|
|
Post by frenchyfranky on Sept 7, 2015 12:27:42 GMT -5
Recently I pulled the trigger and decided to rip all my CD collection in wav files without any type of compression, using JRiver and 2tb ext HDD with my recent HP A10 laptop recently updated to Win 10 playing on the XMC-1 via USB streaming Wasapi. Everything works like a charm, ease of use, very useful with Android remote app, a lot of advantage, all my discotheque in one hand space, no walk anymore to load the CD tray (the same things 30 years ago between the CD vs vinyl 2 sides), excellent sound quality... Yes, but... What's happen? Isn't it supposed to be the exact and identical sounding results as my ERC-2 CD player to my XMC-1 via the AES/EBU digital input  The answer is NO!For a few months I was convinced that it is absolutely identical between both, since yesterday, I decided by curiosity to do an A-B testing between USB-stream from PC wav files and CD via AES/EBU, both digital decoded via the same XMC-1's inside DAC. Simultaneously start playing the same track on both sources and switching the input, I repeated this procedure for several different tracks, my logical convictions collapsed... Both sounds really good but the CD have a bit more airy, spacious, opened, deeper sounds, not in quality or in tonality but in live feeling the CD is a winner. I'm sure there is a physical explanation for this, that I don't know, but the fact is now I will accept a compromise for some useful reasons until I want to make a special listening session in the sweet spot, I will still using the CD player like I'm still using sometimes my turntable. Am I the only one has noticed that? |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 7, 2015 12:41:17 GMT -5
I do agree with you. I have both types of systems and I prefer the CD over the ripped music for SQ  Hey frenchyfranky, kind of like streaming and Blu-ray are the same,,,,,,,,,,,,,not! |
|
|
|
Post by lehighvalleyjeff on Sept 7, 2015 13:40:37 GMT -5
^ +1
Not exactly sure of the science part either but I agree CD's have always sounded superior in all my systems.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilburthegoose on Sept 7, 2015 13:48:27 GMT -5
To me, the FLAC sounds better. No idea why.
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,952
|
Post by hemster on Sept 7, 2015 13:49:25 GMT -5
In theory, as we all know, lossless files should sound exactly the same as the original source. In practice, we may be falling foul of expectation bias... do we want lossless to sound the same or at some ethereal level, we prefer the sound of the original source.
|
|
|
|
Post by frenchyfranky on Sept 7, 2015 13:58:30 GMT -5
I absolutely confirm that before A-B test I was completely convinced of the absence of difference but the difference hit me very hard even if I didn't expect it.
I'm now sure that there is a technical and physical reason for.
Please help me someone and explaining me technically why I'm not crazy! Or maybe I am...
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 7, 2015 14:17:40 GMT -5
Same track played back through the same DAC in the same system = no differences. For me.
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 7, 2015 14:40:11 GMT -5
Next thing I know,,,,,its an analog/ digital battle!!!,,,,,,,,,,,wait,,who said that???  Live < Analog < CD < FLAC,,,,,,,, in that order,,,,,,he,,,,he,,,,,,he,,,,,,,
 |
|
|
|
Post by ludi on Sept 7, 2015 14:45:44 GMT -5
Lossless means no loss of data. So the only difference is how the information is stored on disk or in memory. This is the same as with a Word documentnt: in a ZIP the text is not changed. Unzipping the file and you have the same story. Creating a ZIP or a FLAC is only changing the way the information is stored compared to an uncompressed file. It is not changing the content, it is bits in = bits out.
For lossy compression some information is dropped or altered in favor to save space. The prinicples are based on how we as humans hear sounds. For example a soft sound is dropped when at the same time there is a loud bang.
The principle of compacting information in a lossless format is very easy, especially compared to lossy compression. There is no human factor involved. It is only a matter of counting bytes and see if there is a more efficient way of storing the information.
An easy example: say you have 1 second of silence in the music. In a uncompressed file it is stored as:
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 .... say 41.000 time in a row.
In a lossless compressed format the same information can be stored as (a highly simplified compression method):
41000x0000
In the end, when the information is send to the DAC, the information will be in both situation be 41000 time the value 0000.
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 7, 2015 14:53:24 GMT -5
Ludi, "Lossless means no loss of data" is that the same as "FREE",,,,,,,,,,,,,he,,,,,,,,,,he,,,,,,,,,,,,he,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,    Yep! Ive been known to be a smart arss!! But always in good fun!  |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 7, 2015 14:56:21 GMT -5
I absolutely confirm that before A-B test I was completely convinced of the absence of difference but the difference hit me very hard even if I didn't expect it. I'm now sure that there is a technical and physical reason for. Please help me someone and explaining me technically why I'm not crazy! Or maybe I am... OH! We ARE crazy!!! Isnt that most of the fun?  |
|
|
|
Post by frenchyfranky on Sept 7, 2015 16:26:33 GMT -5
Ok ludi , fine I understand this principle but why can I heard some different results between both media (original cd and ripped cd in wav) ? The ripping process dropped something? The reading process of ripped files dropped something? A mix of both? |
|
|
|
Post by wilburthegoose on Sept 7, 2015 20:03:15 GMT -5
Yep - the DAC makes the difference.
|
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,865
|
Post by LCSeminole on Sept 7, 2015 20:12:01 GMT -5
Same track played back through the same DAC in the same system = no differences. For me. Same conclusion here. |
|
|
|
Post by frenchyfranky on Sept 8, 2015 1:43:17 GMT -5
Yep - the DAC makes the difference. I have used the same DAC for both media. |
|
|
|
Post by ludi on Sept 8, 2015 1:54:50 GMT -5
Ok ludi , fine I understand this principle but why can I heard some different results between both media (original cd and ripped cd in wav) ? The ripping process dropped something? The reading process of ripped files dropped something? A mix of both? I don't know why you hear the difference when the digital data should be identical. If there is something in your ripping or playback process that influences the file, that might explain the difference. A while ago I posted here the results of a compare between the two formats. |
|
|
|
Post by guzz46 on Sept 8, 2015 2:24:24 GMT -5
It could just be that you're hearing the difference between USB and AES/EBU, back when I had my Oppo 93-NXE I had all my music ripped to an external hard drive, I experimented with connecting that hard drive via USB and eSATA, and thought it sounded slightly better via eSATA, I don't know why, I couldn't even describe what the difference sounded like, there was just something about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2015 2:29:51 GMT -5
I absolutely confirm that before A-B test I was completely convinced of the absence of difference but the difference hit me very hard even if I didn't expect it. I'm now sure that there is a technical and physical reason for. Please help me someone and explaining me technically why I'm not crazy! Or maybe I am... François, you stated earlier: I decided by curiosity to do an A-B testing between USB-stream from PC wav files and CD via AES/EBU, both digital decoded via the same XMC-1's inside DAC. Simultaneously start playing the same track on both sources and switching the input, I repeated this procedure for several different tracks, my logical convictions collapsed.First, most Frenchmen I know are in fact crazy! But what has that to do with the question at hand? Are you absolutely 100% sure that both sources were played back at exactly the same volume? Did you use a SPL meter level to confirm this or did you use only your ears? Tests have shown that most folks just using their ears can be significantly off with even slight volume differences which very often skews their comparison. With a SPL meter you should with extra care be able to get within 0.25 dB's or better of equal output. Try it several times to see if there is any variation in your conclusions. Tests have also shown that a very slight difference in comparative volume level can lead us to conclude the ever so slightly louder playback to be superior. For a comparative test to see if your head is screwed on straight, have you ever noticed that the Eiffel Tower is slightly crooked?  Alexandre Gustave Eiffel, French engineer/architect.  (Note that his head/upper body is abnormally titled to one side.) |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Sept 8, 2015 5:16:23 GMT -5
Hi frenchyfranky - I'm not sure how to answer the poll. I have occasionally thought I heard differences, but they were neither consistent nor were they repeatable. Furthermore, sometimes the disc sounded better, other times the ripped file - go figure... So to my ears, there may or may not be a difference, but if there is, I can't reliably hear it. If your ears say "go disc," then do so. For reduced storage space and convenience, I've voted to go ripped. Of course, I don't save any real storage space because I store the ripped discs in the attic, but it does keep them out of my server room. Boomzilla |
|
|
|
Post by Priapulus on Sept 8, 2015 6:27:54 GMT -5
Sorry, but 001001 = 001001; identical data sounds identical, whether stored on CD or hard drive. If you hear a difference, either:
1) your ripping software is changing something,
2) your audio chain is different or
3) you're deluded.
Perhaps people here could suggest tests to find the anomaly.
Sincerely
/n
|
|
Yep! Ive been known to be a smart arss!! But always in good fun! 
