Exactly where in the audio chain does this change occur?
Have you thought about how files are physically stored on a HDD?
If what you propose were true, there would be many other factors in a PC that would cause far greater problems. Try running a virus scan of your HDD while playing music. According to your proposal this load on your HDD should cause a audible effect.
It is not just the audio playback that's in question, it has also been stated or implied that you have to rip direct to the Flash drive, you can't just rip to your HDD then copy the file to the Flash drive, even if they are bit identical apparently the end result is different.
I have listened to some of these bit perfect files and have never heard any difference, but I never expected to hear a difference and I didn't. I then get told that, I have a closed mind, my hearing isn't good enough or my system isn't high enough resolution to pick the differences. So I can't win, I did try.
regards
Yes I can agree, with the modifier that it is perceived by that individual as a fact. Perceptions are sincere, that not the issue (for me).
Since we all have different (can have different) beliefs there's no guarantee that the perception of one is the same as the perception of the other, even of the objectively same phenomenon. Additionally, if someone is an authority or knows how these things work, he/she can influence other people's beliefs so their perception will follow the authority's perception. The upshot is that what you perceive can be the result of many factors you have now idea about.
Therefore, if you are serious about audible differences, the only way out (and it's not a perfect way out I agree) is a controlled test, objective or subjective.
Now if you are happy with what you perceive, fine, great, but don't try to convince me that what you perceived is the real thing. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I am sceptic, and even more so if the claimant denies or is ignorant about how perception works.
If you subjectively perceive something as sounding good, great, but stop defending that you really heard the real thing!
jan didden
Yes. I'm well aware of that, and it was the whole point of suggesting it in the first place.
Although some around here seem to consider the request for ABX test results as an insult to their intelligence and totally unnecessary, it's quite the opposite. The same people insult our intelligence by expecting us to accept their word on a matter where they provide no evidence that they can actually hear any difference at all.
Assuming that these people are actually human, they're just as prone to placebo effect as anyone else, and I see their willingness to spend days, weeks, or even months arguing the futility of an ABX test as opposed to spending a miniscule fraction of that time actually carrying out the test as nothing but sheer arrogance.
Sorry if this seems overly harsh, but an opinion based on zero evidence and repeatedly pushed as fact is of no use to anyone.
Last edited:
So none of these dyed-in-the-wool subjectivists ever mentioned to you the possibility that its because you never expected a difference that you never heard one? They'd be the closed minded ones then
Greg,
Have YOU thought about how files are stored on a HDD?
I think not, because then You should have realized that there is no such a thing like two identical files. If you are objective, and take into account the full set of information necessary to read out the data. And it was already pointed out by Guido, earlier on in this same thread, and - purposely? - neglected by the comradeship of the "objectivist" executive platoon usually acting up here.
And, by the way, I am not a supporter of the original claims in the topic of this thread.
Have YOU thought about how files are stored on a HDD?
I think not, because then You should have realized that there is no such a thing like two identical files. If you are objective, and take into account the full set of information necessary to read out the data. And it was already pointed out by Guido, earlier on in this same thread, and - purposely? - neglected by the comradeship of the "objectivist" executive platoon usually acting up here.
And, by the way, I am not a supporter of the original claims in the topic of this thread.
I think this is a valid point. For instance, if you read a badly scratched CD and the laser servo has to work harder, moving more nervously to read the data (and it will read it error free in the end), that process *may* cause additional power supply noise compared to a pristine CD. The additional noise *may* impact audio playback quality down the line. But there are so many stages in between and so many factors that the only thing you can say with any certainty is that it *may* have an impact.
But the reasoning in this thread has been backward mostly. Someone claims to have heard a difference and now the search is on to find an explanation. I keep repeating: why not first establish that indeed there IS a diference before worrying where it might come from.
jan didden
You have ignored most if not all that I've posted! If you want to address the individual points that I made then go ahead I'm willing to listen & learn. If you want to put yourself forth as an expert but not address the points & just call them fanciful, prove that they are fanciful by giving soem real information about the processes involved!
Why do I need evidence - it's a premise about a possiblility - you prove that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny then!
Jan, there is a very thin line here. And You are crossing it. As well as SY and Pano has done this before.
So, there IS a measurable difference somewhere in the system, but it does not matter, because in Your Subjective Opinion it is below a threshold - a threshold defined by yourself?
That is quite far from stating "there are no physical differences" in the system..
So none of these dyed-in-the-wool subjectivists ever mentioned to you the possibility that its because you never expected a difference that you never heard one? They'd be the closed minded ones then
Ooooh, that might be why I didn't hear any difference
Little test :I created in winamp a playlist with a dozen instances of the same song but stored in 4 ways: flac and wav on my hdd, flac and wav on an USB pen. The list was played randomly. The DAC (USB DAC with SRC4192), the amplifier and the headphones (AKG K340) obviously didn't change at all during the test. Do you think I heard any differences ? No.
That whole debate is completly silly. Once a file is properly ripped, it is as perfect as can be. Any audible differences in playback down the line is due... to playback issues. For example, when reading a file an HDD might theoretically stress the 5V supply in a computer, with an influence on the PS of the soundcard in the same computer while the usb pen, requiring less power, doesn't stress the supply in the same way. But, honnestly, if your D/A conversion is influenced in audible ways by your computer, you have bigger problems to address than chasing differences where they can't possibly exist.
Yes, no problem with that. Individual perceptions are individual, what's considered 'the facts' are relative to the perceiver. We even (individually) select which facts we consider relevant and ignore those we don't consider so.
Yes to the first part. Right at the end though is where I must part company with your views because you seem to have introduced an unsupported and inconsistent notion - that of objectivity. 'Objectively the same phenomenon' ? How would we ever know, given that each of us only has subjective perception? I'd prefer to say 'impartially perceived phenomenon' - people whose beliefs are weaker or even perhaps absent will tend to be more impartial. But no-one is 'objective' and hence to me, objectivity is moot. The irony is - the more strongly a person claims 'objectivity' for himself, the less impartial he is because of his strong belief in his 'objectivity'.
Yes, subconscious beliefs are those which affect perception the strongest. So I do find I agree with you here. I'd qualify it though by saying its the other person's belief in the authority which biasses their perception, not any actual 'authority' that a person has. Perception is reality.
I'm aware of another way out - deal with the unconscious beliefs which are the primary causes of perceptual bias.
But what is 'the real thing'? Given your apparent acceptance that facts are relative to the perceiver, you'd need some kind of "god-figure" to be the ultimate authority of unbiassed perception. I take it you don't believe in one, so you have no means of knowing 'the real thing'. I don't hold a belief in one unified 'real thing' which may be accurately perceived by all, so I'm not in danger of violating your proscription
Exactly, correct Joseph & so called "objectivists" seem to be very lax/shy/coy/reluctant about qualifying that there measurement system is capable of measuring accurately & to a resolution needed.
Last edited:
To my mind its perfectly fine for both to go on in parallel - the skeptics (myself included) can work on possible non-placebo hypotheses whilst the hearers can get themselves set up with foo-ABX and put the placebo hypothesis to the test. For myself, it seems that if its power supply related the solution is to build a better DAC which is immune to such foibles.
Yes. Large files are not guaranteed to be contiguous. The information about the physical location of the file or the many parts of the file is contained in the FAT. It was pointed out a few posts back the extra effort of reading one "imperfect" bit might affect audio playback. What affect would the head movement cause then? That is why I suggested running the a virus scanner to put a load on the HDD. If trying to read one magnetic dipole can cause a difference then the head jumping from your wave file to the next file to scan and back would be audible. While writing my last post I was pausing and restarting my virus scanner and I didn't detect a difference.
Files are identical if they contain the same data (by definition). What's in the header is irrelevant. A contiguous file can be identical to a non-contiguous file if the data is the same. The header, physical file location, filename are just operating system overheads, irrelevant in audio playback.
I am pretty sure, all CD drive have INTERNAL buffer and supply the output with data from the buffer at a rate controlled by a fixed clock. When you read a data CD, the speed of the disk spinning is controlled by the content of the buffer to maintain it a (at least 50%).
When reading AUDIO CD, the speed of the CD is constant BUT the buffer is still used (and fulled at the start of the CD).
If there are two files, one contiguous and one non-contiguous, and the OS calculates that that both files have the same checksum then it can be said that it's highly unlikely that they're different in any meaningful way.
If data integrity was affected by the storage location then all computers would have major issues.
If data integrity was affected by the storage location then all computers would have major issues.
The data is the same (bit comparison proves that). The metadata and the environment may be different. Some of these differences may affect playback. So what?
If you copy a file the only thing which is guaranteed to stay the same is the data. The metadata and environment will change, in ways which are in principle deterministic but in practice difficult to predict. If it sounds different on playback then that means that your playback mechanism is flawed, because it is clearly being influenced by things other than data. This difference cannot be hidden in the data, because by definition the data is the same. It could, to some extent, be hidden in the metadata but it is still a playback issue, not a data issue, as perfect playback would not be influenced by metadata.
Power supply noise, disc seek times, signal ground bounce etc. etc. are all playback issues, not data issues. We need to stop searching for the unicorn and start looking for a horse with a cone glued to its head!
If you copy a file the only thing which is guaranteed to stay the same is the data. The metadata and environment will change, in ways which are in principle deterministic but in practice difficult to predict. If it sounds different on playback then that means that your playback mechanism is flawed, because it is clearly being influenced by things other than data. This difference cannot be hidden in the data, because by definition the data is the same. It could, to some extent, be hidden in the metadata but it is still a playback issue, not a data issue, as perfect playback would not be influenced by metadata.
Power supply noise, disc seek times, signal ground bounce etc. etc. are all playback issues, not data issues. We need to stop searching for the unicorn and start looking for a horse with a cone glued to its head!
Are you really sure that system overheads are irrelevant in audio playback. Can you prove this? Lot's of definitive, categorical statements thrown around. In my simplicity, I believe that we are dealing with such a complex environment that there is plenty of room for issues effecting audio playback.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.