bluegaspode;691777 Wrote: > Shouldn't we go back to the TAS article ? > > Basically it claimed that if you rip a CD with program A, it does sound > better than if you rip it with B (based on sighted tests). > Now the "bit is bit" people argue, that this can only be pure > bullshit. > > This is because even IF > > a) one comes to the conclusion, that the position of the bits on the > harddrive does have an impact on the circuits while reading them, > b) then thus influencing the transport, > c) then thus influencing the DAC, > d) then thus creating audible (repeatable) results > > THEN > it still wouldn't matter which program I use for ripping, as > a) the operating system has much more influence on where bits finally > land on the harddrive > b) every defragmenation of the disk (which nowadays happens silently in > the background all the time) would 'destroy' positive audible effects > c) it would matter much more if your harddrive is full or empty rather > than what ripping program you used in the first place. Even the order > in which you rip would have an influence on the audible result. > > > Thats is why the people find this article so flawed. Even with a lot of > goodwill about what might influence the reproduction of the same bits, > you just cannot give "points" for different ripping programs. > > This is neither scientific, this is not even esoteric, this is just > pure bullshit.
Exactly. I said pretty much just this before, and he completely ignored it. -- totoro sb3 -> mccormack dna .5 -> audio physic tempo 4 + rel storm 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ totoro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5935 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93549 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
