serum

It's absolutely impossible that the files sound different if they're played back the same way and come both from perfect rips, hence the iTunes rip is faulty or you haven't played back the files in the same way. Finally a 100% score with 4 trials has no significance at all. If you want to try a more significant test you should run at least 20 trials. I know what i heard and if i choose the same sort of ripping 4 times, thats proof enough for me. (i do trust myself in this test) Why don't you give it a go yourself. I know what difference i hear. (it's no lucky guess either) what do you know about the ripping to state 'there is no difference in the files'? I ripped the cd 3 times with xld with no errors, not aware itunes has an error logging? Since it's the same cd and cdromplayer i have no reason to assume itunes creates errors ripping the cd. (and why would this affect 4 random picked songs from the cd?) I don't quite understand your sceptism? I'm not telling anyone to rip using xld, my point is that you should listen to your rip to decide what method suits you best. In my case xld is a clear, clear winner. Simple give it a go, it won't hurt

Not aware of any other option in itunes than the 'apple lossles' & 'automatic' setting. Just checked with audacity, it shows 44.1khz/16b cmd+i tells me that one file (itunes) has a total bitspeed (rough translation, don't know what it would say if mac-os is running in English) of 871, while the XLD file shows 866. The terminal command diff; 'Binary files itunes.m4a and xld.m4a differ' But the id3 tag is different for these files, since itunes uses a different tagging than XLD. So that would affect the binary as well? and i can imagine a different checksum? Point is, i like the XLD rip over the itunes one. Give it a go, and focus on placement of the voice and its natural sound. For me, it was a clear winner, 4 times i've choosen the XLD rip over the itunes rip, with 4 songs. That's a 100 percent score. Audicity shows 16bits, pcm 44.1 khz for both files btw.

Don't know if you have got this cd of Dido, but perhaps you are able to tell the difference, focussing on her voice/placement.

Yes, XLD reported 0 issues. (it's a brand new cd btw) Cd was ripped with the same cdrom player seems to me like XLD is better in ripping cd's than itunes? (just don't touch the upsampling feature)

Talk about a consistent favorite. again 4 songs different songs, compared back and forth, wrote down the number which i thought sounded most natural, (best placement in voices) There is a clear difference between itunes and XLD. XLD was 4 times winner this time. My ears are more sensitive than i expected them to be. This Dido cd appears very suitable for these tests, her voice seems to be in the critical range.

Didn't know it was plain stupid to use the upsampling feature I've heard good things about upsampling, didn't know there was a difference with upsampling in a DAC (which is done by pre-defined algorithms as well? correct me if i'm wrong) or by ripping software (also done by predefined algorithms?) Going on a limp here, but could the timing be better when done by a DAC? I'll compare again with the 'same as original' setting in XLD. I guess i'll be unable to tell the differences. (marginal, if present..)

Thought i'd post the result of a little experiment using both itunes and XLD for ripping a cd. I assumed the up-sampling in XLD in combination with the accuraterip would be a perfect choice. Superior to iTunes, so it seemed. playback setup is as described below; macbook pro, using optical out. software > itunes with the Pure Music shell DAC used is the one in my sony 777es amp speakers are kef 105/3's cd, Dido, safe trip home (her voice is pretty clean recorded, which makes it easier in this test IMO) rip-settings of XLD was accuraterip, 96khz upsampling > alac No ripping errors where reported in the log-file. rip-settings of itunes is alac cd was either way ripped using the stock drive in my imac. I randomly imported the songs in itunes, so i didn't know what song was which quality (songs have the same name, and itunes appears to have the tendency to list the songs in added order). I listened to 4x2 tracks (each 4 tracks of both the itunes and the xld rip) i sat down, listened and wrote down the tracknumber that sounded the best/most natural. bottom line; after going back and forth, between tracks, All 4 times i blindly picked the 44.1 khz tracks to be the most natural sound with the most details and the best placement of voices. I expected it to be otherwise, to be honest. So before ripping all your cd's in a certain format, be aware that your setup might react different than expected. I'm not saying itunes does a better job in ripping cd's than XLD, but for my setup the itunes rip sounds a lot better. (differences where big enough to be noted) i haven't choosen the 96 khz rip once to be better. Haven't yet tried ripping the cd using XLD with the 'same as original' sample-rate, Pretty sure i should be unable to notice any differences. Perhaps i'll give this a go later. Has anyone else experienced the same, using up-sampling during ripping?