[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif That is unquestionably a hardware issue. Your optical drive must be having problems. See ya Steve

What's wrong is the code that my computer is sending to the Opitcal drive to make it do that. I ripped about 30 CDs earlier today with EAC, then tried iTunes, and now I'm ripping many more CDs in EAC again with no problems. There is nothing physically wrong with the drive itself. I'm not sure what iTunes was telling it to do.

I just know I am using EAC from now on.

 

[royewest]

I know this is a tangent, but nevertheless:

I have tried perhaps a half-dozen CD drives from several manufacturers trying to get the Windows iTunes feature "Use error-correction when reading audio CDs" with lossless ripping and have had no luck at all in a couple of years.

Typically iTunes appears to rip tracks very quickly (much faster than normal) and the tracks appear in iTunes but in fact there is no data there. If you turn off error-correction and try again, you get a normal rip.

I solved this by switching to a Mac and ripping my CD collection using its internal drive, but I wish I understood this problem on Windows, particularly as I now have my music on an external drive and would like to switch to an OptiBay second internal drive for my laptop, but won't do it until I am sure I have a CD drive I can use to rip losslessly...

 

[Elephas]

I've never had any problems ripping ALAC with iTunes, Error Correction On, with a Plextor or Pioneer drives on WinXP or Vista, and also a MacBook/Mac OS X.

I've done various comparisons with iTunes, EAC, dBpoweramp and foobar and am satisfied that iTunes ALAC rips sound equivalent to FLAC and WAV rips. There's no way I'm using WAV, no tagging.

On my system, playing ALAC on iTunes sounds the same as playing FLAC files through foobar ASIO. The Secret Rabbit Code resampler set at 176.4 makes a slight improvement. BTW, my PC-as-source sound quality is roughly equivalent to the Esoteric P-05 > D-05.

This thread was a waste of time, obviously there was a hardware issue or "user error," or both.

 

[krmathis]

Oh my! Here we go again...

These lossless vs. PCM (WAV) threads never seem to end.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is nothing physically wrong with the drive itself.

No. Software can't make your drive sound like a belt sander. That's a physical issue. If it was just the program messing up, it wouldn't make a grinding sound.

See ya
Steve

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh my! Here we go again... These lossless vs. PCM (WAV) threads never seem to end.

Actually, we've determined that this thread was misnamed, and has nothing to do with whether lossless is lossless. The OP's issue actually had to do with differences among ripping software.

 

[n4k33n]

Is this what happens when 50 year old audiophiles finally buy computers?

 

[xenithon]

I'd like to know, for those that are doing the ripping/comparing using different software, are you relying on the comparator to tell you that x amount of samples were different and that the files are not the same, and hence one must inherently be wrong? Or are you taking the two and listening, and hearing one (in this case the one ripped with iTunes - be it WAV, ALAC, etc.) as being defective and/or inferior?

 

[ojnihs]

good god i'm getting sick of these threads

hardware or user error, choose one.

alac is lossless, it's been proven several times.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, we've determined that this thread was misnamed, and has nothing to do with whether lossless is lossless. The OP's issue actually had to do with differences among ripping software.

As usual that is!
They don't check out that there ight be a logical explanation to what they are hearing. Just shout Wolf, Wolf right away, and write strong statement with NO exceptions...

ALAC is lossless, end of story!

 

[matt8268]

Quote:

Nope, my normalize button is not checked. My EAC is not normalizing anything. EAC isn't the problem, iTunes is. Put a CD in your drive and play it through Foobar. Then pick a song and rip a WAV file through iTunes and a WAV file with EAC. You will be able to easily tell that the one extracted with EAC sounds exactly like the CD playing in the drive. The one ripped from iTunes does not.

When you do the sequence above, are you listening to the two wav rips from the same music player?

 

[Pete7]

PJ, I believe you are so anxious to actually hear a difference so you can make an outrageous claim or discovery, you convince yourself you are. I would describe it as Audio Paranoia. There's too much music out there to enjoy to keep doing this to yourself, man. Or just go to a lawyer with your findings ( the differences you *hear*), and try to sue Apple.

 

[IPodPJ]

Double post

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif PJ, I believe you are so anxious to actually hear a difference so you can make an outrageous claim or discovery, you convince yourself you are. I would describe it as Audio Paranoia. There's too much music out there to enjoy to keep doing this to yourself, man. Or just go to a lawyer with your findings ( the differences you *hear*), and try to sue Apple.

17 million samples being different is not a minor issue. That has nothing to do with subjective hearing, it is empirical data. I discovered the issue in the first place because when I played the CD it sounded much better than the iTunes rip, so obviously my hearing is not faulty. The bit-compare came later. Try it for yourself before you disagree with me. If it was subtle I wouldn't even have mentioned it. I know how some of you guys react by now. Why put myself through that unnecessary torture?

But I am buying a 300GB internal drive tonight so that I have the storage necessary to re-rip all my CDs as WAV with EAC.

People here mock you when you make claims and can't substantiate them.
People here mock you when you make claims and you CAN substantiate them.
It's a lose-lose situation.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif 17 million samples being different is not a minor issue.

By any chance, is the track about 3 minutes and 10 seconds long?