Rip CD to Mac - basic question


I have started to rip some of my CDs to disk using a mac. I notice a lot of people using software to do this. When I look at a CD in the finder it appears as a set of aiff files for each song, for which I have been doing a drag and drop onto my hard drive, just like copying any other file. I would rather not use iTunes.

My question is: is this a bit for bit perfect copy? If so, why use other software? If not, why not? Computer files are always bit perfect when copied. There must be some software intervention on the part of the OS anyway, as a CD doesn't contain aiff files.

Any help would be appreciated. I don't want to copy a lot of CDs like this and then find I have to do it call over again.
malcolm02
"Mapman - have you tried the DAC direct to amps?

What is your source? Maybe too much jitter to hear these things....

Steve N.
Empirical Audio"

My main source currently is standard issue Squeezebox Touch mainly.

Roku Soundbridge before that.

I also have a Denon CD player/recorder.

Regarding jitter, I would have to a/b listen/compare to a known reference to say.

My digital sounds very good! I have heard a lot of good/reference digital and analog to compare over 40 years or so, not to mention many live performances of all types.

DCS Puccini on a 6 digit VAC based system is perhaps the best reference I have heard I could identify.

I have no complaints and think I would be hard pressed to do much better, though I try not to obsess too much over these things once things sound good/right to me.

I have worked for 4-5 years to get to to current state replacing gear, fine tuning the sound and acoustics, etc. My digital was much inferior to my analog 5 years a go or so. No longer today.

My preferred DAC on my main rig is mhdt COnstantine, which is a giant killer SS DAC IMHO. I also have an mhdt Paradisea that is very nice sounding with the right tube, but it cannot replace the COnstantine in my main rig. I use it in my second family room a/v system for more casual listening.

I would like to try SB touch to DAC to amp direct someday, but have not in that I also play vinyl so need the pre-amp for that.

I think my digital sound today would be pretty hard for most to fault if heard. It is done on a budget though, so I have no misconceptions regarding world class sound or anything like that. I think what I have assembled is pretty solid and competitive though! If you are ever in Baltimore/DC area let me know. I would gladly offer a listen to receive your feedback.
Mapman wrote: "I have no complaints and think I would be hard pressed to do much better"

Actually, you can do a LOT better even with that Touch and its not very expensive:

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/empirical4/1.html

"I would like to try SB touch to DAC to amp direct someday, but have not in that I also play vinyl so need the pre-amp for that."

Actually, you can have your cake and eat it too:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=108715.0

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
The synchro mesh device is interesting.

What are the measured jitter numbers with and without it for SB Touch?

Thanks.
Mapman - SM has money-back guarantee.

I could give you a jitter number, but it would be meaningless. I have had clock oscillators with higher jitter specs that sounded better than those with lower jitter specs. Its because the specs are broken. These need to be specified over frequency and correlated with system activity. Its the jitter spectrum correlated to the music itself that is important.

The only professional jitter studies that I have read over the years involved random jitter, not correlated. These are of no use IMO.

I would resist buying equipment based on measurements anyway. Even amplifier and preamp measurements have little bearing on the musicality of the device. The proof is in the reviews with measurements by by John Atkinson over the years. If specs were that important, no tube equipment would ever be sold because of the high THD compared to SS. However, speaker measurements are useful as are some amp measurements. Most manufacturers have gotten tricky about how they spec, using the most advantageous system and measurment conditions etc., to get the best looking numbers. They do this with jitter too. Dont fool yourself. Its all marketing. They like to say that they "eliminate" jitter too. Impossible.

Jitter is the most useless spec. At least with the analog measurements, there are some correlations to sound quality. With jitter, there are none, zero. I measure jitter, but I dont use it as a selling tool. It's SQ that I am after, not specs that look good.

Jitter is what my products do well, but you will have to hear them to get it.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Are there any specs/measurements that indicate the superiority of the clock compared to standard Squeezebox Touch?

Or perhaps more simply, why did you choose to use the clock you did rather than the one SB Touch uses? What makes it "better"?

The price is certainly reasonable as best I can tell (sure beats DCS) and it appears to be a well thought out device to help optimize performance based on your website description. I would expect only positive results with most sources.