ABX test for lossless / Beatles LOVE

[treitz3]

A few months back our very own Keiko [Mike] had sent me a couple of ripped CD's of the Beatle's LOVE album recorded via vinyl and over a lossless format. He had relayed to me that I I might like the lossless version better than the CD I have because in his rig, the vinyl sounded better than the CD.

This all started during a conversation on this forum about lossless ripped music. I told him I had yet to hear a ripped CD that sounded anywhere close to the sound of the original CD, so he sent me a lossless version of an album I had in my collection to compare. Since he liked the vinyl version better on his rig, he decided to rip it straight off the LP.

The end result....

Just listening to the first two minutes of the CD and lossless CD, I discovered that a lot of information was missing on the lossless CD. Here's what I heard. The birds in the background were a strain to hear on the ripped with less stereo separation and spatial locationality cues to let you know exactly where the birds were. A loss of ambiance with all sounds within the first two minutes. There was a loss of stereo holographic imaging with a slight change in tone.

Where the birds flew off on the CD, I could tell exactly what was going on and with the ripped CD, it sounded like a bunch of unwanted flutter or something. There is a point to where a fly buzzes which I heard on the CD but did not hear on the ripped CD. With the CD, depth of the sound stage greatly improved with a slight gain in volume, detail, harmonics and texture. Well, actually, there was no texture to voices in the ripped CD but was present in the CD.

The volume was not touched during this A/B test nor was any other aspect of the stereo with the exception of the CD and ripped CD. Thank you for sending me the CD's for this test Mike, but my observations remain the same. I still have yet to hear a lossless CD sound as good as or better than the original.

[WilliamM2]

Sounds more like a comparison of the cd mix to the vinyl mix. Could also lose quite a bit of detail when recording the vinyl to CD, depending on how it's done, equipment used, etc.

A truly lossless codec shouldn't remove any information at all, though I've never compared them much, don't really use the computer for music.

[unc2701]

I've actually gone through the exercise of ripping a CD to lossless, burning it, re-ripping it and doing a bit comparison of the first million or so samples, just to convince myself. I found that occasionally some extra zero's would be added to the start of the song (which I've never gotten a decent explanation for), but once you got to the actual samples, they were a perfect match.

My conclusion is that any differences heard between the two were a result of:
1)People doing a poor job of ripping their CD's
2)The transport having issues reading burned CD's

Although this is an interesting comparison, I wouldn't call this a CD/lossless CD comparison due to the additional variable of the vinyl. His stereo's ability to reproduce vinyl doesn't necessarily reflect its ability to transfer a good CD recording.

[heiney9]

Tom, WTH are you talking about a vinyl rip to cd vs. the regular cd. No wonder. I have some of Mike's vinyl rips and they sound great, but not the same as the regular cd.

How did the lossless format enter into your equation? Just curious. As a rip from vinyl to cd is not lossless it's sampled at the same rate a cd is so unless it was converted to lossless on purpose.

If you use EAC properly set-up and rip to FLAC (which is lossless) you can get an eact bit perfect copy which sound identical to the original. Not sure what lossless format or process you are using to compare to the original that "doesn't sound anywhere close" to original. I've been using EAC ripped FLAC files for a couple years and I don't hear a difference at all. I'm about as anal and pickey as they come about sound quality.

H9

H9

[unc2701]

...While I'm at it, I'm also gonna jump on the "ABX" here.

1)ABX implies blinding

2)Although the volume was not changed, I'd be shocked if they were recorded at the same level. TT carts & phono stages all have different gain.

Again, an interesting comparison, but very much mislabeled.

[blakeh]

One of the tricks I use when ripping CDs to FLAC (lossless) format is to rip an HDCD. Without getting into all the technical specifics, HDCD basically stuffs 20-bits worth of information in a standard 16-bit redbook stream. Non-HDCD players see the 16-bit stream and ignore the extra data while HDCD players are able to decode the extra info.

Anyway, whenever I rip an HDCD disc to FLAC format, I always try playing it through my ADCOM GDA-700 DAC. This DAC contains the circuitry for decoding HDCDs and when it recognizes an HDCD stream, an indicator lamp on the front of the unit lights up. If even a single bit is not perfect, the HDCD indicator will not light up because even the tiniest error in the HDCD stream will corrupt the entire track. It may not be audible, but the DAC will not lock onto an HDCD stream.

Every HDCD I've ever ripped (over 200 of them) into FLAC format has lit up the indicator light. Of course your machine has to be capable of passing bit-perfect digital streams to your DAC without going through the Windows mixer. But I am convinced that a properly ripped CD that's in FLAC format is EXACTLY, bit for bit, the same stream coming off of the original CD. On top of the digital evidence, I've also tried to A/B FLAC files to the CDs they were ripped from and I've never been able to tell a difference (and I'm one of those crazy people who can hear differences in interconnects and speaker wire!).

YMMV, but from a DAC standpoint, the streams are identical.

[treitz3]

Tom, WTH are you talking about a vinyl rip to cd vs. the regular cd. No wonder. I have some of Mike's vinyl rips and they sound great, but not the same as the regular cd.

I was just sharing my observations. It seems we agree on this.

How did the lossless format enter into your equation? Just curious.

Eh, I'm running off of memory [I am getting old, mind you] of Mike's and I's conversation a couple of months back. I don't bother with the lossless stuff because I haven't heard a "lossless" ripped CD [compared to the original] yet, so please forgive my ignorance on the subject.

I've been using EAC ripped FLAC files for a couple years and I don't hear a difference at all.

I have had folks from all over the nation send me loss less CD's and every time I have heard some kind of audible change, to my disliking. Every time I look forward to an exact copy and every time I'm disappointed, unfortunately.

I'm about as anal and picky as they come about sound quality.

I'm not doubting that. ;)

[blakeh]

And, yes, as everyone else has pointed out above, comparing a vinyl rip to a CD is like comparing apples to lawn furniture. Think of all the variables starting with the fact that one source is analog and the other is digital!

[treitz3]

1)ABX implies blinding.

My apologies. I meant an A/B test. Just a comparison between the two and my observations. My bad.

[Keiko]

LOL! I'm glad you finally found them, Tom. :D

[treitz3]

I swear the only things I ever lose are things in my own house. *bangs head* Well, that and my mind maybe.

[heiney9]

Tom, I think you're just confused at the terminology. An analog vinyl signal converted to digital for a cd is NOT the same as what is called "lossless". Lossless is a term given when a digital copy is made without losing any of the original digital information.

FWIW, as good as all analog copies to digital are, they are not the same as the digital version you buy on a commercial cd. Well "good" is the wrong term..........more like they always sound different. Sometimes better sometimes worse, but never the same.

Is that what you meant when you said "lossless"? I would be more than happy to send you a couple of cdr copies of your favorite music (providing I have access to it) and I'll make you a copy from a lossless file and you can compare it to your original.

H9

[Cpyder]

I've actually gone through the exercise of ripping a CD to lossless, burning it, re-ripping it and doing a bit comparison of the first million or so samples, just to convince myself. I found that occasionally some extra zero's would be added to the start of the song (which I've never gotten a decent explanation for), but once you got to the actual samples, they were a perfect match.

My conclusion is that any differences heard between the two were a result of:
1)People doing a poor job of ripping their CD's
2)The transport having issues reading burned CD's

Although this is an interesting comparison, I wouldn't call this a CD/lossless CD comparison due to the additional variable of the vinyl. His stereo's ability to reproduce vinyl doesn't necessarily reflect its ability to transfer a good CD recording.

Yep. Uncle27 is right. You can convert between lossless formats all day long and never lose a bit. Lossless is so beautiful. You can even burn CDs and rip them back and guess what?... You'll have the exact same file.

And as for this example, it's not fair to compare a CD to a vinyl rip for so many reasons. One clear difference is the dynamic range of the two. Records have a smaller dynamic range than CDs and are often compressed more compared to a CD version. (Referring to good recordings, not "loud" recordings. And please don't tell me records aren't included in the loudness war. They definitely are.) Another difference is the recording equipment. I'm sure Heiney has nice stuff, but I'm also sure he's not converting to digital from the master copy of the song and he surely does not have as nice of equipment as a professional recording studio. (Unless he's crazier than I thought) :) Chances for errors are very large when you rip from vinyl to digital in your basement. A common difference between the original CD and a vinyl rip is the upper frequencies. If you've played the record quite a few times, the upper frequencies simply won't be a loud as they were compared to a brand new album.

[Keiko]

Tom, I think you're just confused at the terminology. An analog vinyl signal converted to digital for a cd is NOT the same as what is called "lossless". Lossless is a term given when a digital copy is made without losing any of the original digital information.

FWIW, as good as all analog copies to digital are, they are not the same as the digital version you buy on a commercial cd. Well "good" is the wrong term..........more like they always sound different. Sometimes better sometimes worse, but never the same.

Is that what you meant when you said "lossless"? I would be more than happy to send you a couple of cdr copies of your favorite music (providing I have access to it) and I'll make you a copy from a lossless file and you can compare it to your original.

H9

Brock, just to flush this out; when doing these transfers, I rip at 44100 Hz/32 bit floating point. Markers are used to separate each track and then I export them as Apple Lossless (aif) 32 bit PCM. Once I've done this, I arrange the tracks into the CD burning software which dithers them to 16 bit PCM, Apple Lossless.

For what it's worth, my intent with these rips is to retain as much warmth from the vinyl as possible and have it on the convenience of a CD. The source LP still sounds better, of course, but I think I get a pretty good representation of it on a CD-R.

Enjoy,

Mike

[Keiko]

....

[heiney9]

Brock, just to flush this out; when doing these transfers, I rip at 44100 Hz/32 bit floating point. Markers are used to separate each track and then I export them as Apple Lossless (aif) 32 bit PCM. Once I've done this, I arrange the tracks into the CD burning software which dithers them to 16 bit PCM, Apple Lossless.

For what it's worth, my intent with these rips is to retain as much warmth from the vinyl as possible and have it on the convenience of a CD. The source LP still sounds better, of course, but I think I get a pretty good representation of it on a CD-R.

Enjoy,

Mike

Hey Mike,

I understand completely as I've done this with tape before. I was just trying to help Tom understand the difference between what you're doing and when others talk about "lossless" music rips.

You do nice work, but I think Tom is just confused as the reason your rips sound different compared to a commercial cd copy is not because of the lossless format but because they are vinyl rips.

H9

[hearingimpared]

Mike has sent me several vinyl rips to CDs and they all invariably sound better to me than the original CD. However, vinyl rules in any case.

[madmax]

Mike has sent me several vinyl rips to CDs and they all invariably sound better to me than the original CD. However, vinyl rules in any case.

All my vinyl rips sound better than an original CD. However, the sound of my TT may not fit in with someone elses system so I would never guarantee better sound for them. Another way to say the same thing is my TT sound has synergy with my sytem, not someone elses, same as a particular CD player may sound great with one system but suck on another.
madmax

[MLZ]

Mike has sent me several vinyl rips to CDs and they all invariably sound better to me than the original CD. However, vinyl rules in any case.

I hope the RIAA isn't following this thread or next we will see you in court then bankrupt or in jail

[Cpyder]

Yep. Uncle27 is right. You can convert between lossless formats all day long and never lose a bit. Lossless is so beautiful. You can even burn CDs and rip them back and guess what?... You'll have the exact same file.

And as for this example, it's not fair to compare a CD to a vinyl rip for so many reasons. One clear difference is the dynamic range of the two. Records have a smaller dynamic range than CDs and are often compressed more compared to a CD version. (Referring to good recordings, not "loud" recordings. And please don't tell me records aren't included in the loudness war. They definitely are.) Another difference is the recording equipment. I'm sure Heiney has nice stuff, but I'm also sure he's not converting to digital from the master copy of the song and he surely does not have as nice of equipment as a professional recording studio. (Unless he's crazier than I thought) :) Chances for errors are very large when you rip from vinyl to digital in your basement. A common difference between the original CD and a vinyl rip is the upper frequencies. If you've played the record quite a few times, the upper frequencies simply won't be a loud as they were compared to a brand new album.

I said Heiney, but I meant Keiko. Oops. Must be those damn e and i vowels.

[Cpyder]

I hope the RIAA isn't following this thread or next we will see you in court then bankrupt or in jail

They never said if they were lending, which is perfectly legal. And I've also heard it is legal to give your friends a copy of a song; you just can't sell it or offer it to complete strangers.

[treitz3]

Interesting Joe and Chuck. Heiney, I'll take you up on your offer. Let's make this simple and go for an album that most folks might have...how about DSOTM, Dire Straights "Brothers in Arms" or something along that line. Heck, even Beatles LOVE will work. I'm easy.

Yes, I was confused. As I mentioned before, I'm not familiar with the lingo because I haven't heard a completely loss less ripped CD that didn't have some sort of loss yet. If I do, you can bet your heiney [no pun intended] that I'll be learning. ;)

[unc2701]

...but which version of DSOTM? :D

[treitz3]

Well, for that matter which version of DS BIA's? I think I have 4 or 5 of them.

[heiney9]

Tom I have DSOTM.............but there are atleast 5 different copies floating around and I believe some of those 5 are remastered. I have the original cd that came out in the late 80's early 90's and I have the remastered Beatles Love cd.

Sadly I don't have Brother's In Arms. Name a few more so I can make it a trio.

How about Patricia Barber or Norah Jones?

[unc2701]

If you truly want to test only the lossless aspect, just burn two copies of anything. One which has been through lossless and one that was ripped to a WAV and never compressed.

If you want to test the lossless AND the ripping/burning, then you'll need to find something that you both have.

[treitz3]

I've got a couple by Norah. Tell you what, we should just go off the bar code numbers. IIRC, those will differentiate between the versions. For example, I have Norah Jones' "Come Away with Me" CD and the bar code numbers are 2435-32088-2

You don't have BIA? *drops to floor*

[treitz3]

How about Patricia Barber?

Let me know which one(s) and I'll buy them. I thought I had her already as I have heard of her many times. Maybe Trey has it at his house, I dunno. You name it, I'll get it if it's still available.

[Cpyder]

Interesting Joe and Chuck. Heiney, I'll take you up on your offer. Let's make this simple and go for an album that most folks might have...how about DSOTM, Dire Straights "Brothers in Arms" or something along that line. Heck, even Beatles LOVE will work. I'm easy.

Yes, I was confused. As I mentioned before, I'm not familiar with the lingo because I haven't heard a completely loss less ripped CD that didn't have some sort of loss yet. If I do, you can bet your heiney [no pun intended] that I'll be learning. ;)

What are talking about? If you rip a CD to WAV, FLAC, ALAC, etc, it's lossless. Bit for bit identical to the original, assuming your CD isn't scratched and you use EAC to verify the rip. It will be bit-for-bit identical to the original. No need to debate.

[treitz3]

Cpyder, apparently there is still a debate as I have yet to here one. If you can provide a "loss less" ripped CD that compares to the original? I'm all ears and I have the system to show its true colors.