What's the best method to rip CD to HDD?

[mako1138]

Dave, I think Netlist/Hugo's analogy is on point. The files are just data. There is no timing information in them (besides the sampling rate). The timing is provided by the clock on the sound card. If the audio data is the same, why should the played-back audio be different?

To build on what Tim__x said, the modern computer is fundamentally an asynchronous system. You've got one processor, and everything that hangs off it is screaming for attention: the PCI bus, the PCIe bus, the SATA controller, the peripherals, etc. Data inside the computer gets shot around in spurts, in globs, in squirts. Audio data doesn't get handled one sample at a time, at 44.1/48/96/192kHz, because that makes no sense; it gets bundled around like all the rest of the data. The sound card sits on its bus, shouting "feed me" when it's got room in its playback FIFO, and the system gives it another chunk of data to chew on. (Even ASIO uses buffers, because a PC is not a particularly good real-time system.)

If we're ripping, the only way drive jitter will rear its ugly head is through a data error. But since we've compared MD5sums, we know the data is the same. Therefore the drive jitter is irrelevant.

 

[planet10]

I think Netlist/Hugo's analogy is on point. The files are just data. There is no timing information in them (besides the sampling rate). The timing is provided by the clock on the sound card. If the audio data is the same, why should the played-back audio be different?

To play it back you have to add a clock... we are getting mixed up here on a couple starting points -- the OP pointed to a post with a number of suppositions ... the one i have been talking about is SandyK's supposition that the same data recorded on 2 different pieces of hardware can sound different. That a specific BluRay recorder does a better job than a DVD or CD recorder.

dave

 

[sandyK]

Planet10
I have sent you an email.
SandyK

 

[mako1138]

the one i have been talking about is SandyK's supposition that the same data recorded on 2 different pieces of hardware can sound different. That a specific BluRay recorder does a better job than a DVD or CD recorder.

OK, I'm open to that possibility. But what has the rest of us up in arms is

Forget all the theory about "lossless" files, and all recovered audio files must sound identical, provided that the check sums are identical.
...
rip a high quality CD to 2 different HDD folders (to avoid confusion) using both a normal DVD writer and a BluRay writer.
...
the EAC copy via the BluRay writer , despite check sums being identical, is audibly superior when played back from the HDD.

 

[sandyK]

mako 1138

Better still, rip the Blu-spec version of a Blu-spec sampler (2 discs)CD to the HDD with E.AC. , and then the supplied normal version CD of the same recording, to the HDD using a normal DVD writer and E.A.C.
All the checksums will of course match, yet the audible differences are even greater than with the same discs ripped to the HDD by the BluRay writer.

SandyK

 

[Netlist]

Sandy, could you upload (Rapidshare?) two small samples of each track, say 20 seconds or so for us to listen at?

/Hugo

 

[sandyK]

CD to HDD

Netlist
I am not sure that I can do that. (?)
I am prepared to let any interested Sydney member listen to the tracks as stored , and listen to the CDs via my PC, compare the checksums for themselves, and post their findings here. Alternatively, I may be able to burn some of the tracks from the HDD to a decent CD-R using the BluRay writer, for listening comparison purposes by a qualified member. Preferably Australian, to cut down delays.

SandyK
P.S. Re the previous post : I confirmed that to my own satisfaction last night.

 

[phofman]

of course, checksum is not 100% reliable indicator of identical files. There are many ways to compare waves sample by sample. Two sample-by-sample identical waves sound the same when stored on the same medium and played from the same PC, provided all the other variables remain constant (power supply noise, sun erruptions , etc.)

 

[BionicSniper]

If the files are identical then there will be absolutely no difference in the playback if everything else is the same. Check sums just check total bit value. If you change one bit to 1 and another to 0 its still the same crc.

open the files into hex and compare them. If they are truely identical then no matter what you think or want to believe then they do not sound different

 

[Zoran]

somebody can recommend some software for mac OS X
like EAC for Win ?

 

[Rescue Toaster]

If the files are identical then there will be absolutely no difference in the playback if everything else is the same. Check sums just check total bit value. If you change one bit to 1 and another to 0 its still the same crc.

The checksums that sandy produced are md5 hashes. It's much more complicated than that and it's simply impossible that a hash collision could occur in this case. The files *are* identical.

Even with more rudimentary checksum functions, the chances of something like that happening without someone specifically altering the files to make the checksums match on purpose make this inconceivable.

 

[sandyK]

Track 17 comparison.

Checksums generated by ExactFile 1.0.0.15
http://www.exactfile.com
11/04/2009 8:42:42 PM

G:\AUDIO\Blu-Spec CD-Rock (BD version)\Track17.wav
42380732 bytes

ADLER32: 4b968a14
CRC32: 44f3c285
MD2: b1f4a045ad94b20d7555e8f285ae6b89
MD4: 8726d732abc33d3a90a5921991e79c83
MD5: 8cc4c5e377c3446511a6b8f59a051769
SHA1: 521d90ac2efdd4fb71a586429219dcee31eb6f83
SHA256: 1bd9d53280edbf999035a7bb02780ae17db96c43eed5b5cf6da55f4ad7122d21
SHA384: 82123acaf946566ffb8f67312b2cc3ac512938cf2fb87f49ffa0f393a2c3b204876120074d2e0d090486984089ca6b66
SHA512: a8e52d01e162e67e1007fae5b9938174796359b9b61a36504cd129214a51b4359602d710a18b8cedd6e2f24bff69f7a3a54334a4998aba67b6b71efe18597627
RIPEMD128: 7e8bec6fb285ffff2d187e3af9d3caa5
RIPEMD160: 65d52d1c89c33171d6e48457ed6e99db228d1dc9
TIGER128: 1968e3603516403334acab564e2a6602
TIGER160: 1968e3603516403334acab564e2a6602b12a3e12
TIGER192: 1968e3603516403334acab564e2a6602b12a3e123b995415
GOST: 5b88705ba08371b312dce80873caf16e52ac474fa38bab9548c1372af94057bf


Checksums generated by ExactFile 1.0.0.15
http://www.exactfile.com
11/04/2009 8:45:06 PM

G:\AUDIO\Blu-spec Rock. CD version-Pioneer Rip\Track17.wav
42380732 bytes

ADLER32: 4b968a14
CRC32: 44f3c285
MD2: b1f4a045ad94b20d7555e8f285ae6b89
MD4: 8726d732abc33d3a90a5921991e79c83
MD5: 8cc4c5e377c3446511a6b8f59a051769
SHA1: 521d90ac2efdd4fb71a586429219dcee31eb6f83
SHA256: 1bd9d53280edbf999035a7bb02780ae17db96c43eed5b5cf6da55f4ad7122d21
SHA384: 82123acaf946566ffb8f67312b2cc3ac512938cf2fb87f49ffa0f393a2c3b204876120074d2e0d090486984089ca6b66
SHA512: a8e52d01e162e67e1007fae5b9938174796359b9b61a36504cd129214a51b4359602d710a18b8cedd6e2f24bff69f7a3a54334a4998aba67b6b71efe18597627
RIPEMD128: 7e8bec6fb285ffff2d187e3af9d3caa5
RIPEMD160: 65d52d1c89c33171d6e48457ed6e99db228d1dc9
TIGER128: 1968e3603516403334acab564e2a6602
TIGER160: 1968e3603516403334acab564e2a6602b12a3e12
TIGER192: 1968e3603516403334acab564e2a6602b12a3e123b995415
GOST: 5b88705ba08371b312dce80873caf16e52ac474fa38bab9548c1372af94057bf

 

[BionicSniper]

and thus the files are identical and sound exactly the same no matter what one may think

 

[sandyK]

and thus the files are identical and sound exactly the same no matter what one may think

Bionic Sniper
NO THEY ARE NOT !!!
A comparison CD has been burned and is now on it's way to DIYAudio moderator Hugo, in Belgium, who will be sharing some of the files around.
Another DIYAudio member from Sydney visited me this morning with his almost completed Silicon Chip ULD2. I burned him a copy of the same compilation CD, and we tried this through his new amplifier.Much to our surprise, the differences were clearly audible via loudspeakers. The other Sydney member was convinced that the volume level was higher on the normal version. I attribute the difference to a wider soundstage,and better HF localisation, for whatever reason.
SandyK

 

[phofman]

sandyK, I still do not understand the playback procedure you are talking about. Is it two files on hdd sounding different when played on the PC, or two CD-Rs burnt by DVD burner and BluRay burner, sounding different in a CD player?

 

[Netlist]

I'm looking forward to receive the CD and I will listen, test and examine it the best I can with an open mind.

/Hugo

 

[sandyK]

sandyK, I still do not understand the playback procedure you are talking about. Is it two files on hdd sounding different when played on the PC, or two CD-Rs burnt by DVD burner and BluRay burner, sounding different in a CD player?

phofman
Both. The differences are particularly obvious on the new Sony Blu-spec , 2 disc samplers (Rock and Jazz) , both with normal CD playback on an affordable CD/DVD player.(not as much difference with an expensive player like the Marantz SA11) and also on the HDD after being ripped using EAC. The differences appear to be even greater, if the normal version is ripped using a normal DVD writer, and the Blu-spec version by a BluRay writer. These 2 disc sets contain both a Blu-spec version, and a normal version of the
same CD, both sourced from the same master.
Interestingly, the peak recorded levels of both discs do not seem to exceed 40%.
Incidentally, "Dire Straits-Love Over Gold" sounds markedly better after being ripped to the HDD by the BluRay writer, and a new CD created on a good quality blank . The BluRay writer ripped version of this title also sounds better than the normally ripped version, when played from the HDD. Much will depend however on the resolution of the PC playback system. In my case via SPDIF into a good quality DAC.
SandyK

 

[Rescue Toaster]

"The BluRay writer ripped version of this title also sounds better than the normally ripped version, when played from the HDD."

Try copying the files to a USB flash drive and then back, or just play them off the flash drive.

I try to be open minded about stuff but what you are describing is simply impossible. There are simply no channels for any kind of metadata. Hard drives do not store jitter, noise, or any timing information under any circumstances.

 

[soundcheck]

My two cents.

The best bet is IMO an AccurateRip capable ripper. You couldn't care less what drive to use if the checksum of your ripped file is equal to the one in the accurate rip database.
The accurate rip db is growing every day ( it covered at least 95% of my collection).
I can rip at full speed with any drive.
If the checksum is OK, I am sure the rip is good. If it is not working I try it at slower speeds.

Hint: Set your drive-offset properly in EAC.

Hint: Spent some time of thinking about how you want your filenames look like! Changing this later on is a hell lot of work. Usually it is easier to re-rip the collection if you decide to change the names later on.
A good pretty common structure is IMO <track-nr>-<trackartist>-<album>-<track>
Especially if you're gonna rip .wav, you should make sure that all infos are kept in the filename.

Good luck

 

[TransNova]

sandyK

What happens when the computer defrags? Do some computers do a better job than others with regards to the sound quality afterwards? After all the data has to be rewritten to a different section of the drive so it must have a change in SQ.