William

Hello Chris, thanks for the info. Even though the ChatGPT conclusion remains pretty much the same, it's amazing how far he's come in the agumentaire's show since last May! He also seems to have become much more cautious. It is likely that he read a lot of discussions on AudiophileStyle to refine his answer... 😃 I had just read ChatGPT answer on the best audio system, which gave me the idea for the cables question.

It's summer... Let's have fun!... 😀 Q : Hello ChatGPT, do the cables make a difference in the quality of reproduction of a high fidelity system? A : Hello! The impact of cables on the quality of audio reproduction in a high-fidelity system is a topic of ongoing debate among audio enthusiasts, engineers, and experts. Different people have different opinions on this matter. Here's a breakdown of the key points: Signal Integrity: Cables can impact signal integrity, which can affect audio quality. A poorly constructed or low-quality cable might introduce resistance, capacitance, and inductance that could alter the signal passing through it. This can lead to signal loss, distortion, and potentially impact the fidelity of the audio. Interference and Noise: High-quality cables might offer better shielding against electromagnetic interference (EMI) and radio frequency interference (RFI). These interferences can introduce unwanted noise into the audio signal, degrading the quality of the sound. Connectors: The connectors used on cables can also play a role. Loose or poorly made connectors might not maintain a solid connection, leading to signal loss or intermittent issues. Cable Length: In longer cable runs, cable quality becomes more important as longer cables are more susceptible to signal degradation. High-fidelity audio systems with longer cable runs might benefit from higher-quality cables. Subjective Perception: It's important to note that human perception of audio quality can be subjective. Some listeners might claim to hear differences between cables, while others might not perceive any significant change. Scientific Studies: There's limited scientific evidence to definitively prove or disprove the impact of high-end cables on audio quality. Some studies have shown that within reasonable quality standards, the audible differences are often negligible, while other factors in the audio chain, such as the speakers, amplifiers, and room acoustics, might have a more significant impact. Cost: High-end audio cables can be significantly more expensive than standard cables. Whether the increased cost justifies the potential benefits is a matter of personal preference and budget. In conclusion, while some audiophiles swear by high-quality cables and claim to hear improvements in audio quality, others believe that the differences are minimal or even non-existent. If you're considering investing in high-end cables for your high-fidelity system, it might be a good idea to audition them in your setup and decide for yourself whether the perceived improvements are worth the cost. Ultimately, the choice comes down to your personal preferences, budget, and beliefs about the impact of cables on audio quality. Comments?

I haven't said it was better than any other software in the market. I just said the rip was perfect, everytime. That's what I meant by " best ". No metadata and no individual tracks is a major drawback for you, simply because we don't have the same listening needs.

I spent days and weeks some years ago to find the best way to rip CD's to a Mac. If " best " means for you as it means for me : an exact copy, error free, with all the bits at their right place, you could export your CD as a DDP. I used DDP Creator (Pro) from Sonoris to export all my CDs to my Mac. Result is perfect. There are, however, some drawbacks : - CD is exported as a folder containing specific files. Music tracks are in a single file " IMAGE.DAT ". You cannot see the separates tracks anymore. - You need a player that can read DDP. I use soundBlade SE (wich plays AIFF & FLAC files from dowloaded music too). DDP Creator (Pro) can of course read DDP. - Basic metadata. I don't really care, but important for others. If these points are not a problem for you, here is the best rip possible. William

I'm running a web server and nothing different happened after I did the update. No hurt, no pain. Could you be more specific ? Thanks !

Thank you Cfsmp to start this very interesting discussion ! At last, I did the test. Three Macs playing the same tracks, and the winner is... But first, let's go back to some technical stuff. The computers were : 1) Mac Mini 2008 [intel Core 2 Duo 2 GHz / 2 Go memory] 2) Macbook Pro 2009 [intel Core 2 Duo 2,8 GHz / 8 Go memory] 3) Mac Pro G5 2006 (1.1) [Two 2.66 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon / 5 Go memory] All machines with their original HD (no SSD) and power supply. The tracks were Avalon / Roxy Music, Unfinished Sympathy / Massive Attack, L.U.V. / Daniel Darc. Sorry, no classical or jazz ! I choose these tracks because I know them very well. Tracks were AIFF copies from original CD played with iTunes (same settings on three Macs). I use to rip and play my CD using Peak Pro but it was not installed on the three computers, so I chose the Apple Player. The audio chain was : Monstercable Lightspeed 100 toslink cable (with no name mini adaptor for Mac Mini & Macbook Pro) —> DAC Lavry DA10 [volume control]—> Qed Qunex 3 cinch cable —> Audio Analogue Puccini Settanta rev.2 amplifier [passive mode] —> Qed Original cable —> Studio Lab Slb 102. We were three for the test : my wife, a friend of mine, sound editor with a very good ear, and I (film editor). We listen in the 20 m2 salon, a room with wood floor and no particular acoustic enhancements. Using only one toslink cable, the difficult part was, of course, to manually switch from a computer to another ! I did this as fast as possible to make us remember what we had listen just before. We listen between 30" an 1' of each track and switch, switch, and switch again. Most of time, my guests were " blind ". First, we all agree that the G5 was clearly SUPERIOR than the two other Macs. It delivers music with a supplement of definition. I'm not an audio specialist but, if I compare with what I use to work with, I mean pictures, it's like you are looking to a better defined photography. The difference it's not huge, but clear every time for the three tracks. The trebles and the bass were better sounding, the stereo image was better, the overall definition was better. Second, it was very difficult to recognize the Mac Mini from the Macbook Pro. The differences were very subtile and usually not audible. With no doubt, they both output the music with less quality than the G5. In fact, we were quite surprised than the Mini was so good in compare to the Macbook Pro (but I'm not saying that the MBP was inferior !). If you compare the price between the two, it's clear that the Mini is a good investment. All my music is in the G5 (kept in a closed rack to avoid its noise) and I did this test to know if the computer was " transparent " or not before switching to a Macbook Pro. I know now it's NOT and I'll stick with the G5 as it delivers better audio quality. I don't know why, maybe some components are made with better quality. Maybe it's the real toslink output, maybe it's the quality of the electrical plug... A last word about the player. Last summer, I tried almost all players for Mac except Pure Music. The two winners were Peak Pro and Pro Tools HD (Amarra incredibly far BEHIND those two !). I use now Peak to rip and read. Have a good day, William Arkine, Paris