[c5tg]

Do all the wav files ripped from different CD drivers and the same CD source sound the same?
A guy has already compared the wav files,and the wav files are the same on binary.But some other people insist that the files sound different.Can someone tell me who is right?Or someone has made the AB test and got a accepted conclusion？

 

[Blind Tree Frog]

Binary equivalent means both files have the exact same data inside of them. They both represent the same frequencies/sounds/etc. They will sound the exact same as each other. Different equipment (speakers, DAC, etc) will have some effect but played on the same equipment they will be the dame.

Anyone saying otherwise is deluded or decieptful.

 

[krmathis]

If the audio data have been compared and verified to be the same, then there can not possibly be any audible difference between them. They are 100% identical.
No need to perform an AB test when a simple checksum is enough

 

[tosehee]

The cd driver lets you access your cd-rom, and the software let you compress or rip it from the original cd. Unless the CD is damaged/scratches/etc, the same ripping process using million different cd driver would yield the same result.

Best way to check is the byte comparison of two files using two different cd and drivers using the same cd/tracks.

 

[krmathis]

Remember to set drive offset correction, or else the different rips will not byte compare.

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by c5tg /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... But some other people insist that the files sound different. Can someone tell me who is right? ...

Please don't believe what these people say. Even if they claim to have done listening tests... they are simply wrong or trying to hose you.

 

[Riordan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif If the audio data have been compared and verified to be the same, then there can not possibly be any audible difference between them. They are 100% identical. No need to perform an AB test when a simple checksum is enough

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Remember to set drive offset correction, or else the different rips will not byte compare.

this is all that needs to be said on that front. as far as i know, these facts are not disputed, except by...

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnor /img/forum/go_quote.gif Please don't believe what these people say. Even if they claim to have done listening tests... they are simply wrong or trying to hose you.

... people being funny, intentionally or otherwise. xnor, did the posts that provoked your response get deleted?

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by c5tg /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... But some other people insist that the files sound different. Can someone tell me who is right? ...

I was talking to the OP, sorry if that wasn't clear enough.
.. I'm not that funny

 

[m1abrams]

One thing people might be overlooking is if one of the files has replaygain meta data and if the play back device is applying replaygain. Usually when one does a byte comparison they only do it on the audio stream and not the metadata so this could be the reason someone would WRONGLY say one is better than the other.

Note replaygain can be ignored and should be when comparing files for audio quality. It is simply extra metadata that a playback device MAY use. Note sure how the person did there byte comparison, if it included metadata then my statement would not work, however if it did not include metadata which it really should not.

 

[Riordan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnor /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was talking to the OP, sorry if that wasn't clear enough. .. I'm not that funny

oh. should have been clear enough, the way you quoted. the joke is on me, then

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by m1abrams /img/forum/go_quote.gif One thing people might be overlooking is if one of the files has replaygain meta data and if the play back device is applying replaygain. Usually when one does a byte comparison they only do it on the audio stream and not the metadata so this could be the reason someone would WRONGLY say one is better than the other. Note replaygain can be ignored and should be when comparing files for audio quality. It is simply extra metadata that a playback device MAY use. Note sure how the person did there byte comparison, if it included metadata then my statement would not work, however if it did not include metadata which it really should not.

Did you read the OP's thread? He's talking about wav files. Wav files don't even support replaygain, so this can be safely ignored.

 

[m1abrams]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnor /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did you read the OP's thread? He's talking about wav files. Wav files don't even support replaygain, so this can be safely ignored.

Your right I was thinking lossless formats cause who deals with straight wav files anymore

(just kidding save the flames)

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by m1abrams /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your right I was thinking lossless formats cause who deals with straight wav files anymore (just kidding save the flames)

I don't know anyone who does.