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.
Your point is well made: shock! - logical, even! A number of people are effectively claiming that there is a systematic, characteristic 'signature' that can be attached to a file by different 'rippers' - in which hardware and software variations are included. Listing factors that cannot be influential here is like shooting fish in a barrel. Investigating why this result persists in occurring is a job for grown-ups, perhaps. Obviously, it may just be a delusion - that's one possibility. But snatching at the answer that suits our prejudice and running with it is either lazy, arrogant or plain incurious. Certainly not scientific. It only takes one new variable to change the picture considerably. Fragmentation obviously cannot account for a given application consistently producing 'good' and 'bad' rips, but it illustrates another variable: that there's more to CD conversion than the data itself: it's a useful reminder that data depends on mechanical means in the real world, which is more complex than the idealised flowcharts of the software designer. As we keep saying, it's not just about the data. -- item_audio ------------------------------------------------------------------------ item_audio's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=51315 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
