[audioengr]

Update:

Tony reports back that the difference in file size is the tags, which were not in one of the files.

Also, the data fields are identical.  This is consistent with the anecdotes.

The difference is in the header.  He's working on what is different.

Steve N.

[indirstr8s]

What fields are contained in the headers. Can the difference in the header cause sound difference.

Sanjay Garg

[audioengr]

...

thanks Chris.  I also have this same outboard drive, so I'll give it a try and report back on any difference with the TEAC.

I have an experiement going with Tony Lauck on Audio Asylum.  I am transferring files ripped with EAC and with dbpoweramp so he can do compares.  I already see a difference.  The dbpoweramp file is larger.

Steve N.

That's strange.  For a sound sample with the same duration, the number of bits should be the same in the WAV format because there is no compression at all.

Does it suggest that EAC is dropping some of the bits contained in the original track?

This difference in size was tagging and no tagging.

There are differences in headers and offsets.  Offset difference can cause audio quality problems.

Steve N.

[indirstr8s]

...

thanks Chris.  I also have this same outboard drive, so I'll give it a try and report back on any difference with the TEAC.

I have an experiement going with Tony Lauck on Audio Asylum.  I am transferring files ripped with EAC and with dbpoweramp so he can do compares.  I already see a difference.  The dbpoweramp file is larger.

Steve N.

That's strange.  For a sound sample with the same duration, the number of bits should be the same in the WAV format because there is no compression at all.

Does it suggest that EAC is dropping some of the bits contained in the original track?

This difference in size was tagging and no tagging.

There are differences in headers and offsets.  Offset difference can cause audio quality problems.

Steve N.

I thought offset just dropped/added extra audio samples at the start or at end or both. Or it can create different offsets between the two channels? May be I need to read audio CD demystified?

[audioengr]

...

thanks Chris.  I also have this same outboard drive, so I'll give it a try and report back on any difference with the TEAC.

I have an experiement going with Tony Lauck on Audio Asylum.  I am transferring files ripped with EAC and with dbpoweramp so he can do compares.  I already see a difference.  The dbpoweramp file is larger.

Steve N.

That's strange.  For a sound sample with the same duration, the number of bits should be the same in the WAV format because there is no compression at all.

Does it suggest that EAC is dropping some of the bits contained in the original track?

This difference in size was tagging and no tagging.

There are differences in headers and offsets.  Offset difference can cause audio quality problems.

Steve N.

I thought offset just dropped/added extra audio samples at the start or at end or both. Or it can create different offsets between the two channels? May be I need to read audio CD demystified?

I only know what Tonoy Lauck, the engineer doing the comparisons tells me.  Evidently the offsets are pointers.  There are leading and trailing zeros.

Steve N.

[richidoo]

http://www.accuraterip.com/driveoffsets.htm

[Zeus the thunderer]

Hi,
 this is getting really interesting...
thanks for all the info, guys
Steve, any results about ripping with better USB cable?
Or about Teac drive vs. Yamaha drive?

[audioengr]

Well, I can tell you that the offsets are looking like the smoking gun.

Tony has sent me two files without telling me what is what, track1.wav and track2.wav.  One is dbpoweramp and one EAC.  He stripped all of the tags from these so they compare bit-perfect.  The offsets are differnt though.

I heard a difference in the two files in a blind A/B.  Interestingly the EAC file sounded more focused this time.  Also, my original dbpoweramp accurate-rip sounds better than either Track1.wav or Track2.wav, so his editing changed the sound too.

He is now in the process of creating some test cases now using the "body" of the EAC rip with changing offsets, so we can determine the audibilty of offsets.

Steve N.

[indirstr8s]

Do these offsets somehow cause lag between the two channels?

[audioengr]

Do these offsets somehow cause lag between the two channels?

If the channels got out of order, then right would be left and left right.  This is not happening.

It is primarily the start and stop places in the total data field.

Steve N.

[indirstr8s]

Do these offsets get carried over into wav files too? Or they get used while ripping and then thrown away?

Sanjay

[indirstr8s]

Very intriguing. May be some kind of recursive filter as part of the delta sigma stage inside the DAC gets affected by the different boundary samples of the song and cause a audible difference. Steve have you tried this A-B only on the OVDRV or other dacs too.

[audioengr]

Do these offsets get carried over into wav files too? Or they get used while ripping and then thrown away?

Sanjay

Yes, this is in the .wav file.

Steve N.

[audioengr]

Very intriguing. May be some kind of recursive filter as part of the delta sigma stage inside the DAC gets affected by the different boundary samples of the song and cause a audible difference. Steve have you tried this A-B only on the OVDRV or other dacs too.

I have only tried it on the Overdrive so far.  I will be trying cables and Pace-Car soon.

Steve N.

[indirstr8s]

Steve, if you doubt the offsets, then trying different media players or even different USB drivers might make sense. Who knows that one of these elements might change the data packet based on offset.
How about trying MAC.

[audioengr]

Steve, if you doubt the offsets, then trying different media players or even different USB drivers might make sense. Who knows that one of these elements might change the data packet based on offset.
How about trying MAC.

I have Mac customers that are hearing the same things I am with different DACs.

I just got a Mac Mini today, so I'll be doing some experiments, including trying Amarra and comparing that to Foobar 0.83.

Steve N.

[ted_b]

Steve,
VERY interested on you Amarra take vs Foobar 0.83.  One is free, one not (at all), as you know.   

Obviously two different platforms, but I know you know the Foobar sound very very well, so the Amarra eval ought to be quite relevant, regardless.

[audioengr]

Steve,
VERY interested on you Amarra take vs Foobar 0.83.  One is free, one not (at all), as you know.   

Obviously two different platforms, but I know you know the Foobar sound very very well, so the Amarra eval ought to be quite relevant, regardless.

If it is even as good as Foobar 0.8.3, then I plan to use it at RMAF with Mac controlled by Touch.

Steve N.

[ted_b]

Steve,
VERY interested on you Amarra take vs Foobar 0.83.  One is free, one not (at all), as you know.   

Obviously two different platforms, but I know you know the Foobar sound very very well, so the Amarra eval ought to be quite relevant, regardless.

If it is even as good as Foobar 0.8.3, then I plan to use it at RMAF with Mac controlled by Touch.

Steve N.

Wow, really?  Foobar is freeware, Amarra is $1500.  And it only needs to tie?

[audioengr]

Steve,
VERY interested on you Amarra take vs Foobar 0.83.  One is free, one not (at all), as you know.   

Obviously two different platforms, but I know you know the Foobar sound very very well, so the Amarra eval ought to be quite relevant, regardless.

If it is even as good as Foobar 0.8.3, then I plan to use it at RMAF with Mac controlled by Touch.

Steve N.

Wow, really?  Foobar is freeware, Amarra is $1500.  And it only needs to tie?

I'm afraid so.  It's iTunes and Mac that people want, and that is the best user interface. 

Also I'm doing some special things to my Mac Mini, including SS memory and fast interface for a Tune Bank where the music will reside.

Steve N.