Hi Rick, It sounds like SDTrans works very well in your system. I have a couple of questions.
1. Having an analogue background (same as me) could you please share how close your SDTrans/dam based system (after all mods) comes to the SQ of your analogue set up. Or perhaps you prefer to listen to your digital set up now (not because you are modding it or convenience).
2. If you will take an effort to answer the first question, could you please also let me know what analogue components your system is comprised of, including phono cable, ICs and speaker cables. This would help establish benchmark for analogue vs. digital systems comparison. (NB apologies if I am asking too much and too personal, in this case just ignore this question).
3. If you have an experience or opinion, how does SDTrans compare to a mac mini totally dedicated as USB music server?
4. And the killer question ... How to order the SDTrans?
1. Having an analogue background (same as me) could you please share how close your SDTrans/dam based system (after all mods) comes to the SQ of your analogue set up. Or perhaps you prefer to listen to your digital set up now (not because you are modding it or convenience).
2. If you will take an effort to answer the first question, could you please also let me know what analogue components your system is comprised of, including phono cable, ICs and speaker cables. This would help establish benchmark for analogue vs. digital systems comparison. (NB apologies if I am asking too much and too personal, in this case just ignore this question).
3. If you have an experience or opinion, how does SDTrans compare to a mac mini totally dedicated as USB music server?
4. And the killer question ... How to order the SDTrans?
Last edited:
Well, at this point, and as you know, we can change our preferences with time spent, but I think the SDTrans sounds better than my analogue set up.
One thing I have done which I think has made a big difference in what I am hearing with the SDtrans is my CD ripping regimen.
I, like almost everyone else, had done nothing special for ripping. I use dBpoweramp on a typical WINDOWS install (8.1 or tech preview 10). After hearing what happened after using the SDTrans instead of a very tweaked computer setup I realized there might be something missing on the ripping side. We go to all of this trouble for playback and do almost nothing to get the information off of the disk..
Having been involved in the minimal XP OS for cMP/Play I knew what minimizing the OS would do for playback. So do it for ripping. My ripper OS uses dBpoweramp, obviously, but boots into dBpoweramp. There is no EXPLORER, there is nothing there but what is needed for dBpoweramp to work. The c: file for this OS is approx. 34 mB in size. There is more to it than that but this is going to be a long post and if you are interested in this I will go into more detail with your request.
My analogue setup is as follows - LENCO L75 platter and motor on an OSWALD'S MILL slate plinth that is much larger than their standard offering. It is as big as it could be made with the material available. I use Peter Reinder's top plate and bearing. I have used other bearings and i like his better. Atop the standard platter are five of the now defunct TTW copper platter mats for mass. Also, the height of these things gets the cartridge (TRANSFIGURATION Proteus) a little further away from the motor for a little extra isolation.
Tone arm is an ET 2.5 that was bought originally as a 2 but has had every part updated. I use the high volume low pressure manifold which requires a large air compressor. This is kept outside. The tank is large enough that it runs about every thirty minutes of play. I have a huge filter chamber, about eight feet buy four inches in diameter filler with polyester. A copper line runs from here to the tonearm manifold for the compressed air.
The tonearm is devoid of the rickety adjustment stuff that came on it. The basic arm assembly is clamped to the plinth with a bronze screw and a length of ebony. The cartridge is attached to the arm with PEEK screws. The wire from the cartridge is old WE 26 gauge wire as per the fellow who is TONE CORPORATION, Mr. Yazaki. This goes to the SALAS phono stage. Only one connector is used. I use only DELTRON silver plated XLRs without any casing. I think this is a step beyond the EICHMANN RCA. VERY solid connection and very little mass. These are the only connectors used in my system and as few as I can get away with. No RCAs are used at all.
The SALAS is using the best components I could find. TX COMPONENTS Zfoils- not all the way through, though. Tried to not use too many of any component. DUELUND copper foil for the output cap. Vcap for the interstage cap and the good polystyrenes from RELCAP for RIAA. Electrolytics have been bypassed with ASC motor run caps (mounted under the board for minimal lead length. The cap bypassing the LED string is an old bipolar BLACK GATE I had laying about. Power supply is dual mono using old DYNACO ST150 transformers, the rectifier as recommended by the TONE CORP fellow, Mr. Yazaki, and giant DUCATI PP caps (3700 uF, as big as SLA batteries).
For cables I am using the BELDEN cable as recommended by Mr. Yazaki (#8042). I used to make my own but this old stand by is very very good for tone. Better than what I made. It is not spectacular which is its greatest strength.
From here to FIRST WATT SIT 1s above 500 hz and FIRST WATT J2 below to 100 and from there to the unlikely CREST PRO class d amp for the octave below 100 hz. Sounds very good, has tone, is not a sine wave generator like so many other cheap amps and many class d amps.
For speaker wire I am using the WE 16 gauge wire as recommended by Mr. Yazaki which is very good. I cannot afford the silly stuff! All speakers have their own wire so using the silly stuff, in my opinion, is really silly for this application.
Speakers: from top to bottom
Fostex T500 above 10K - using the Russian teflons for HP
JBL 2441 with TruExtent diaphragms in John Inlow's papier mache horns
B&C 12 inch woofer (can't remember the model #) in a wooden round horn as designed by Mr. Inlow. Basic horn was made by a fellow in Hungary with lots left to do once they got to me.
Using a pair of the old YAMAHA crossovers (using PCM33s) for 100 and 45 hz crossovers.
Edgar SEISMIC SUBS - pair (with an exoskeleton of 2 x 10 lumber for bracing) In case US lumber measurement is not known that is a board about 40 mm thick by 238 mm wide.
RYTHMIK 15 inch servo subs below 45 hz - in massive cabinets I made - pair
No line stage. The SALAS and the SORKRIS have plenty of output to drive all of this stuff though I am slowly assembling a line stage using the 4P1L based on MOGLIA and Kevin Carter's work just to hear what it would sound like.
I use Dave Slagle's autoformers for a volume control.
There are more minute details but I hope that is enough.
The system has evolved over many years. Long ago I figured the way was to pick an architecture I liked and keep working at it for one without unlimited funds. The amps are my extravagance but I knew and still know I could not come close to them on my own.
This is who I contacted to order the SDTrans: CBL29291@nifty.com
You will be dealing with the kindly Jack Yamazaki not to be confused with Mr. Shirokazu Yazaki.
I have a great appreciation for Japanese audiophiles. One should always pay attention to what they are doing and saying.
marce,
Well, I could think of many worse places to be than in Poole!
The little time I have spent in Angleland has mainly been in London but I tried to get out and see more. Went west one year all the way to Lands End. How can one resist going to a place with a name like that! Meandered along the south coast on the way and came back through Salisbury with a side trip to Bath stopping to look at cathedrals whenever they appeared.
We do business with a fellow in Doncaster (he lives in York) so i got to see a decent amount of Yorkshire which I really liked. Being from the southern US I felt an affinity with the north of England. We are both looked down upon by our "betters" (!!!) from the other half.
Went to Manchester and Liverpool for a day. Went to an exhibition in Birmingham and would like to visit what was once the heart of the British textile industry in your part of the world though sadly it is long gone along with the BLACKBURN WORKS where so many magic valves were manufactured. I bought some of those weird 12AX7s those folks tried to revive themselves with, TECH TUBE I think it was. I would never sell them. I love to show them to folks and watch them look at the things wondering WHAT IS THIS?
Love your country. Wish I could afford to visit there often. There is so much left to see ...
I have no idea what those initials you wrote stand for, I know next to nothing about the professional end of the business. When I read Cobham I think of Billy Cobham!
So, any details of what you are doing that can be revealed?
Take care,
Well, I could think of many worse places to be than in Poole!
The little time I have spent in Angleland has mainly been in London but I tried to get out and see more. Went west one year all the way to Lands End. How can one resist going to a place with a name like that! Meandered along the south coast on the way and came back through Salisbury with a side trip to Bath stopping to look at cathedrals whenever they appeared.
We do business with a fellow in Doncaster (he lives in York) so i got to see a decent amount of Yorkshire which I really liked. Being from the southern US I felt an affinity with the north of England. We are both looked down upon by our "betters" (!!!) from the other half.
Went to Manchester and Liverpool for a day. Went to an exhibition in Birmingham and would like to visit what was once the heart of the British textile industry in your part of the world though sadly it is long gone along with the BLACKBURN WORKS where so many magic valves were manufactured. I bought some of those weird 12AX7s those folks tried to revive themselves with, TECH TUBE I think it was. I would never sell them. I love to show them to folks and watch them look at the things wondering WHAT IS THIS?
Love your country. Wish I could afford to visit there often. There is so much left to see ...
I have no idea what those initials you wrote stand for, I know next to nothing about the professional end of the business. When I read Cobham I think of Billy Cobham!
So, any details of what you are doing that can be revealed?
Take care,
And do you believe that a ripped file that is confirmed to be a bit-perfect rip (using something like the accurip database) can sound different than another equally bit-perfect rip of the same CD?
There are plenty of folks who report a copy of a CD sounds better than the original.
All I am saying, and as you well know I have said it before, there are many who think that all spurious noises can affect the sound of digital.
Just counting the numbers is not enough.
How about those early MERDIAN CD players that kept count of errors the number of errors would rise with each playing of the disk. I am not saying this is the same phenomenon but it is an unexplained phenomenon just like what I have found with the cd ripper.
All I can figure is that creating as little noise within the environment that the CD is ripped within could be the reason? I do not know the cause. I can only tell you what hear. And since these CDs were then placed on SD cards and the fact that I had retained the earlier rips on other cards it was simple to go back and forth to hear the difference.
It is not a tonal sound quality improvement - it allows a large reduction in digital noise. The most annoying thing about digital music . The noise is pervasive - not like pops and clicks from the LP which are easy to learn to ignore. this noise is within everything you are hearing. It is what makes most LP partisans unable to enjoy digital music for extended periods. The sound with the noise is initially more exciting, but like all additions of "excitement" the ear figures it out and asks that you try something else.
It is immediately apparent on my setup.
I could email you the OS and you can install it on a machine.. it is not simple to do this but it is far from difficult. More time consuming than anything else. Would take about 30 minutes the first time unless you have used SNAPSHOT to place an OS on a drive it had not resided on previously and you could move quickly then. I do think the computer hardware makes a difference. I do not think you would get the same result on a system for gaming. The simpler the better. Then you could know for yourself and, of course, I would be interested in hearing your appraisal.
I am using the POWERFLOWER ATX supply which gets nice things said about it, can't remember the model #. The CPU is the low power version of the i4130. It is powered by a big OTPIMA battery which is float charged with a BELLESON regulator at 12 volts. The drives are powered by float charged A123 26650s. When I used a computer for playback all power was supplied by float charged batteries. I would like to try that with this setup and will eventually. Everything that can be turned off in BIOS is turned off. One core, only, is used. 800 mHz for CPU and memory. All voltages are set as low as possible and not affect the operation of the OS. This turns out to be as low as the BIOS will allow.
If you had heard what the minimized OS did for cPLAY you would better understand my motivation to try it. I am surprised I had not tried it before but wanted it NOT to make a difference. Many hours went into finding out what was needed to make this. It is not the project of one evening's work but it is a fun puzzle. WINDOWS is really pretty neat in its modularity and I think the basic components of XP are very good. The problem was when they tacked on so many things that were not envisioned at the time the original thing was laid out. This install is completely stable. It has never shut down. But then it is hardly doing anything.
A minimized OS being quieter than a full OS is not something I came up with.
There were many folks who did this during the reign of cMP and the difference was heard.
Just my experience. If it is taken that I am encouraging people to try this, well, there is an aspect of that but the reason would be for collaboration and verification if there is something to it. There are no promises made and I have no control over what is used in conjunction with the OS and have no idea what those effects could be since I have only used one motherboard.
Hope that disclaimer is satisfactory.
All I am saying, and as you well know I have said it before, there are many who think that all spurious noises can affect the sound of digital.
Just counting the numbers is not enough.
How about those early MERDIAN CD players that kept count of errors the number of errors would rise with each playing of the disk. I am not saying this is the same phenomenon but it is an unexplained phenomenon just like what I have found with the cd ripper.
All I can figure is that creating as little noise within the environment that the CD is ripped within could be the reason? I do not know the cause. I can only tell you what hear. And since these CDs were then placed on SD cards and the fact that I had retained the earlier rips on other cards it was simple to go back and forth to hear the difference.
It is not a tonal sound quality improvement - it allows a large reduction in digital noise. The most annoying thing about digital music . The noise is pervasive - not like pops and clicks from the LP which are easy to learn to ignore. this noise is within everything you are hearing. It is what makes most LP partisans unable to enjoy digital music for extended periods. The sound with the noise is initially more exciting, but like all additions of "excitement" the ear figures it out and asks that you try something else.
It is immediately apparent on my setup.
I could email you the OS and you can install it on a machine.. it is not simple to do this but it is far from difficult. More time consuming than anything else. Would take about 30 minutes the first time unless you have used SNAPSHOT to place an OS on a drive it had not resided on previously and you could move quickly then. I do think the computer hardware makes a difference. I do not think you would get the same result on a system for gaming. The simpler the better. Then you could know for yourself and, of course, I would be interested in hearing your appraisal.
I am using the POWERFLOWER ATX supply which gets nice things said about it, can't remember the model #. The CPU is the low power version of the i4130. It is powered by a big OTPIMA battery which is float charged with a BELLESON regulator at 12 volts. The drives are powered by float charged A123 26650s. When I used a computer for playback all power was supplied by float charged batteries. I would like to try that with this setup and will eventually. Everything that can be turned off in BIOS is turned off. One core, only, is used. 800 mHz for CPU and memory. All voltages are set as low as possible and not affect the operation of the OS. This turns out to be as low as the BIOS will allow.
If you had heard what the minimized OS did for cPLAY you would better understand my motivation to try it. I am surprised I had not tried it before but wanted it NOT to make a difference. Many hours went into finding out what was needed to make this. It is not the project of one evening's work but it is a fun puzzle. WINDOWS is really pretty neat in its modularity and I think the basic components of XP are very good. The problem was when they tacked on so many things that were not envisioned at the time the original thing was laid out. This install is completely stable. It has never shut down. But then it is hardly doing anything.
A minimized OS being quieter than a full OS is not something I came up with.
There were many folks who did this during the reign of cMP and the difference was heard.
Just my experience. If it is taken that I am encouraging people to try this, well, there is an aspect of that but the reason would be for collaboration and verification if there is something to it. There are no promises made and I have no control over what is used in conjunction with the OS and have no idea what those effects could be since I have only used one motherboard.
Hope that disclaimer is satisfactory.
What kind of engineer are you?
Julf and Marce,
I say there are two kinds of engineers in the world ...
The first who know they know everything and spend their time trying to prove that to all while telling the 'unwashed masses' that they don't know anything.
The second who know they don't know everything and when confronted with something that does not match what they know, they say "that's interesting", listen to those talking, try it themselves with open minds and ears, and when they hear a difference, they use their knowledge to investigate the causes and develop solutions.
Those second are exemplified by the engineers at PS Audio, Sonore, Uptone Audio, Chord, Schitt, iFi, Wyred4Sound, and a number of other very high-end companies.
I offer the example of John Swenson. His day job is designing the power networks inside of the chips used in high-end servers, such as run our internet and the Cloud. BTW, you don't do that at a senior level like John without some serious electical engineering knowledge and experience... he IS the real deal!
For fun (and a little beer money), he develops ground-breaking audio equipment, often for his own system, but in the last few years as products. His products include the Bottlehead DAC, the Uptone Audio JS-2 power supply and Regen, and the recently release Sonore uRendu, which appears to be setting a new standard in network attached audio players with a USB output. During his work on the Bottlehead DAC, John identified a number of phenomena that explained a number of issues many heard in USB-output computer audio and many tried to correct with various tricks such as expensive and often not terribly effective USB cables. Then he developed the techniques used in his Regen (and included in the uRendu) to address and resolve these issues. His work in this area has spawned a number of similar, but not really 'me-too' products from iFi, Wyred4Sound, Audioquest, and others. He developed actual engineered solutions to problems many experienced, but the first kind of engineer said could not exist!
Two great examples of his examination of situations where many have reported differences and the first kind of engineer would say "this are bit-perfect systems and there are no audible differences" can be found in these two postings of John's. The first is a discussion of why isolation and reclocking does not make downstream DACs immune from the effects of upstream issues and can be found here:
Uptone Audio Regen - Page 7
In the second John discusses what drove the design of the uRendu (and also the Regen, whose technology is included in the uRendu). This post can be found here:
Article: Sonore microRendu Review, Part 1 - Page 4
So the second kind of engineer listens to what others are saying, tries it, investigates, and develops solutions, often ground-breaking ones that advance the art of audio.
The first? They spend their time cluttering threads like this with useless and off-topic posts trying to show how much they know and how little others know while blatently saying "you can't be hearing what you say, you must be lying to yourself or to us!".
You have made your point that you think you know everything and noone else does. But until you try it yourself, your "opinion" has little validity and doesn't add anything, here, or anywhere else you go to try and prove how much you know and how little others know.
FLAME SUIT ON!
Greg in Mississippi
P.S. If you search the archives, you will find that John Swenson used to post on DIYAudio a bit, providing some useful information. He stopped because of the onslaught of useless posts like these in response to his comments. Makes one wonder....
P.P.S. I have known for much of my life and currently work in the aviation and aerospace industry with an engineer similar to John Swenson. He is not afraid to say "That's interesting", try something new and different, and come up with a new design or patent. We need more like John and him.
Julf and Marce,
I say there are two kinds of engineers in the world ...
The first who know they know everything and spend their time trying to prove that to all while telling the 'unwashed masses' that they don't know anything.
The second who know they don't know everything and when confronted with something that does not match what they know, they say "that's interesting", listen to those talking, try it themselves with open minds and ears, and when they hear a difference, they use their knowledge to investigate the causes and develop solutions.
Those second are exemplified by the engineers at PS Audio, Sonore, Uptone Audio, Chord, Schitt, iFi, Wyred4Sound, and a number of other very high-end companies.
I offer the example of John Swenson. His day job is designing the power networks inside of the chips used in high-end servers, such as run our internet and the Cloud. BTW, you don't do that at a senior level like John without some serious electical engineering knowledge and experience... he IS the real deal!
For fun (and a little beer money), he develops ground-breaking audio equipment, often for his own system, but in the last few years as products. His products include the Bottlehead DAC, the Uptone Audio JS-2 power supply and Regen, and the recently release Sonore uRendu, which appears to be setting a new standard in network attached audio players with a USB output. During his work on the Bottlehead DAC, John identified a number of phenomena that explained a number of issues many heard in USB-output computer audio and many tried to correct with various tricks such as expensive and often not terribly effective USB cables. Then he developed the techniques used in his Regen (and included in the uRendu) to address and resolve these issues. His work in this area has spawned a number of similar, but not really 'me-too' products from iFi, Wyred4Sound, Audioquest, and others. He developed actual engineered solutions to problems many experienced, but the first kind of engineer said could not exist!
Two great examples of his examination of situations where many have reported differences and the first kind of engineer would say "this are bit-perfect systems and there are no audible differences" can be found in these two postings of John's. The first is a discussion of why isolation and reclocking does not make downstream DACs immune from the effects of upstream issues and can be found here:
Uptone Audio Regen - Page 7
In the second John discusses what drove the design of the uRendu (and also the Regen, whose technology is included in the uRendu). This post can be found here:
Article: Sonore microRendu Review, Part 1 - Page 4
So the second kind of engineer listens to what others are saying, tries it, investigates, and develops solutions, often ground-breaking ones that advance the art of audio.
The first? They spend their time cluttering threads like this with useless and off-topic posts trying to show how much they know and how little others know while blatently saying "you can't be hearing what you say, you must be lying to yourself or to us!".
You have made your point that you think you know everything and noone else does. But until you try it yourself, your "opinion" has little validity and doesn't add anything, here, or anywhere else you go to try and prove how much you know and how little others know.
FLAME SUIT ON!
Greg in Mississippi
P.S. If you search the archives, you will find that John Swenson used to post on DIYAudio a bit, providing some useful information. He stopped because of the onslaught of useless posts like these in response to his comments. Makes one wonder....
P.P.S. I have known for much of my life and currently work in the aviation and aerospace industry with an engineer similar to John Swenson. He is not afraid to say "That's interesting", try something new and different, and come up with a new design or patent. We need more like John and him.
Great examples of stuff that contains supposedly "secret sauce" that John refuses to reveal (if he had patented it, the patent would actually be public and there would not be any need to hide the details as has been done in the CA advertorial), and I can understand why - even John Atkinson from Stereophile, who is not really known for fighting pseudoscience, concludes that the Regen actually degrades the sound slightly by adding some power supply noise, but can definitely cause audible differences by confusing the audio drivers and forcing the software to downsample to 44.1 kHz:
Stereophile: Uptone Audio Regen Measurements
I am sure you have heard the maxim “Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out”?
It has no bearing on what I have said wots so ever, I am a professional PCB design engineer and have many years of experience in doing both sensitive analogue and digital layout... If you don't want to listen to my advice that is your prerogative but what I listen to and on what has NO bearing on the advice I give.
My points of view are from years of learning and study, a never ending task with electronics, I have over 5G of data, white papers design guides etc covering all aspects of layout and techniques for signal and power integrity, I use these add-ons as well...
CADSTAR PCB Analysis and Verification | Zuken
The projects I work on are often quite complex life and mission critical so a failure would be critical, every design I have done is tested and quantified and has been for 30+ years and over that time I have picked up a lot of knowledge and experience....
As to music preference, I have none I just love music be it the latest pop song or some caterwauling Puccini opera.....
If you search in the "curvy chang" thread and the pictures of "OB speakers" you will find pictures of my various systems well speakers.... again not that it makes any difference to my advice...
Last edited:
LOL all audio companies... Well glad I know everything....
I have given good advice that is easily checked up, unlike your advice. Wow cutting edge Audio companies...
The Uptone Regen is a basic USB hub, using a standard USB hub IC (I posted what device it was on another thread) nothing special there done numerous layouts for such devices. Of course the projects I have worked on are not as cutting edge as audio so obviously my advice is to be ignored...
Just because I said it was wrong to remove the decoupling caps from a digital design you have spat your dummy out instead of providing some evidence as to why it is good practice and why it benefits the design, it shows a total lack of understanding of what happens when digital ICs (and analogue) switch from one state to another and what is required to get the best signal integrity, minimise noise and thus get the best possible sound.
Audio companies are high end!!!
WHAT I SPEND MY DAY DOING..... LOL
One project where I was responsible for the rigid and flexi rigid PCBs... 4+ years of my life on this project...
http://www.northropgrumman.com/capabilities/anvic5/documents/vic5.pdf
Oh I also worked on and off for 4 years with Racal Acoustics on the noise cancelling headphones and related systems... Now you may think its simple audio.. No it has to have the best fidelity possible so commands can be understood in noisy critical situations so sound quality is paramount.
Many more like that... Such as NGNPP that I work on here and there.
Last edited:
Indeed. There are the ones who understand and apply the scientific method, and the ones that don't. The latter usually work in sales, marketing or customer support - or drive trains (in the US).
Should have asked for advice, for some designs we have created isolation barriers that work up to 18GHz and solve all the issues he is going on about, posted a few hints and ideas on how to do this on the Jitterbug thread on here. This is often a requirement for many designs as noise getting in (or out) could be catastrophic... I think Mr Swenson's comments are tailored towards the audience and also he has to promote the things he works on and Superdad has to sell...
Real-time replay of a CD is a completely different issue from what we are discussing here. Old-fashioned and primitive CD players are not always able to correct read errors "on the fly" (unlike computers and modern CD players that do pre-buffered reads and, if needed, can re-try reading the blocks, just like a computer).
Yes, spurious noises can cause read errors - but it is very rare these days, and that is why decent ripper programs check the rip both by doing multiple reads and comparing the results (thus completely eliminating the effect of any spurious noise) and compare the whole track against a checksum in the accurip database, thus ensuring a perfect read.
From that point on, the music is stored as symbols that are immune to noise (just like the meaning of the numbers on your pay check don't really change depending on the font style or quality of paper), until they hit the DAC, where analog noise again becomes an issue.
The CD player read errors are not "unexplained" in any way, and as described above, are irrelevant once you have verified your rip.
And i have suggested a very, very simple test that would take maybe 30 seconds using a bitwise compare program.
As you know, the digital audio consists of 16 or 24-bit words that represent a sample of the audio waveform for each sample point in time, with the sample intervals being a constant 1/441000 s, 1/96000 s etc.
So here is one sample from the left channel from the middle of an 96k/24 audio file:
0010 1011 0101 1111 1001 1000
So where, in that sequence of symbols, would the noise show up if none of the "0"'s and "1"s change?
Unfortunately I don't have a spare computer for that, and I am sure a windows virtual machine running under linux wouldn't fulfil your requirements. But instead I suggest two simple tests you can do very easily:
First test:
1) rip a CD using your optimized setup
2) rip the same CD using the simplest, cheapest computer setup you can find, but using a ripper program that verifies the result using the accurip database
3) verify, using a bit compare program, that the result is the same
4) label the tracks of the first rip "A1", "A2", "A3" etc, and the tracks of the second rip "B1", B2", "B3" etc.
5) while you are out of the room, have a friend go through the tracks, and make a copy of each track, randomly selecting either an "A" track or a "B" track and naming the copies "X1", "X2", X3" etc, and write down which copy came from which source.
6) listen as many times, and as long as you want, to the tracks, and write down if you think each "X" track sounds like the "A" track or the "B" track. Share the tracks with friends and ask them to do the same.
7) when you (and your friends) have written down their opinions, compare them to the list of sources your first friend wrote down.
Second test:
Take an audio file. Make a script that copies the file first to another hard disk, then from there to an USB stick, then from there over a network to a file server, then from there to some old, crappy magnetic media such as floppy disk. Have the script do this 10.000 times. Then compare the result to the original.
I can tell what my own experiences have been. I haver ripped something like 1200 CDs. I am using a general purpose desktop computer running linux, that also does a lot of other stuff at the same time it is doing the ripping. I do use a ripper program (morituri) that both does multiple reads and does a compare with the accurip database.
During the last 4 years or so I haven't had a single CD that I haven't been able to rip totally error-free (the only problems have been copy-protected CD's and CD's with extra non-audio material, and with those, the rip fails completely).
The only CDs I haven't been able to rip error free have been old, scratched CD's, and in those cases the ripping program has reported the issues very clearly.
Then I am sure you are more than happy to do the experiments I described above.
Julf,
If you are happy with your setup then what is there to discuss?
I do not understand why we went through this again.
I have offered the thing to you to try. You obviously have no curiosity to try it.
I have found this to work better. You know I have no fancy instruments to prove my point. I doubt there is a measuring scheme that would reveal what is happening but that is beside the point.
I am using my ears for comparison. AS I said numerous times I have the same recordings ripped on the old way similar to yours though I would not run other programs while ripping and with the minimized OS and the difference is immediately audible. I would think this is about as conclusive as one can get. Check sums are ONE aspect not the whole thing.
I think you should find something else to go on about.
If you are happy with your setup then what is there to discuss?
I do not understand why we went through this again.
I have offered the thing to you to try. You obviously have no curiosity to try it.
I have found this to work better. You know I have no fancy instruments to prove my point. I doubt there is a measuring scheme that would reveal what is happening but that is beside the point.
I am using my ears for comparison. AS I said numerous times I have the same recordings ripped on the old way similar to yours though I would not run other programs while ripping and with the minimized OS and the difference is immediately audible. I would think this is about as conclusive as one can get. Check sums are ONE aspect not the whole thing.
I think you should find something else to go on about.
Last edited:
Because I am curious about the effect you describe, and suspect the explanation you suggest is not correct - but I am of course fully aware of the fact that I might be wrong. Thus I want to understand exactly what it is you are describing, and on what points we actually disagree.
And I have explained why that is difficult for me to do, while suggesting some much easier experiments you could do.
And as I have stated before, no fancy instruments (or any instruments at all) are needed.
So you are not even curious enough to verify the checksums?
Just to be sure I understand your viewpoint, I hope you could clarify a couple of things.
If we look at the chain from CD to speaker, we can, for the sake simplicity split it up into 3 components - ripping (reading the data from the CD into a file), storage/transmission (where the ripped file is moved to disk, over the network, onto a SD card etc.) and playing (where the file is converted into an analog waveform, amplified and fed to a speaker).
Let's start with the simplest of those, storage and transmission. Do you agree that once the audio data has been ripped in an error-free way, there is no change to the audio data, no matter how much it is copied or sent over the network? Do you also agree that two files with the same checksum are extremely unlikely to contain different data?
Next, playing - do you agree that two files containing absolutely identical data will sound the same, independent of how the data happened to be transferred to the files?
As to ripping, do you agree that if the ripping operation transfers the actual data off the CD without errors, and the audio content of the resulting file contains exactly the same data as was written to the CD, the way the ripping was done has no impact on sound quality, as there is nowhere for the noise or distortion to "hide" in the file?
Julf,
I obviously do not agree with your assertions.
My experience, and that is all I have, tells me there is more at work than simple addition.
I share a preference for logical explanations but sometimes things happen that require additional information to be explained logically and until those tools are available we have to grope through the "unknown".
SO, I have tried ripping CDs both ways - I, too, have used morituri with UBUNTU and dBpoweramp with full installs of XP, 8.1 and 10 tech preview. I was satisfied with these rips. randytsuch made a comment about how lax we are with ripping (he, too, has recently got a SDTrans) and I told him I had had the same suspicions so that got me to work on the thing based upon nothing more than my previous experiences.
It would seem simple for you to try the thing yourself than ask me all of these questions. I have performed the most important experiment, the only one that matters for me, the CDs ripped with this thing sound better than the ones I ripped nonchalantly. I have both versions available and I have compared them numerous times.
If you would like to objectify what is happening I would be thrilled. That is your place in the world since you are trained to do such things. I am one who enjoys listening to music and this motivates me to find things to improve the experience. I make no claims to being anything more than a tinkerer. My instruments are my ears and brain.
I suspect there is nothing statistically surprising about the check sums of the early rips and the new ones so what does that tell us? Nothing more than that.
Tell me again how to find these check sums - if it is easy I am glad to do it but I assert that is not what matters. How much difference in the check sums would be required for there to be sonic consequences? I thought the error correction schemes would take care of that, anyway.
There is just as much likelihood there is something else going on here than not. Is it less need for error correction? I have no idea.
I obviously do not agree with your assertions.
My experience, and that is all I have, tells me there is more at work than simple addition.
I share a preference for logical explanations but sometimes things happen that require additional information to be explained logically and until those tools are available we have to grope through the "unknown".
SO, I have tried ripping CDs both ways - I, too, have used morituri with UBUNTU and dBpoweramp with full installs of XP, 8.1 and 10 tech preview. I was satisfied with these rips. randytsuch made a comment about how lax we are with ripping (he, too, has recently got a SDTrans) and I told him I had had the same suspicions so that got me to work on the thing based upon nothing more than my previous experiences.
It would seem simple for you to try the thing yourself than ask me all of these questions. I have performed the most important experiment, the only one that matters for me, the CDs ripped with this thing sound better than the ones I ripped nonchalantly. I have both versions available and I have compared them numerous times.
If you would like to objectify what is happening I would be thrilled. That is your place in the world since you are trained to do such things. I am one who enjoys listening to music and this motivates me to find things to improve the experience. I make no claims to being anything more than a tinkerer. My instruments are my ears and brain.
I suspect there is nothing statistically surprising about the check sums of the early rips and the new ones so what does that tell us? Nothing more than that.
Tell me again how to find these check sums - if it is easy I am glad to do it but I assert that is not what matters. How much difference in the check sums would be required for there to be sonic consequences? I thought the error correction schemes would take care of that, anyway.
There is just as much likelihood there is something else going on here than not. Is it less need for error correction? I have no idea.
None of them?
And I have explained some very simple experiments you could perform. Why are you so unwilling to do them? To me it seems like someone who sees the Loch Ness monster, but can't bother to take a picture.
And I assume you don't consider confirmation bias / placebo effect a possible explanation - or even one worth ruling out?
Probably the easiest way is using Exact Audio Copy (EAC) that has a "compare just the audio contents of two files" function.
So you agree that if the rip doesn't produce errors, the resulting file is a bit-perfect copy of the CD?
Hi, marce. Actually it does matter as DIY high end audio is not a mission critical project (sorry for comparison, I am not beeing sarcastic) but rather something that might require compromises (from common practice point of view) to achieve the best SQ. Sometimes, for example, at expense of circuit stability and often greatly sacrificing conveniency of operation. And you are right when you say (or mean) that certain solutions are not acceptable. You are right if you see this in the context of professional or commercial product that must comply with regulations, certifications, specs, etc. In DIY we do not have these limitations. We are not selling anything to anybody. Just share what works and what does not in our systems.
That's why the most important aspect of this discussion, from my point of view, is the mind set. And I asked you the question about your system and music preferences to see where you are and if you are one of these guys that tweak their systems. You already know the answer.
I should admit, that I actually like you questioning certain things as it puts it in different light and make me question what I believe in and double check it. Why I like it - because its the way to make things better.
formatcd3,
I think you put the "disagreement" succinctly.
What we do to our audio gear is not something we would do to gear we make our livings with. Reliability is among a professional designer's most important goals. Most of us have some kind of back up (as if professional setups don't have back ups, also) but the time it takes to change stuff out in a studio/giant PA/etc is critical and usually unacceptable where for us audio kooks it is not a big deal.
None of us are suggesting these ideas for the professional world. It is simply to try and evaluate, can you hear a difference at all?, it is fun in a serious kind of way.
When I was eighteen I would do similar things to my car - I would never do that now. I need the thing to work whenever I ask it to.
So there is no lack of respect or appreciation for the work you fellows do and there is no question you know stuff we will never know. If it wan't for folks like you we would have nothing to play with. No chance I would ever come up with the SOEKRIS DAC. But that does not mean it is perfectly realized as it comes from the factory. I think the bristling comes about when there is the impression that whatever the tinkerer comes up with or talks about is ALWAYS nonsense.
The manufacturer has to find the right spot where the sales will justify the production expense. The manufacturer knows they cannot please everyone and certainly would go out of business trying to please people like me. And if they did make something that pleased me I probably could not afford it!
Many of us get into the evolution approach. You buy something that has the basics right and then as time goes by you can gild it. Let's face it, if something sounds better to you even if it doesn't really, what's wrong with that? The problem is time tells the tale. I try to listen to something for a week or two before getting too excited about it and say something.
Which brings me to julf and his tests. I will eventually give those things you suggest a try. Since UBUNTU is what my home machine runs I would prefer a "checksummer" that worked with LINUX if you could suggest one.
But if I find that the sums are the same for both approaches I don't think that is going to make my new rips sound the same as the old ones. There is more to it that the checksum.
If I was twenty years younger I would be unsure of my abilities to listen without bias but at this point I can handle failure. I know I am hearing a much cleaner presentation - like I keep saying - this is not so much about tonality (though there is more "there" in the midbass) but a vastly cleaner window. It is like a sonic version of the TV fuzz HBO uses for their logo during the beginning of their own shows (only one I watch is GAME OF THROWNS (spelled wrong on purpose)) has been removed.
I thought I had become good at hearing digital noise but must admit I did not detect this being there until it was gone - it is like a fuzzy scrim a foot or two in front of the loudspeakers when I go back to the old rips for comparison. Maybe not everyone is sensitive to this stuff and I do not think many people are until they sensitize themselves to it. Is that crazy? Well, it might be considered slightly masochistic but then it is akin to the folks who divine all kinds of flavors out of wine and scotch, etc. I drink to get a buzz not a tasting experience so we all have our hobbies that require attaining a sensitivity in order to experience something that is important to us as fully as possible.
Good thing DIYAudio doesn't charge me by the word.
I think you put the "disagreement" succinctly.
What we do to our audio gear is not something we would do to gear we make our livings with. Reliability is among a professional designer's most important goals. Most of us have some kind of back up (as if professional setups don't have back ups, also) but the time it takes to change stuff out in a studio/giant PA/etc is critical and usually unacceptable where for us audio kooks it is not a big deal.
None of us are suggesting these ideas for the professional world. It is simply to try and evaluate, can you hear a difference at all?, it is fun in a serious kind of way.
When I was eighteen I would do similar things to my car - I would never do that now. I need the thing to work whenever I ask it to.
So there is no lack of respect or appreciation for the work you fellows do and there is no question you know stuff we will never know. If it wan't for folks like you we would have nothing to play with. No chance I would ever come up with the SOEKRIS DAC. But that does not mean it is perfectly realized as it comes from the factory. I think the bristling comes about when there is the impression that whatever the tinkerer comes up with or talks about is ALWAYS nonsense.
The manufacturer has to find the right spot where the sales will justify the production expense. The manufacturer knows they cannot please everyone and certainly would go out of business trying to please people like me. And if they did make something that pleased me I probably could not afford it!
Many of us get into the evolution approach. You buy something that has the basics right and then as time goes by you can gild it. Let's face it, if something sounds better to you even if it doesn't really, what's wrong with that? The problem is time tells the tale. I try to listen to something for a week or two before getting too excited about it and say something.
Which brings me to julf and his tests. I will eventually give those things you suggest a try. Since UBUNTU is what my home machine runs I would prefer a "checksummer" that worked with LINUX if you could suggest one.
But if I find that the sums are the same for both approaches I don't think that is going to make my new rips sound the same as the old ones. There is more to it that the checksum.
If I was twenty years younger I would be unsure of my abilities to listen without bias but at this point I can handle failure. I know I am hearing a much cleaner presentation - like I keep saying - this is not so much about tonality (though there is more "there" in the midbass) but a vastly cleaner window. It is like a sonic version of the TV fuzz HBO uses for their logo during the beginning of their own shows (only one I watch is GAME OF THROWNS (spelled wrong on purpose)) has been removed.
I thought I had become good at hearing digital noise but must admit I did not detect this being there until it was gone - it is like a fuzzy scrim a foot or two in front of the loudspeakers when I go back to the old rips for comparison. Maybe not everyone is sensitive to this stuff and I do not think many people are until they sensitize themselves to it. Is that crazy? Well, it might be considered slightly masochistic but then it is akin to the folks who divine all kinds of flavors out of wine and scotch, etc. I drink to get a buzz not a tasting experience so we all have our hobbies that require attaining a sensitivity in order to experience something that is important to us as fully as possible.
Good thing DIYAudio doesn't charge me by the word.
Glad to hear, as I am mostly Ubuntu-based too. What I use is "flac" to convert the files to pure PCM WAV files, and then good old "cmp" to compare the files.
Glad you have an open mind.
Please explain why you don't think the checksum is sufficient...
And have you tested your abilities with double-blind listening tests?
Rick, the legit question here is that you're making claims that by most Bayesian analyses would be considered extremely improbable just off priors. Or there's something else going on that isn't getting described. Digital works so well because it IS so noise resistant. A copy of sedra/Smith elucidates this well in a readily digestible fashion (input output curves).
I'd hope you could understand how others would be unwilling to take your impressions at your word, given the unreliability of unblinded human perception and that the mods you're describing go against a very large body of digital best practices. Best practices that were very hard learned and, in such a mainstream practice as this, sounds not be ignored.
Battery power can do some awesome things wrt low level analog, but more in EUVL'S sen/cen application where you need that floating potential.
I appreciate you're frustrated with many of the late posts, but it's best to step back and ask if you're arguing with their content or their effect on your beliefs. Kinda goes to the saying "in God we trust, everyone else being data".
I'd hope you could understand how others would be unwilling to take your impressions at your word, given the unreliability of unblinded human perception and that the mods you're describing go against a very large body of digital best practices. Best practices that were very hard learned and, in such a mainstream practice as this, sounds not be ignored.
Battery power can do some awesome things wrt low level analog, but more in EUVL'S sen/cen application where you need that floating potential.
I appreciate you're frustrated with many of the late posts, but it's best to step back and ask if you're arguing with their content or their effect on your beliefs. Kinda goes to the saying "in God we trust, everyone else being data".