do like the Beatles and this music. It still sounds the same to me over my headphones. I have been letting it repeat both copies while messing about with the checksums.

 

MP3Tag shows a difference in tag ID's. #1 is ID3v2.3 and #2 is ID3v2.4. The Album name is the difference shown Past Masters, Disc 1, and (#2) Past Masters, Disc 1a. I would conclude, that when dbpoweramp placed different metadata from different sources at the time of the rip. For an album that's most likely ripped more than a million times ++, there are bound to be variations. The jitterbug would have some impact on the playback and this is per design of the device.

AS Profile Equipment List        Say NO to MQA

Link to comment
I guess the moral of the story is that the Jitterbug transposes metadata :~)

I thought the jitterbug was the dance we did in the 50s? I'm so confused.

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment
Doubt I could successfully prove a DBT on these but one had, to my ears, a lower noise floor and somewhat better dynamic contrast. How we fool ourselves?

It is a great song nevertheless.

 

No Warren, you aren't fooling yourself !

Even after conversion from .aiff to .wav using Foobar 2K there are still quite audible differences ,right from the very start through my Class A HA and headphones here, however my output is via Coax SPDIF not USB.

Which album is this on, as I would like to compare them with a rip of my own to .wav.

I am not surprised that Dennis can't hear the differences, and have I missed what Chris said about how they sound ?

Regards

Alex

 

md5

 

7732f8a2b3f3ee307b3f76b329acbddf *She's a Woman disc 1a.wav

6ec8ddc7ab6f87274b89cc5d6b03db47 *She's a Woman disc 1.wav

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
No Warren, you aren't fooling yourself !

Even after conversion from .aiff to .wav using Foobar 2K there are still quite audible differences ,right from the very start through my Class A HA and headphones here, however my output is via Coax SPDIF not USB.

Which album is this on, as I would like to compare them with a rip of my own to .wav.

I am not surprised that Dennis can't hear the differences, and have I missed what Chris said about how they sound ?

Regards

Alex

No you didn't miss my sonic impressions. I'm on my iPhone now and don't think any differences could be heard streaming them though JRemote and out of the iPhone speaker.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
No Warren, you aren't fooling yourself !

Even after conversion from .aiff to .wav using Foobar 2K there are still quite audible differences ,right from the very start through my Class A HA and headphones here, however my output is via Coax SPDIF not USB.

Which album is this on, as I would like to compare them with a rip of my own to .wav.

I am not surprised that Dennis can't hear the differences, and have I missed what Chris said about how they sound ?

Regards

Alex

 

md5

 

7732f8a2b3f3ee307b3f76b329acbddf *She's a Woman disc 1a.wav

6ec8ddc7ab6f87274b89cc5d6b03db47 *She's a Woman disc 1.wav

 

So the differences you are hearing are padded zeros.

AS Profile Equipment List        Say NO to MQA

Link to comment
So the differences you are hearing are padded zeros.

 

The differences Warren described are more likely to be from a resulting lower noise floor at the time of saving the file, just like people hear when playing files with, and without a USB Regen etc.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
The differences Warren described are more likely to be from a resulting lower noise floor at the time of saving the file, just like people hear when playing files with, and without a USB Regen etc.

 

Beyond Compare runs through the differences in the binary structure, and if they are found, they are in red as in post #136.

 

Clearly the evidence of the many zeros in the binary differences justifies your verification that there is lower noise in saving the file in the first place. So what do the zeros do, add noise or take it away? I would pander to your theory more, if there were vast binary structural differences throughout the files that could be responsible for your perception of file differences. However, there are no such differences, only at the end of the file, which are the zeros as shown in the screen shot.

AS Profile Equipment List        Say NO to MQA

Link to comment
The differences Warren described are more likely to be from a resulting lower noise floor at the time of saving the file, just like people hear when playing files with, and without a USB Regen etc.

 

That would be the conclusion from the unproven "to date study" that has never been made public and probably never will? Because once thoroughly disparaged, if it ever really existed, a certain someone won't have something make believe to inform the uneducated audiophile about.

I think I'll write up a little warning box to copy from when you make these unproven statements in other threads in the future.

(JRiver) Jetway barebones NUC (mod 3 sCLK-EX, Cybershaft OP 14)  (PH SR7) => mini pcie adapter to PCIe 1X => tXUSBexp PCIe card (mod sCLK-EX) (PH SR7) => (USPCB) Chord DAVE => Omega Super 8XRS/REL t5i  (All powered thru Topaz Isolation Transformer)

Link to comment

Whatever you say Elvia , whatever you say!

The fact remains that Warren hears clear differences in dynamics and noise level, and I hear them too, even after conversion from .aiff to .wav. Differences in the header info aren't supposed to result in audible differences.

It will be interesting to see if Chris also hears these differences.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

I don't hear a difference either. So what does that make it now.

3 - No difference

1 - Does, but not sure if it's wishful thinking.

 

I also, have the exact same CD release that I have in my collection ripped to FLAC. It sounds exactly the same as the 2 tracks downloaded from wdw.

(JRiver) Jetway barebones NUC (mod 3 sCLK-EX, Cybershaft OP 14)  (PH SR7) => mini pcie adapter to PCIe 1X => tXUSBexp PCIe card (mod sCLK-EX) (PH SR7) => (USPCB) Chord DAVE => Omega Super 8XRS/REL t5i  (All powered thru Topaz Isolation Transformer)

Link to comment

I have this track on "Past Masters Vol.1"

My rip to.wav sounds quite a bit different to either of the DL versions that I converted from .aiff to .wav

I can UL it as a wav file, as well as after conversion to .aiff using Foobar 2K if anybody is interested.

 

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

Hi Warren

Comparing my rip with yours in Sound Forge 9 shows that mine is almost certainly the original, but yours has been painted with the "Loudness Brush." The original sounds markedly better.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...