Questions from a Roon newbie -

[Boomzilla]

May 6, 2018 19:34:15 GMT -5 DYohn said:

I've tried this many times. It's your computer.

Hi David -

This could be. As I understand him, Russ is not using a "computer" for his rips. He's got some kind of Teac "pro" device with both his disc reader & external HDD plugged directly in. The Teac is the "bridge" interface where the digits from the disc reader are sent to the HDD (or USB-key) without being anywhere near a commercial operating system.

My rig is jRiver Media Center 24 running on OS-X via a MacBook Pro.

Nevertheless, if the files have identical checksums, then their bits should be identical, yes?

Boom

[RichGuy]

I have always ripped my CD's using Windows Media Player using WAV lossless set at the best quality. I use my HTPC with JRiver to listen to the ripped files and I prefer the sound of my ripped files over playing the CD.

I've compared my HTPC files via JRiver to the original CD's via Oppo 103 and ERC-3 using both the built in ERC-3 DAC and using the ERC-3 as a transport to the same external DAC as my HTPC and I have always preferred the sound of my HTPC playing the ripped files. Not sure why they sound better but they do.

[klinemj]

perfect! still got my address? If not, I will PM it.

Mark

[Loop 7]

I spent a lot of time worrying about ripping until I made myself believe that an accurate rip is in fact an accurate rip.

There are many who believe there's gray area so I could be living in dreamland regarding this issue.

[Casey Leedom]

Digital Data is Digital Data. Anyone who doesn't believe that shouldn't have a bank account, insurance, buy stuff at stores, etc. We, in the Computing Business, spend quite a bit of time making sure that your bank account doesn't go bonkers, you can buy groceries, etc. People arguing differently are just not paying attention. I put them in the same camp as Flat Earthers and Vaccine/Climate Change Deniers. There's just no point in continuing any conversation on that issue.

Converting Analog Signals into Digital Data and vice versa ... there's lots that can go wrong/right there. This is the area one should spend time on. Focusing entirely on the Digital to Analog Conversion process (since we're mostly at the mercy of the recording engineers on the Analog to Digital side), problems can start as soon as the point of transport of digital data to the DAC if it's poorly designed and doesn't do asynchronous reclocking — and according to what KeithL has said, most modern, well made DACs do reclock. Honestly, ignoring badly designed DACs, it appears to be mostly about the Reconstruction Filter, Over Sampling, etc. And, from what I've read here and elsewhere, there's a lot of argument about what is/isn't audible, what sounds better, etc. And there are even people who purposely pick systems which distort in particular ways that they find appealing. Tubes and Vinyl are enjoying a huge resurgence these days.

But as far as the actual Digital Data, I think that we should all be comfortable with the actual transport and storage of said. If not, go buy yourself a gun, and spend the rest of your life in dirty skivvies in a run down mountain cabin. Because nothing else makes sense at that point.

Casey

[Boomzilla]

May 6, 2018 22:02:49 GMT -5 klinemj said:

perfect! still got my address? If not, I will PM it.

Mark

Let me get the rips done, and I'l PM you.

[DYohn]

May 6, 2018 21:07:12 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

May 6, 2018 19:34:15 GMT -5 DYohn said:

I've tried this many times. It's your computer.

Hi David -

This could be. As I understand him, Russ is not using a "computer" for his rips. He's got some kind of Teac "pro" device with both his disc reader & external HDD plugged directly in. The Teac is the "bridge" interface where the digits from the disc reader are sent to the HDD (or USB-key) without being anywhere near a commercial operating system.

My rig is jRiver Media Center 24 running on OS-X via a MacBook Pro.

Nevertheless, if the files have identical checksums, then their bits should be identical, yes?

Boom

But the bits don't matter to how it sounds. The bits are just how the information is stored. How any group of bits sounds is determined by what is handling the bits. Many studies and anecdotes out there show that faster processors, faster memory, faster hard drives (with the best being SSD) and better network connections all make for better subjective sound quality. And then the ultimate arbiter is the device being used as a player, to decode those bits. So there is a lot to computer audio beyond the file size.

[KeithL]

I should add that many ripping programs these days actually check the checksum on each file after they rip it.
They compare the checksum of YOUR rip to the checksum other people got when ripping the same file - if the checksums match then your rip is perfect.
(But, yes, there are plenty of ways in which the conversion from digital bits to analog can differ...)

[wilburthegoose]

Which is why I prefer dbPoweramp's ripping. AccurateRip is a big plus to me.

[wilburthegoose]

Back to Roon - how are you doing, Boom?

[KeithL]

If two files sound different on the same exact playback equipment then the two files are different....
And, since all digital data files are composed of numbers, stored in the form of binary bits, then the numbers must be different.

Jitter is a characteristic of TIMING..... and timing only exists when the file is played or otherwise "in motion".
The contents of a file do not and cannot have "jitter".....
And, if the bits in two files are exactly the same, then they are the same..... and any claim to the contrary suggests a lack of understanding of the subject.

You CANNOT have jitter in a file because jitter is a characteristic of the clock, and the clock is NOT stored in the file.
When you create the file, you store the numbers and discard the clock (after "remembering" what clock to use).
Then, when you play the file, you read the numbers, and create an entirely new clock to use with them.

HOWEVER, jitter that is present on the clock used to create or play a file can and usually will affect the sound you hear (but it will also affect the bits that are there).
Jitter that is present on the ADC when the files are initially created will alter the audio content (different bits; perhaps different sound).
Jitter that is present on your DAC when the files are converted back into analog will alter the analog output itself (same bits; different audio; because the clock USED TO CONVERT FROM DIGITAL TO ANALOG matters).
(And only jitter that is present "right at the conversion" counts.... so jitter present, for example, at the input, doesn't matter as long as we make sure a clean clock is used right when we feed the data to input of the DAC chip.)
The ONLY way jitter can affect the digital file, or the digital audio stream itself, is if the jitter is severe enough to cause bits to read incorrectly - in which case the bits will be different.

There is one other way in which the FORMAT of a digital file can interact with the playback equipment in a way that could cause an audible difference.
Different file formats may require different amounts of processing power to decode; depending on the computer, this difference in load could cause audible differences.

For example, FLAC supports five different levels of compression..... all FLAC files hold the same bits, but some are more highly compressed, so they use less bandwidth to transfer, but more processing power to play.
Therefore, a FLAC (level 5) file could sound different than a FLAC (level 1) file on the same computer, NOT BECAUSE THE BITS ARE DIFFERENT, but because one or the other loads your computer more heavily.
Note, however, that, if you convert both to a WAV file, which is not compressed, the resulting WAV files will be identical, and will sound the same.

It may also not be obvious which will be "better"; a computer with limited network bandwidth but lots of processing power may "prefer" the more highly compressed file...
While a computer with a fast network connection, but limited processing power, may "prefer" the less heavily compressed file.
NOTE, HOWEVER, that, in both cases, the data in the files is identical, and neither is "inherently better" - it's just that one or the other works better inside the limitations of your particular player.
(And, since the DATA is the same, you can convert from one to the other, in either direction, without changing the bits at all.)

I should also add, in this particular case, that you should do a bit-compare on the files themselves.
If his rips were made using different software, or even the same software with different settings, then they may simply be different.
(There could simply be re-sampling going on as part of the ripping process; that's more the norm than the exception with most ripping software and hardware.)
Does the device he's using actually SAY that it's giving you a bit-perfect rip?
(And do you have your copy of jRiver configured to do so?)

May 6, 2018 19:05:23 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Hi Casey -

You've touched on the core of what's being discussed. "Identical data doesn't always sound identical" is the claim that Russel is making, in a nutshell. This seems as wacky as demagnetizing a non-magnetic CD, yes? He believes that although identical checksums prove that the data is "good enough" for computer use, it isn't accurate enough to provide audible consistency. Now what aspect of the data would be the "mystery variable?" It might be jitter, it might be buffer artifacts as the buffers fill and empty, I don't know (nor does Russel). He claims that there are audible differences in data streams that measure identically by common "bit-perfect" metrics and that he can prove them by listening.

Theory says he's full of BS. But I've taken rips that I've made over to his house, compared them to rips he's made (of the exact same disc - not an identical copy of the disc, but the same physical disc), and there are audible differences. His rips sound better. He's also given me music that he's ripped on a USB stick. I've taken it home and compared his rips to those that I've made with jRiver. His still sound better.

If you have any reasonable explanation for why these things are so, you're a better electrical engineer than I (not so hard since I'm not an EE in the first place!). LOL I've still not bought into pseudoscience, so I believe that there must be some reasonable technical explanation for this. But I haven't found it yet.

Boom

[Boomzilla]

May 7, 2018 10:58:17 GMT -5 KeithL said:

...Does the device he's using actually SAY that it's giving you a bit-perfect rip? (And do you have your copy of jRiver configured to do so?)

I have no idea whether he's getting a bit-perfect rip (and I doubt if he does either). To the best of my knowledge (admittedly, limited), I don't know that jRiver CAN be forced to do a bit-perfect rip either.

It's a fact that jRiver can be "configured" to do a lot of things - but that doesn't mean that jRiver actually DOES them... I've caught jRiver lying to me more than once, and I'm not appreciating it.

As to Roon - Now that I've moved the server computer to the living room (not my first choice, but sacrifices must be made...) I've got the Ethernet (and UP&P and DLNA and AirPlay) out of the loop. Directly connecting the server computer to the DAC/preamp has "removed some veils." And I have at least five potential digital connections (not counting Ethernet) that I can use: USB, HDMI, optical-TOSLINK, Bluetooth, and wireless 802.11x streaming. I'm not sure which of these will ultimately yield the best sound (but I'm suspecting that it isn't Bluetooth or 802.11). The main issue I'm facing with this isn't the laptop's outputs, but rather the available INPUTS on my DAC/preamp devices. And if I go to a Schiit DAC with a downstream preamp, then the available options shrink even more. The majority of DACs don't offer anything but USB & TOSLINK (I'm deliberately ignoring S/PDIF because the Mac lacks a native coaxial output). It would be nice if all DAC makers entered the 21st century and added HDMI inputs, but we're not there yet.

So with the laptop in the living room, jRiver = Roon (no difference), and I already own jRiver.

Boom

[Soup]

I gave up on ROON due to the $$$$$ of the software...............
Too expensive for me!

[Casey Leedom]

So Boomzilla, why do you need to move your server into your living room? What DAC are you using? Does it support USB input? If so, a ~$65 Raspberry Pi running the RoPiee Distribution should solve your problems as a Ethernet -> USB Roon Endpoint/Bridge. Unless your DAC's USB is really crappy and doesn't support Asynchronous Reclocking, this should work fine. You just need the Digital Audio Data transported to your DAC. After that, it's really all about your DAC doing what you like.

Casey

[Loop 7]

Roon uses four colors in the signal path indicator to predict the sound quality.

Lossless signal paths are indicated by a bright purple light, and mean exactly what the name implies: that the stream is going from the file to the device without being modified.

Enhanced signal paths are indicated by a bright blue light. This means that Roon is performing some signal processing steps on the audio because you asked for them. The most common reason for a blue light is that features like Volume Leveling or DSP Engine are in use.

You can identify a high quality signal path by looking for the green light.

Link: A full explanation in the Roon KB

[kybourbon]

May 7, 2018 13:25:01 GMT -5 Casey Leedom said:

So Boomzilla, why do you need to move your server into your living room? What DAC are you using? Does it support USB input? If so, a ~$65 Raspberry Pi running the RoPiee Distribution should solve your problems as a Ethernet -> USB Roon Endpoint/Bridge. Unless your DAC's USB is really crappy and doesn't support Asynchronous Reclocking, this should work fine. You just need the Digital Audio Data transported to your DAC. After that, it's really all about your DAC doing what you like.

Casey

That's exactly what I use.

The Raspberry Pi works phenomenally well.

[Soup]

May 7, 2018 14:11:06 GMT -5 kybourbon said:

May 7, 2018 13:25:01 GMT -5 Casey Leedom said:

So Boomzilla , why do you need to move your server into your living room? What DAC are you using? Does it support USB input? If so, a ~$65 Raspberry Pi running the RoPiee Distribution should solve your problems as a Ethernet -> USB Roon Endpoint/Bridge. Unless your DAC's USB is really crappy and doesn't support Asynchronous Reclocking, this should work fine. You just need the Digital Audio Data transported to your DAC. After that, it's really all about your DAC doing what you like.

Casey

That's exactly what I use.

The Raspberry Pi works phenomenally well.

Any chance either of you can PM links to instructions on getting my Berry up and running RoPiee Distribution? Would like to use it to replace PC. Appreciated! 

[Casey Leedom]

Hey Soup, I haven't done this myself but my good friend did. He said that it was pretty simple.

1. Buy a Raspbery Pi, power adapter, case and Micro SD Card.
2. Download the latest RoPieee distribution.
3. Load the RoPieee Distribution onto the Micro SD Card.
4. Put it all together, connect your Ethernet in, and USB to your DAC.
5. Turn it on. (I assume that it does depend on you having DHCP running on your local net.)

From what I understand it comes up fairly quickly and you can follow it's progress via LEDs on the Raspberry Pi. It engages in broadcast discovery to find you Roon Server and you're done.

Casey

[audiosyndrome]

May 6, 2018 19:50:57 GMT -5 klinemj said:

In my early days of ripping, I compared ripped versions of CD to the originals. I played the ripped CD via jRiver on a cheapo Dell 660s via USB to my DC-1. I played the original CD via an Emotiva CD player I used to have (ERC-2, I think) to the DC-1. I tried several selections and found no difference. The PC I used to rip the disks was a Powerspec (built by MicroCenter) with a run of the mill disk drive.

My feeling is that unless something goes wrong in the ripping, the ripped copy and the CD should sound the same. If you want - send me some example files of your amigo's rips vs. yours on a flash drive. Don't tell me which is which and I will happily listen to see if I hear a difference.

Mark

It may be possible for the ripped copy to sound better than the original CD. Ripping with error detection ON, results in an easier load for the playback system. A CD with many errors, can be thousands, requires that the CD player work much harder as it has to correct the errors on the fly. So maybe a difference. I think the majority agrees that the rips sound better.

Russ

[Casey Leedom]

Do remember that CDs use Reed-Solomon Error Correction (see the Data Storage section):

The result is a CIRC (Cross-Interleaved Reed–Solomon Coding) that can completely correct error bursts up to 4000 bits, or about 2.5 mm on the disc surface. This code is so strong that most CD playback errors are almost certainly caused by tracking errors that cause the laser to jump track, not by uncorrectable error bursts.

Generally speaking, either you get the data or you don't.

Casey