Still, she could make some additions to her allowance by coming up with a lead foil shield to put over the screen. It's easy to show that the lead blocks radiation. Monitoring of undressing moms is done by radiation, therefore her shield would be absolutely effective.
Does she have any sense of entrepreneurship?
Does she have any sense of entrepreneurship?
Well, I have an idea here, and I'd like to see what you think of it. . .
There's a slight problem with the possibility that everyone is right. Albeit unlikely, its also not impossible. Although explanations as to cause, vary considerably in accuracy, a very real problem does exist.
Weak bits do happen to drives of all types although this also happens to apply equally to both hard drives and flash drives. Wear is the determining factor. GRC SpinRite is the popular professional tool for stopping that problem with hard drives.
If the file in question contains something in-between a "0" versus a "1" then the little weak half measure is an analogue noise in an otherwise digital media. Its going to happen if the equipment has enough wear.
In perfect shape, its impossible that the flash drive and the hard drive will cause a difference in the replay of a music file. But, the world isn't perfect. Even new equipment suffers Muntzing (profit margin) and they do all have in common the overall really horrible quality of computer cables, and also its true that parts made by all different manufacturers may not make a 100% match. SO, yes, its possible to see the problem occur on even brand new equipment. Just because its new doesn't mean its 100%. Truly fine is very rare and the rest is noise.
The noise occurs during playback exactly the same as a non-optimal cd blank written in a random DVD writer made during recent times when CD writing is considered seriously unimportant (deprecated) by the manufacturer of the DVD writer. Wrong size holes also makes "weak bit" type problems, same as a worn out hard drive, except much worse than that.
Its the same noise.
Either you get a quick muffle from working error correction or a little "flip" sound from non-working error correction.
Audiophile equipment of the analytic sort (clear peakish, wouldn't want to crank it to top volume for very long, but hey it sure is clear and maybe on the verge of shouty, but it sure is clear--you know that type of equipment), is much more likely to call attention to these small flaws simply because it calls attention to every kind of flaw.
Sometimes the problem is caused.
Musicians like "real" sounding audio, but systems of the analytical sort don't exactly do that job--not exactly. Guitarists (qualified because of having daily experience with wide varieties of amplifiers, speakers, and settings) could tell you that this sort of equipment does more to call attention to flaws that it does to replay music.
Therefore, the highly analytical version of audiophile equipment isn't expressly specific to music replay as the artist would intend. So, some of the equipment out there is doing exactly what its designed to do, which is exaggerate all flaws. No need to complain about a problem of your choosing.
Conversely, the "laid back version of audiophile equipment" shouldn't ever accidentally call attention to CD and file corruption noises. If this sort of realistic music presentation does happen to emit the little flips and/or muffles, then you can be fairly sure that you've got a data integrity issue.
The first step is to put in a new file and see if it plays correctly in order to test the playback equipment.
The next step is to restore any damaged files from backup.
For computer files, the most reliable backups are white top archive grade low acid CDs written by a real and well tested CD-only writer. Simply put, quality CD writing is important to the manufacturer when making a CD-only writer. More information is at CDfreaks.com.
My own version is a Sony 52x flashed with the "700" cd size update and using archive grade white top (its like armor) low acid CDs. Also, simply put, CDs written very, very well are much more durable and longer lasting than CDs written with borderline quality.
Its possible to make excellent CDs with a dvd writer; however, its statistically less likely. And, the point of backups is decreased risk, right? Yeah, so score a nice CD writer on ebay and test it thoroughly with available software verification tools.
A basic backup strategy involves having one copy on-site and another copy off-site. Perhaps a relative will store a small box for you. Data files of all sorts do wear out as quickly as whatever they're stored on, and so its necessary to be prepared.
It seems that the wild explanations may be a valid art in that its necessary to explore all factors; however, its also the "repaired the wrong spot" error in that its indirect. A more direct approach is needed so that the [very real] problems can be solved.
In the case of noise from one drive and not the other, its simply data integrity at some point in the chain, no matter if the drive is new or old, as it could be imperfect either way. This serves as a great reminder to make data backups.
Today, the majority of backups is on hard drive, due to the large size of files and due to convenience. This method, although convenient is also exposed, not only to slow digital corruption, but also to increased usage. CRC file checking on drives isn't the most effective but it is the fastest. A 1% chance of error becomes a 100% destruction if enough time passes that also includes regular usage. In the war for speed, size and profit, much data integrity is compromised. Yes, the hard drive and flash drive files can wear out. So, I think that photos and music do still warrant the labor of a quality CD backup with a real CD writer that has been verified and using archive quality discs.
So, do you think that was accurate? I really tried.
Daniel, I think you just added to the list of topics that are irrelevant. File corruptions and backup strategies has nothing to do with the topic.
regards
I have photo CD's from 1998 that still work fine. If I take a binary editor and flip one bit from a JPEG it's trashed.
OK Daniel, but I think that you have missed the part were many of us have transfered digital audio files from place without a single bit going astray. Source file matches copied file - exactly. No in between bits to muddy the waters. If the existed, they have not caused a problem.
Forum member Akira routinely transfers many terabytes of info from Hawaii to France with no errors. It simply is not a problem inside a home computer. If it were, the checksums would not agree. They do agree.
Forum member Akira routinely transfers many terabytes of info from Hawaii to France with no errors. It simply is not a problem inside a home computer. If it were, the checksums would not agree. They do agree.
I believe what Daniel is getting at is the idea of "weak bits" that take some extra effort to read (i.e their physical storage is at the limit of tolerance for the storage media). The same as a CD whose pits & lands are not as well defined as should be & cause extra processing to be used to retrieve them. This extra processing translates into a different PS mileau in the PC during playback. Now this different PS environment may well effect the playback of audio.
Note that the bits are not effected, just the amount of effort required to retrieve those bits. In digital processing there is no concern over the effort required to retrieve a bit but in audio playback, there may well be. The files will be bit for bit identical but the reading of these two identical files will not represent the same load on the OS.
These "weak bits" could be changed when one copies a file from one media to another or from one CD to another. Hence you have two files with identical checksums but different processing loads.
What would be an interesting experiment would be to either examine the physical surface of two CDs - one that sounds bad Vs a good one for these characteristic & do an analysis of the above idea OR to measure the OS load of the reading of bad Vs good. It's not difficult to extrapolate this idea to other media.
The point was always being made that when you start dealing with digital at the physical level of how it's represented you are into the realm of analogue.
Note that the bits are not effected, just the amount of effort required to retrieve those bits. In digital processing there is no concern over the effort required to retrieve a bit but in audio playback, there may well be. The files will be bit for bit identical but the reading of these two identical files will not represent the same load on the OS.
These "weak bits" could be changed when one copies a file from one media to another or from one CD to another. Hence you have two files with identical checksums but different processing loads.
What would be an interesting experiment would be to either examine the physical surface of two CDs - one that sounds bad Vs a good one for these characteristic & do an analysis of the above idea OR to measure the OS load of the reading of bad Vs good. It's not difficult to extrapolate this idea to other media.
The point was always being made that when you start dealing with digital at the physical level of how it's represented you are into the realm of analogue.
Last edited:
Excuse me
As one of those with an education in digital electronics, it is entirely possible. It's entirely possible by the placebo effect. Its also entirely possible that replaying from stationary or moving media results in different levels of power supply noise coupling into the analog outputs.Yet you have no evidence that they don't hear what they say they hear. So this is an unsubstantiated claim.
To be honest, I tried a few words instead of 'sell' knowing you or somebody else would immediately clamp on that word instead of commenting on the comment. Looks like I still didn't get the right one. Ohh well.
Anyway, I DO get the impression that what is strictly a personal, anecdotal opinion is somehow 'presented' (that better?) as fact. Like 'its trivial to establish a difference' or words of that nature. It isn't, not by a long shot. It hasn't been done, in spite of it being 'trivial'. I think I am allowed to point that out without being accused of being adversarial - unless you would call anybody who disagrees 'adversarial'.
jan didden
Maybe we can make a deal? I accept that scope shots of S/PDIF signal differences cause audible differences, and you accept that an amp with 0.001% THD must sound better than one with 0.05% THD?
jan didden
Pano, your analogy fails because its a red-herring - i.e. totally misses the mark. This is not about beliefs, its about perceptions. A person's beliefs certainly do influence their perceptions but they're fundamentally different things.
No, I welcome disagreement when ponts are made that make me think & we both have a possibility to learn something new in the process. I just pulled you up not on the word "sell" but on the phrase because it tend to demean the intentions of the other party i.e they are giving their experiences & suggesting that anybody try them but your phrase I read as if someone is trying to sell you something you don't want i.e as in hard sell!
Last edited:
Nope, I don't accept that THD red herring, sorry but I'm glad to see you finally accept S/PDIF differences as relevant to soundMaybe we can make a deal? I accept that scope shots of S/PDIF signal differences cause audible differences, and you accept that an amp with 0.001% THD must sound better than one with 0.05% THD?
jan didden
Jan, it seems to be a common error amongst the 'objectivists' that what is a perception (hearing something) is mis-perceived to be an opinion. Your statement above is but one example - I've remarked on such from time to time but there seems to be no sign of this error reducing in frequency. I would guess those on the subjectivist side (I'm on neither of the two sides myself
) have a tendency not to warm to their perceptions being characterized (or even dismissed) as mere opinions.What we perceive is in general a 'fact', whether the perception is via visual or auditory means. Both are potentially subject to distortion by a person's beliefs.
You mean something like a blind listening test?
That seems to be the only thing that nobody's tried yet (in this thread).
Well Daniel & I gave a possible explanation for how this may effect audio & nobody has commented. Forget whether it's a long shot or not. The point is that the PC environment is so complex & multi-dimensional when it comes to audio that making unequivocal statements about the impossibility of some effect in audio is foolish.
Is there anybody here who has the level of detailed knowledge of how the PC operates from the detail level of how the bits are stored on disk & retrieved & the mechanisms involved to how the transport of those bits through the PC is achieved (at the physical layer level). My premise is that this is an anlogue process when you get down to the fine detail & therefore is exposed to all the possible distortion mechanisms that analogue signals are prone to.
The signal isn't corrupt because of all the feedback & self-correcting mechanisms built into PCs but here's the rub can two identical bit perfect files represent a different load on the OS due to the amount of self-correcting needed for one being different to that needed for the other. If the answer to this is yes, then ask yourself, can different OS loads effect audio playback?
Now don't use the argument that this is just playback - it's about the tolerances of how the data is stored on disk/CD/etc which will come into play at playback. So these files where there are significant bits at the edge of tolerance (ie. not generating a bit error but requiring correcting) will generate a higher OS processing load then another bit perfect identical file where there is less correcting needed.
Continually citing "it's digital" is just lazy thinking!
Is there anybody here who has the level of detailed knowledge of how the PC operates from the detail level of how the bits are stored on disk & retrieved & the mechanisms involved to how the transport of those bits through the PC is achieved (at the physical layer level). My premise is that this is an anlogue process when you get down to the fine detail & therefore is exposed to all the possible distortion mechanisms that analogue signals are prone to.
The signal isn't corrupt because of all the feedback & self-correcting mechanisms built into PCs but here's the rub can two identical bit perfect files represent a different load on the OS due to the amount of self-correcting needed for one being different to that needed for the other. If the answer to this is yes, then ask yourself, can different OS loads effect audio playback?
Now don't use the argument that this is just playback - it's about the tolerances of how the data is stored on disk/CD/etc which will come into play at playback. So these files where there are significant bits at the edge of tolerance (ie. not generating a bit error but requiring correcting) will generate a higher OS processing load then another bit perfect identical file where there is less correcting needed.
Continually citing "it's digital" is just lazy thinking!
Last edited:
"Is there anybody here who has the level of detailed knowledge of how the PC operates from the detail level of how the bits are stored .........."
I am sure many many do, myself included. I've been designing, building, testing and repairing digital systems, of which PCs are a small part, for over 40 years.
The rest of your post is just fanciful speculation based on a near total ignorance of how such things work! Rocket science it aint!
A couple of things:
EXCEPT in the case of retrieving serial data of a rotating mechanical system (ie a classic CD player) jitter, clock nervosa etc are irrelevant. Data is moved in PARALLEL and is strobed by a clock when settled. That's it. In general no processor required. No error correction required because there are no errors!
The PC, logic, motherboard and memory have no way of knowing that the data may finally be used to represent audio. How can it work for years moving petabytes of stuff around error free but fail as soon as it finds "a little .WAV file full of delicate little audio signals"?
I am sure many many do, myself included. I've been designing, building, testing and repairing digital systems, of which PCs are a small part, for over 40 years.
The rest of your post is just fanciful speculation based on a near total ignorance of how such things work! Rocket science it aint!
A couple of things:
EXCEPT in the case of retrieving serial data of a rotating mechanical system (ie a classic CD player) jitter, clock nervosa etc are irrelevant. Data is moved in PARALLEL and is strobed by a clock when settled. That's it. In general no processor required. No error correction required because there are no errors!
The PC, logic, motherboard and memory have no way of knowing that the data may finally be used to represent audio. How can it work for years moving petabytes of stuff around error free but fail as soon as it finds "a little .WAV file full of delicate little audio signals"?
This is not obvious. The data would have to be moved to RAM before playing. Depending on the specific external interface and RAM buffer the PS noise generated will generally differ. If playback is done entirely from RAM and the buffer is large enough to contain a full track or even a playlist then the issue of media type is resolved.
Nope, I don't accept that THD red herring, sorry but I'm glad to see you finally accept S/PDIF differences as relevant to sound
Sorry no deal then.
jan didden
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.