The ultimate audiophile poll

Here, fyi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_Audio_Copy

"Written up"? Don't know what you mean, oliver.

oliver: You obviously don't have a clue, yet you continue to ridicule me. It was obvious that the arguments you presented are off-topic, they simply DON'T APPLY to ripping CDs.

BTW: If you were used to reading technical articles or specifications you would probably have also looked at the links provided for further reading.

Have a look at this one:

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de

(browse to "Technology" or "DAE Quality" or "FAQ" ... plenty of infos there)

I know that you're immune to facts which are in contrary to your statement, but I'll keep on trying!

I know that you're immune to facts which are in contrary to your statement, but I'll keep on trying!

It applies very well to yourself.

I knwo cause i've tried, not you, so please s*** **!

oliverstoned wrote: I know that you're immune to facts which are in contrary to your statement, but I'll keep on trying! It applies very well to yourself. I knwo cause i've tried, not you, so please s*** **!

Let the others decide which one of us is wrong or right.

BTW oliver: You do have a point with CD audio stability issues in the early days of CD audio and computer CD drives. But you must accept that with the tremendous progress in computer technology, extracting CD audio has become a fairly simple task for computers and drives. Audio CDs have a really low resolution, and DVD drives (or HD-DVD for that matter) extract much more data which is even stored more densely with a much higher need for precision of the laser beam.

I quote the EAC technology page:

"In secure mode, this program reads every audio sector at least twice. That is one reason why the program is so slow. But by using this technique non-identical sectors are detected. If an error occurs (read or sync error), the program keeps on reading this sector, until eight of 16 retries are identical, but at maximum one, three or five times (according to the error recovery quality) these 16 retries are read. So, in the worst case, bad sectors are read up to 82 times! But this will help the program to obtain best result by comparing all of the retries. If it is not sure that the stream is correct (at least it can be said at approx. 99.5%) the program will tell the user where the (possible) read error occurred. The program also tries to adjust the jitter artefacts that occur on the first block of a track, so that each extraction should be exactly the same. On drives found to have the "accurate stream" feature, this is guaranteed. Of course, this is a little bit more complex, especially with some CD drives which have caching. When these drives cache audio data, every sector read will be read from cache and is identical. I initially implemented two ways of dealing with the caching problem. First there is an extra option for resetting the cache for use the the old secure mode (the one being kept for compatibility reasons). In the current beta version, the cache will still be reset by resetting the drive completely. You might imagine that this would slow down the reading process very badly."

Still convinced that this is all laughable?

oliverstoned wrote:     They should need to listen to our respective systems to judge! BTW, the fact that DVD technology is different doesn't change the transport problem and you should refer to what i've posted from Stereophile.

You're really immune to fact. I present fact and considerations and you say "listen to our systems". What does your system have to do with digital audio extraction? nothing at all.

BTW: I'd be willing to bet 1000 EUR that when I connect the digital output of my sound card to you D/A converter box, you won't be able to hear a difference. How could you - the bits are identical.

oliverstoned wrote: Experience proved that if you put a DVD player (even a good one) instead of a good drive, it’ far less good.

This statement indeed only proves that you don't have the slightest idea of what we are talking about here.

oliverstoned wrote: No you can tell me that your theories say the contrary, but don’t tell me it’s like that, cause you have not tried, That’s what’s painful with you!

Only your arrogance is painful to me. How can you know that I never listened to an audiophile system? Your arrogance dictates: I'm always right - so whatever facts people present to me - if they conflict with my personal experience then they must be wrong. This attitude has clouded your judgement so much that you can't even see that this discussion isn't about hi-fi systems.
(that's alll in my humble opinion of course)

Any opinion which suggests that computers+audio can make sense is ridiculous to you - even the article in your so highly praised stereophile.com website.

oliverstoned wrote: Ths fact is that i've heard drive/converter, i own one and know others, not you.

The drive is connected to the converter digitally - that means it transmits the 0s and 1s to the converter. All that I'm saying is that computer cd drives can reliably extract the 0s and 1s exactly as they are on the disc, and thus they do the same as your drive. Absolute, undeniable, easily verifiable "carved in stone" bulletproof fact.

oliverstoned wrote: BTW, i just received a thanks PM from one of our members, happy about a purchase he made, following my advice!

Show me one single post where I said that these systems don't sound good. All I'm saying is that I can be just as happy with my system.