HDD vs Flash Drive - Ripping and Playback (Split)

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
We're talking about the contents of digital files here after they've been transferred from the semi-analogue mechanical recovery system that is CD. A zero is a zero, and a one is a one. You can't have different 'flavours' of noughts and ones. If a bit-compare shows that two files have noughts and ones in all the same places, they're identical.

There's a perfectly good ABX comparator tool available for Foobar2000, and I for one refuse to take anyone's claims of audible disparity with any seriousness unless they can take two lossless files, say, a WAV and a FLAC of the same file which they claim sound different and scientifically prove that they can hear a difference.
 
Last edited:
We're talking about the contents of digital files here after they've been transferred from the semi-analogue mechanical recovery system that is CD. A zero is a zero, and a one is a one. You can't have different 'flavours' of noughts and ones. If a bit-compare shows that two files have noughts and ones in all the same places, they're identical.


But I think you fail to appreciate how that 0 or 1 is represented & read i.e the low level detail of what goes on - it's an analogue process. I'm no expert but my simple understanding is as follows: If you look at the signal a DAC receives - it consists of square waves but these aren't perfectly square so there's a time for the wave to rise from low to high (or fall from high to low). At a certain point on the slope of this rising wave a 0 or 1 is triggered. This depends on the ground reference & PS reference being unchanged between one transition & the next. This is a source of jitter, AFAIK. You can see this is an analogue process & nothing magical (or digital about it)
 
We're talking about the contents of digital files here after they've been transferred from the semi-analogue mechanical recovery system that is CD. A zero is a zero, and a one is a one. You can't have different 'flavours' of noughts and ones. If a bit-compare shows that two files have noughts and ones in all the same places, they're identical.

There's a perfectly good ABX comparator tool available for Foobar2000, and I for one refuse to take anyone's claims of audible disparity with any seriousness unless they can take two lossless files, say, a WAV and a FLAC of the same file which they claim sound different and scientifically prove that they can hear a difference.

LOL.........:rofl:.......................................... :cheers:
 
A large chunk of posts was culled earlier as things got a little too heated in this thread, but the point being made was that there is no clock inside the file itself to lead to jitter-induced errors, therefore, the file is identical when a digital copy or digital losslessly compressed copy of that file is generated. That all takes place in a purely digital domain where noughts are always noughts, and ones are always ones.

Whether or not something else comes along to break it later is another matter entirely, and whether or not that 'something' happens to be format specific is also another matter, although there is no substitute for a controlled listening test to determine whether this 'something' has an audible affect in the real world or whether the listener is suffering from placebo effect.

I can't speak for everyone else around here, but I think it's safe to assume that most of us listen with our ears. If a controlled listening test tells me that I can or can't hear a difference, then I'm perfectly happy to accept that I either can or can't.
 
Last edited:
A large chunk of posts was culled earlier as things got a little too heated in this thread, but the point being made was that there is no clock inside the file itself to lead to jitter-induced errors, therefore, the file is identical when a digital copy or digital losslessly compressed copy of that file is generated. That all takes place in a purely digital domain where noughts are always noughts, and ones are always ones.

Whether or not something else comes along to break it later is another matter entirely, and whether or not that 'something' happens to be format specific is also another matter, although there is no substitute for a controlled listening test to determine whether this 'something' has an audible affect in the real world or whether the listener is suffering from placebo effect.

Have you ever had a CD that can be read on one PC but not on another? How can you explain this if 1s are always 1s & 0s always 0s ie.e purely digital?
 
Have you ever had a CD that can be read on one PC but not on another? How can you explain this if 1s are always 1s & 0s always 0s ie.e purely digital?
Yes, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with what happens to the data after the information has been recovered from the CD and replicated again in the entirely digital domain. That is exactly what I said in my previous post if you go back and read it again.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with what happens to the data after the information has been recovered from the CD and replicated again in the entirely digital domain. That is exactly what I said in my previous post if you go back and read it again.

So if you accept this then you accept that these "digital" bits are in fact within a an agreed tolerance i.e a one is somewhere between 1.60V & 1.70V let's say. But if a particular bit is on the outer threshold of this range maybe the some CD readers won't be able to read it. Agreed?

Now how is the signal passed along the signal path inside a computer (after it has been successfully read off disk)? There is also an agreed threshold for the signal all along the pathway (into buffer, out of buffer, etc) The same issues could arise in this situation as in the CD example, no?
 
Lest there be any mistake, the assertion has been made that files with identical checksums sound different.

That a file directly recorded to a solid-state memory can be intrinsically and audibly superior to one recorded to a rotating hard disk, even though the checksums tally.

This is, of course, impossible, within the constraints that multiple errors could conceivably contrive to create a recorded track different in content but having the same checksum. This is unlikely to the point that no-one has even suggested it as a possibility. In all probability those who believe such an effect possible do not even understand checksums to this limited degree, or they, rather than I would be the ones raising it.

Whether you know it or not, the nature of digital recording is such that nothing in the file could contribute to such an audible difference. I don't intend to argue this point with you, you can enlighten yourselves as you please. You quite simply cannot win this particular argument. That's not the way digital recording works. I could make a copy by writing it out longhand and typing it back into the computer, it'll still be the same information.

I like to be careful, and you'll often find me resorting to 'extremely unlikely', or 'highly improbable', when talking about technical matters, in this case however, we're talking about something entirely defined, so in this case I'm perfectly happy to use the word IMPOSSIBLE.

It's a big problem for all of you who are convinced that it is the case. Of course for me, it's a present. It just gives me ammunition. You know what for.

Until you understand this, you're at a disadvantage. You don't know how the system works. When you understand it, you will no longer cling to the idea that files with identical checksums can sound different. In fact, it's a kind of proof that you do understand it.

If you went for an exam in digital audio, and you were asked if identical files with identical checksums could sound different, then the correct and only answer would be no. If you answered anything else you would rightfully fail that section of the exam. It's not just a maybe issue. It's 100% cut and dried.

The problem is that you have overstepped the mark. It's gone up the flagpole, but there aren't a lot of salutes forthcoming. Even Jonah's whale couldn't swallow this one.

In many instances the evidence in audio is equivocal. This means that arguments can persist for a long time without resolution. In this case, however, there is no room for an iota of doubt. Files are functionally identical, or they are not. They can't have the same checksum and sound different. Anybody arguing that they can doesn't understand digital recording and isn't qualified to hold an opinion.

In this case you will not find significant support from anyone who understands how the equipment works or anybody with a grain of commonsense and the capacity to give a reasoned argument the attention of a flea. It's one for the 'I'll believe anything as long as it's not the truth' merchants.

If I were you, I'd get off this particular bandwagon, it's going nowhere.

w
 
So if you accept this then you accept that these "digital" bits are in fact within a an agreed tolerance i.e a one is somewhere between 1.60V & 1.70V let's say. But if a particular bit is on the outer threshold of this range maybe the some CD readers won't be able to read it. Agreed?
Yes. Noughts and ones may be incorrectly interpreted at this stage.

Now how is the signal passed along the signal path inside a computer (after it has been successfully read off disk)? There is also an agreed threshold for the signal all along the pathway (into buffer, out of buffer, etc) The same issues could arise in this situation as in the CD example, no?
No, because once the bit has been determined as being a nought or a one, it is stored in RAM as being a nought or a one. It is then transferred to a digital file on the hard disc, USB thumb drive, portable media player, etc, as being definite noughts and ones that will be perfectly replicated every single time they move to another electronic storage medium.

I think you're missing the point here. Nobody has said that the audio data read from a CD can ever be guaranteed to be bit-perfect, but all stages after the nought and one states have been determined (either correctly or incorrectly) and passed on to the system for storage on any kind of electronic storage device will maintain those noughts and ones.

I don't see how I can make this any clearer. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Noughts and ones may be incorrectly interpreted at this stage.

No, because once the bit has been determined as being a nought or a one, it is stored in RAM as being a nought or a one. It is then transferred to a digital file on the hard disc, USB thumb drive. portable media player, etc, as being definite noughts and ones that will be perfectly replicated every single time they move to another electronic storage medium.

I think you're missing the point here. Nobody has said that the audio data read from a CD can ever be guaranteed to be bit-perfect, but all stages after the nought and one states have been determined (either correctly or incorrectly) and passed on to the system for storage on any kind of electronic storage device will maintain those noughts and ones.

I don't see how I can make this any clearer. Sorry.

OK. last attempt, ask how it is stored in RAM? The point that was made & I'm trying to re-iterate is that calling it digital is assigning some kid of magic to it but it really is just analogue in the way it is handled & can suffer all the vagaries that analogue signals are prone to - the main ones being ground/PS reference. I'm not trying to explain the process of why one copy of the file sounds different to another copy but just trying to stop the "magical" attribution that is being applied to the word "digital"
 
What I'm saying is this:

A file is a list of numbers.

A checksum is generated by adding all the numbers together. (It's not always done by addition but that's neither here nor there.)

We are accustomed to computers handling such lists of numbers with inhuman speed and accuracy.

The accuracy with which computers process music is no less than the accuracy with which they process anything. Errors are exceedingly rare.

Every day we (most of us) go to work, we open up the spreadsheets, word-processed documents, or graphics we were working on before we left, and there they are, bit-perfect. Not just nearly right. Bit perfect, every time. The software, the programs, word-processors, DTP packages, they're all bit-perfect too. A bit error would cause them to fall over far quicker than an error in the data, but they don't. There are no bit errors.

Now somebody wants me to believe in magic.

That if I save my spreadsheet to a solid-state drive, then transfer it to a hard disk, it will be a BETTER COPY than if I saved it direct to the hard drive.

w
 
I do agree 1 and 0's are just that , but apparently not all handshakes are the same , there is something happening, what it is i cannot express in technical terms, it is audible and there is a difference...

:cannotbe:

I agree. The ordering of bit packets, the use of USB with the chance for buss errors and a host of other problems doesn't mean that all the 1's and 0's won't eventually arrive and be counted, after they're somewhat sorted out. Just the same, there is something going on that must account for the sonic differences...we're just not sure what they all are... yet!
I've certainly given examples previously that show that checksums on two discs can be the same and yet they sound different and what, evidently the causes of those differences may be.

If I were the only person that heard differences, that's one thing. :cannotbe:

But, when a room full of people also hear differences, especially when there are people (including software engineers) who were prepared (and predisposed) to believe there would be no differences, that's where it gets interesting.

However, to repeat theory over and over again like one's Mantra, in an effort to thwart, or drive out the evil Nemesis (in this case, reality) is counterproductive, to say the least.

I'm reminded of what I read in someone's signature line:

In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they're not.


Best Regards,
TerryO
 
OK. last attempt, ask how it is stored in RAM? The point that was made & I'm trying to re-iterate is that calling it digital is assigning some kid of magic to it but it really is just analogue in the way it is handled & can suffer all the vagaries that analogue signals are prone to - the main ones being ground/PS reference. I'm not trying to explain the process of why one copy of the file sounds different to another copy but just trying to stop the "magical" attribution that is being applied to the word "digital"

If those ones and zeros in RAM were not reliable, your software to would grind to a halt. Any errors in the data could just as easily be in the program and I ASSURE you that ANY bit errors in the program WILL change/crash the program. You CANNOT change opcodes and have the program do what was intended.

 
That is what makes the rips different.


You must have somehow missed the point of the current argument. It is not about rips being different at all. It is about identical files being different but after the latest moderator cull this is probably not clear any more.

And btw the issue of rips being different has long been solved and is frankly, no longer an issue. Databases with checksums of correctly ripped cds are available and it is simple to verify a rip is error free.
 
They are not identical. You must remember that the laser reading the pits and valleys in the reflective material of the disc is an analog process. (Yes, it is.) Needless to say there will be some variables in that. And there is error correction in the data on the disc... suppose you get a 'better' (needing less error correction and re-scan) rip one time, and a 'worse' (lots or error and buffering necessary) rip the next time. There will be variance. That is what makes the rips different.
You are missing the point. Yes CD is a very imperfect medium, but we are talking about after the CD has been ripped. So for instance you rip a CD, then copy the resulting rip on two different media. Those two rips will be exactly the same to one another. They might be different from the original CD, but they will absolutely 100% beyond any shadow of a doubt be exactly the same to one another. That is the point we are trying to make, and if you think we were talking about two different rips, you need to re-read the thread.

Apart from that, two different rips can in fact be exactly the same. You just have to bit-compare the files afterwards. If they are bit-for-bit the same they are just that.

But I think you fail to appreciate how that 0 or 1 is represented & read i.e the low level detail of what goes on - it's an analogue process. I'm no expert but my simple understanding is as follows: If you look at the signal a DAC receives - it consists of square waves but these aren't perfectly square so there's a time for the wave to rise from low to high (or fall from high to low). At a certain point on the slope of this rising wave a 0 or 1 is triggered. This depends on the ground reference & PS reference being unchanged between one transition & the next. This is a source of jitter, AFAIK. You can see this is an analogue process & nothing magical (or digital about it)
This is true, but for playback, not for the files themselves.

So if you accept this then you accept that these "digital" bits are in fact within a an agreed tolerance i.e a one is somewhere between 1.60V & 1.70V let's say. But if a particular bit is on the outer threshold of this range maybe the some CD readers won't be able to read it. Agreed?
Sure.

Now how is the signal passed along the signal path inside a computer (after it has been successfully read off disk)? There is also an agreed threshold for the signal all along the pathway (into buffer, out of buffer, etc) The same issues could arise in this situation as in the CD example, no?
No. :) First of all there will be no bits "flipping" due to noise when copying, if they did, we would be able to detect those trivially.
And jitter: Not when moving files around as there is no timing involved. If a bit arrives a bit late or early it doesn't matter because we're not playing back, we're just moving the files. No timing is encoded within the wav file. (or flac, or mp3 for that matter). The timing gets generated when playing the file (i.e. sent to a DAC in some way).

OK. last attempt, ask how it is stored in RAM? The point that was made & I'm trying to re-iterate is that calling it digital is assigning some kid of magic to it but it really is just analogue in the way it is handled & can suffer all the vagaries that analogue signals are prone to - the main ones being ground/PS reference. I'm not trying to explain the process of why one copy of the file sounds different to another copy but just trying to stop the "magical" attribution that is being applied to the word "digital"
I understand what you're gettng at. Really I do. :)
EVERY signal is analog when you get down to the electrons.

However the way a computer works (or RAM specifically) just cancels out those effects. The only way your RAM will flip bits is when it's broken...
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.