[Music Alchemist]

.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Reserved for updates.

 

[A_Man_Eating_Duck]

It sounds like something is borked with your playback if 2 bit identical files sound "drastically different!". I would trust file bit compare results over my hearing any day, there are so many variables with hearing that could skew your results.
 
Why don't you post 2 samples (30 seconds long) of the same song that you can hear the difference so other people can check.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Hm, copyright infringement is a problem for me, so I don't know how I would go about that. (I am willing to do so, if I can do it legally.)
 
There are no variations involved in the playback, other than different Wave files being played.

 

[A_Man_Eating_Duck]

Fair enough, maybe a mod can step in an let us know if posting a sample is ok.
 
Maybe you could make a crude ABX on your ipod.
 
Make 10 copies of the EAC rip, name each file EAC1, EAC2, EAC3, etc....
Make 10 copies of the poweramp rip, name each file DBP1, DBP2, DBP3, etc....
 
put your Ipod on random, shut your eyes and press forward 5 times and try and guess which version it is. try this 10 times taking note of you results.
 
Report back.

 

[hogger129]

There is tighter bass and a greater sense of realism, for example.
 

This has been exactly my experience comparing dBpoweramp rips and EAC rips.  EAC having tighter bass and sounding cleaner compared to dBpoweramp rips.  It's very subtle, but it's there and I notice it every time, even after re-ripping several times.
 
I have noticed this on a variety of albums.  I notice it on albums I listen to a lot such as my MFSL Dark Side Of The Moon and Daft Punk RAM.  The dBpoweramp rips have a lot of bass but compared to the EAC rips sound less detailed.  
 
You noted that you ripped to WAV.  I normally rip to FLAC and thought that the two programs could possibly be using a different FLAC encoder.  So I ripped these two albums to WAV with both programs and I can still hear the difference.  EAC rips sounded better to me.
 
I'm curious to hear from the experts on this, or possibly from somebody with much better equipment than mine.  I'm just listening with foobar2000 on my ATH-M50 headphones.
 
I always had this same sneaking suspicion as the original poster, but I really couldn't find anybody who was having similar experiences except for an old thread at a website called XXHighEnd (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2180.0) who reported EAC rips sounding better also.  
 
If playback is being done on the exact same equipment, how would the playback chain be the culprit?
 
-hogger 

 

[Music Alchemist]

Thanks for sharing your experiences. I wish I had the time to share all of mine.
 
I rip in Wave format, so encoding to FLAC is not a variable for me, but as far as sound differences are concerned...
 
One reason I have imagined is that since dBpoweramp always rips in burst passes, regardless of security settings, there could possibly be a loss in quality due to ripping too fast. This assertion is unconfirmed, but is plausible. From listening tests, I would swear that Paranoid mode rips in EAC sound better than Burst mode rips in EAC - but again, it could just be my imagination playing tricks on me. I hope it's not true, since for me, Paranoid mode takes 30 to 90 minutes to rip a single CD!
 
lol, you keep editing your post, so I'll edit mine too.
 
During my research, I encountered at least a dozen sources claiming that one program sounds better than the other. I wanted people to perform the experiment and decide for themselves, though, so I didn't document those sources here.
 
It's funny that you linked to that one site, because there is another link on the site discussing the same subject, except in favor of dBpoweramp: http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1908
 
The disadvantage to seeking counsel from renowned experts is that many of them would simply refuse to participate in this listening experiment in the first place - insisting that "bits are bits" and whatnot.

 

[hogger129]

  Thanks for sharing your experiences. I wish I had the time to share all of mine.
 
I rip in Wave format, so encoding to FLAC is not a variable for me, but as far as sound differences are concerned...
 
One reason I have imagined is that since dBpoweramp always rips in burst passes, regardless of security settings, there could possibly be a loss in quality due to ripping too fast. This assertion is unconfirmed, but is plausible. From listening tests, I would swear that Paranoid mode rips in EAC sound better than Burst mode rips in EAC - but again, it could just be my imagination playing tricks on me. I hope it's not true, since for me, Paranoid mode takes 30 to 90 minutes to rip a single CD!
 
lol, you keep editing your post, so I'll edit mine too.
 
It's funny that you linked to that one site, because there is another link on the site discussing the same subject, except in favor of dBpoweramp: http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1908

 
I almost wondered that too, that the slower rip speed of EAC could account for differences in sound quality.  But if both rips are verified as accurate, there shouldn't be any differences in sound quality because it's all the same data whether it's ripped by EAC or poweramp.  I am only using Secure Mode in both programs and I still hear a difference.
 
Apologies for editing my post a lot.
 
-hogger

 

[GrindingThud]

My experience has been that lossless rips on anything other than EAC (in my older pc setup) resulted in enough uncorrected read errors to be noticeable. And even when corrected, redbook allows for differences. Remember, there are no "files" on a CD...it's linear PCM stream. That being said, the files were never bit identical when compared. Bit identical files regardless of the source sound the same to me, as they should. A thought exercise to think about: if you could actually print out the data from both.....could you tell them apart? Of you took the time to type it all back in by hand (assuming you made no mistakes)...could you hear the difference? Of course not. My point here is the files are clearly different if they sound different.....surely the header files and metadata is different if sourced from different programs. The question I would ask is why don't my ripped files from differing programs play the same/properly in my system.

"Super fast" rips almost always result in flawed files (in my experience)...regardless of the program used. Don't let redbook fill in the blanks for you....rip more slowly. I use ~8x

 

[Music Alchemist]

Did this happen for undamaged discs as well? Both programs have excellent error correction. For every CD I have ripped with them, with the rare exception of very damaged discs, the files were bit identical, when compared using the methods shown above.
 
Here is something that is important to note: when you analyze lossless/uncompressed files in different formats, it still says they are bit identical, despite the bits being organized in different ways. In other words, "bit identical" does not necessarily mean that the data in the file is identical; merely that it should produce the same result after processing.
 
You could open the audio files in Notepad and print them out...but there is so much data to look at that it would be fruitless. In any case, the topic of this thread is primarily focused on subjective listening experiences.

 

[A_Man_Eating_Duck]

This is just getting silly, if the files are exactly the same (filecompare, checksum, etc) where is the extra information coming from?
 
The ripping program or ripping method in each program can't be faulted because it's producing exactly the same file.
 
If you want to test this properly then do a blind ABX test using the foobar component. If the differences are that noticeable then this test should take less than 5 minutes doing 10 trials. Please post your results.
 
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
 
BTW ripping in paranoid mode is bad for your drive, it will put a lot more stress on it.

 

[hogger129]

  This is just getting silly, if the files are exactly the same (filecompare, checksum, etc) where is the extra information coming from?
 
The ripping program or ripping method in each program can't be faulted because it's producing exactly the same file.
 
If you want to test this properly then do a blind ABX test using the foobar component. If the differences are that noticeable then this test should take less than 5 minutes doing 10 trials. Please post your results.
 
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
 
BTW ripping in paranoid mode is bad for your drive, it will put a lot more stress on it.

 
Gave it a try on my Daft Punk RAM CD and I could tell the difference 9 out of 10 times.

 

[A_Man_Eating_Duck]

Could you post you ABX report please, it will add credibility to your statement.

 

[hogger129]

  Could you post you ABX results please, it will add credibility to your statement.

 
I did.  I said I guessed right 9/10.

 

[GrindingThud]

Agree bit identical does not mean identical files....but we're talking about why similar files from different processes sound different. So, to start, you need files of the same source material ripped in the same format, created on the same hardware (drive), from the same CD. These should be the same....but as you've noticed, they are not, and sound different.
Plenty of utilities examine files bit for bit. Use windiff or any binary programming utility to check differences. You will see them all.
Different files can sound different....does not mean they will. That being said, most can't hear the difference between 320mp3 and uncompressed, let alone hear a bit error correction.

My simple point (and others in the thread) is if you hear differences 10 out of 10 times using a common player, the files are different. I use EAC because my experience has been it yields least discernible artifacts from a rip. YMMV.

Did this happen for undamaged discs as well? Both programs have excellent error correction. For every CD I have ripped with them, with the rare exception of very damaged discs, the files were bit identical, when compared using the methods shown above.

Here is something that is important to note: when you analyze lossless/uncompressed files in different formats, it still says they are bit identical, despite the bits being organized in different ways. In other words, "bit identical" does not necessarily mean that the data in the file is identical; merely that it should produce the same result after processing.

You could open the audio files in Notepad and print them out...but there is so much data to look at that it would be fruitless. In any case, the topic of this thread is primarily focused on subjective listening experiences.