|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
14.185.161.133
In Reply to: RE: Yet another post babbling about huge sonic changes posted by Windows X on August 22, 2016 at 02:43:41
As you noted in your preamble, obviously you appreciate that this is going to raise eyebrows.
The DiskFresh link is interesting and I'd like to know if the theory of magnetic decay stands up to study. However, I fail to see how this is at all meaningful to what you're testing. Magnetic decay leads to data loss by that theory. But that's of course not what you're claiming when you did the various ways of copying.
So do you have a theory here? Is it possible to repeat the research and convince yourself in a *blind* fashion? You mentioned possibility of placebo. Well it's your opportunity to run a blind test and report back. I'm not sure why others have to try this since it goes against how computer storage works. My Word documents didn't change with different copying techniques, nor have I lost or gained money by different ways of copying Excel spreadsheets.
For example try using foobar ABX plugin on 2 of these files and show us the log file. That would help! Thanks...
-------
Archimago's Musings: A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
Follow Ups:
Or you can just try Ultracopier or any file copying software with smaller block/buffer size and see if sounds different yourself. Much faster than debating over null result. ;)
Regards,
Keetakawee
"Or you can just try Ultracopier or any file copying software with smaller block/buffer size and see if sounds different yourself. Much faster than debating over null result. ;)
Regards,
Keetakawee"
Well, that's the problem isn't it?
Over the years, my music collection has been copied back and forth many times. Sometimes for backup. Sometimes to reshuffle folders. And over the last decade, the copying has been done by various versions of Windows. Sometimes it's between SSD drives. Sometimes between hard drives. Sometimes with Windows XP/Vista/10/Server 2012/Linux/Mac OS X. Sometimes through WiFi/powerline ethernet/gigabit ethernet...
Each one of those copies have involved different block sizes on the storage device itself. Each OS will do things a little differently. interfaces like ethernet may have standard vs. "jumbo" frames.
Should there not then be wildly different sounds based on the "history" of the files??? I haven't noticed any difference barring file corruption. I don't recall any discussion in the vast majority of boards about these kinds of differences...
It's not about arguing null results. It's about actually understanding what you're doing and why you think it makes a difference. What's the point of saying Ultracopy sounds different if we cannot learn anything from it. It just leads to more neurotic and obsessional thinking most likely originating from placebo effect (again as you had brought up) if you can't state your case showing that you accounted for this.
-------
Archimago's Musings : A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
Isn't one of the reasons for digital is that it is robust enough to avoid cumulative errors despite being copied numerous times?
Isn't the very existence of DRM evidence that digital is very good indeed at maintaining data integrity through multiple generations of copies?
Why do these changes only seem to occur in audio data? How do other data types manage to maintain their integrity?
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: