[WindowsX]

I know this sounds a bit hard to believe but it’s true since it was done without pretense to get better sound. Well, some people who use Rewrite Data maybe familiar with this concept already.

We did some ripping experiments and my friend who owned AK380 tested the song from micro sd to compare between players.

On later days, he told me copying music from AK’s file manager system in device sounds worse than copying from his ripping machine. He made a dedicated ripping machine with linear PSU and even built a new aluminum chassis to improve it.

 

 

So, we did another test. I tried copying music from laptop using default file copy from Windows 10 and ones from another file copier software call Copy Handler with different buffer size.

Guess what? It all sounded different. I was stunned. I’m aware that different micro sd cards can affect and different machines used to copy songs can sound different. But THIS! The same machine, same device, with only different changes of buffer size also affected it. That’s nuts!

OK. Let’s take this to next level. I use my desktop to copy 4 files named A, B, X, and Y to micro SD card, plug it into user’s portable DAPs and let them listen. They all can notice the changes effortlessly and all said the same thing. B and Y sounds very different. Here’s why.

A: Default USB connection using Windows 10 file copy
B: JCAT USB Card connection (with built-in PSU and filter) using Windows 10 file copy
X: JCAT USB Card connection (with built-in PSU and filter) using Ultracopier file copy
Y: JCAT USB Card connection (with built-in PSU and filter) using Ultracopier file copy with sequential write and 4kb buffer

And this is double blind test without telling them how each file was copied before. I also did some research and found app similar to Rewrite Data written over 3 years ago here.

http://www.fact-reviews.com/info/diskfresh.aspx

He gave an interesting explanation about music files storage improvement on both magnetic and flash memory in SSD too.

I have yet to find anyone not noticing the different. Is it placebo effect? You can try this experiment yourself and test it with your friends. Happy listening.

Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[castleofargh]

just looked at the discussion going on in PM, what is very obvious to me is that you're not doing a blind test. you basically give 4 files to people and they don't have to use the difference they can hear to identify the each file and prove they can really hear the difference(like in a blind test), instead you just ask "do you hear a difference?", so they know they're listening to A when it's A and they only have to believe they're hearing a difference.
you have demonstrated that people are susceptible to placebo and conditioning from what you told them before or in the middle of the test. congrats for that, but it's a well known thing and has no relation to bits. 
 
next point is MD5 verification. if the 4 copies pass that test, and aren't really identical, the statistical chances of this occurring with a hash for each song is lower than ludicrous. after that another possibility would be the md5 hash itself to have been corrupted, but a corruption giving positive result is also ludicrously low, and for it to happen 4 times in a row... man, go play the lottery right now. 
so the logical conclusion is that the 4 files are indeed identical at the point when you checked them. did you do the md5 checksum verification at the final position and didn't move them after that? if so then yes at least for the files themselves, bits are bits and they're the same.
 
 
if you still don't believe the files are the same, you could test them with other methods, if you think the data can look the same and still sound different(which make zero sense), you could have tried to compare them in audio diffmaker and see what you get compared to twice the same file copied from the same place the same way. but as you already have your conclusion in your head, instead of checking all that to see if the files really are identical or not, you get satisfied with drawing weird conclusions from a bad sighted experiment.
that IMO is why it isn't science and why currawong deleted your first post, because this topic doesn't have anything to offer as it is right now except a warning against bad testing methods and biased testers.
 
now if you get people to pass the abx from 2 files(why 4 in the first place?) that get the same MD5 checksum, then indeed you'll have something worth investigating and some of us will be happy to try it ourselves and see if we can confirm your findings using your files. but that's not what you presented here at all and there is no point in trying ourselves something based on such a poor test.
 
 
 
PS: calling the files A, B, X, Y  is hilarious. did you expect us to think you did an abx just because you renamed the files that way?

 

[WindowsX]

I already told you all files are the same. The sonic changes that we noticed came from changes of file copying method. Do you know about Rewrite Data and DiskFresh software? A lot of computer audiophiles are using it to refresh data writing mechanism.
 
I find it hilarious that you read PM yet you forget A B X Y was tested in DAP and I never mention it was ABX. It's just blind testing and I did say all people find B and Y sounds so different as a result of blind test. Go back and read everything again carefully. I already answered every Q/A promptly and clearly enough. I also said this in PM.
 
- its not an abx
: ABX isn't possible through software in DAP. If you want to conduct proper testing, you can do it yourself or simply do basic test first like I did.
 
It seems moderator aren't doing fine job at grasping information in PM and even mixed private conversation into another topic themselves. I kept telling you guys to try Ultracopier and see the result yourself. It's not that hard. Except one guy among mods in PM was nice enough to chat with me as a proper moderator. I'm not surprised why this forum is so messed up with full of part-timer objectivists. They're so willing to argue for days instead of doing simple tests that cost them only few minutes of their life.
 
If you don't plan to test Ultracopier software and see if you can notice any sonic changes, don't bother. It might short circuit your own logical sense. Keep believing in whatever you want and remain ignorant to data that you can easily verify yourself.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[castleofargh]

ok my bad for abx from the DAP, and I didn't get there had been 2 tests. but does it need to be a dap as source? of course not. if you can't replicate the problem on a hard disc or a computer, then the cause isn't the transfer but something with the DAP you're testing.
so that's out of the way. you could perform an abx if you wanted to, or at least show that the problem is with the DAP.
 
now  my real problem, explain exactly how what you call a blind test was performed, and see how many people find that test significant.

 

[WindowsX]

No it doesn't need to be a DAP. DAP is for convenience reason. I bring micro sd card to head-fiers, let them listen to and give me feedback for testing purpose. You can test this on computer too using ABX software (make sure it reads original file without copying to temp directory).
 
By my blind test approach, I told them all files are the same and let people listen to their own device at their own accord, ask them this.
 
1. Do you notice any difference from all these files?
: Yes
 
2. How are they different?
: (subjective explanation, not really useful for blind test data)
 
3. Which pair do you find most different?
: B and Y
 
Participants aren't that many to be honest, about 4 people I guess. That's why I'm looking forward to see other results after sharing my test methods.
 
Anyway, I don't really trust in ABX software since most of them will pre-buffer both files into memory for instant source swap. I suspect storage effectiveness will be harder to notice but I haven't confirmed it myself yet. Foobar's ABX will copy files to temp directory so it won't work. Do you have any recommendation?
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[Tom White]

My BS meter just exploded!

 

[Ancipital]

  My BS meter just exploded!

 
Clearly you got the  directional cryo-copper cables connecting it the wrong way around, the shame caused it to self-immolate 

 

 

[RRod]

Did cmp stop existing or am I missing something?

 

[VNandor]

I'm not sure if I understand it correctly but you suggest that when you copy files you don't end up with the exact same digital data? If that's what you say it's better to null test the original file and the copied file to see if they null each other out (instead of trying to do a blind test where it's easy to mess things up). If they null then the differences come from elsewhere and not from the ripping.

 

[WindowsX]

It's the exact same digital data, only difference is writing mechanism that affect data reading block. I tried copying with the same writing mechanism, same sound, no difference. But comparing to default OS file copying, it sounds different.
 
I believe it's something to do issues that Rewrite Data trying to solve. If we can improve file copying mechanism, we can minimize effect from such problem.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[castleofargh]

  I'm not sure if I understand it correctly but you suggest that when you copy files you don't end up with the exact same digital data? If that's what you say it's better to null test the original file and the copied file to see if they null each other out (instead of trying to do a blind test where it's easy to mess things up). If they null then the differences come from elsewhere and not from the ripping.

what he's trying to say is that you need a special software(that I'm sure will come soon) to copy your files so that they sound the best, and that even when the MD5 check tells the files to be identical, they still sound differently.
that's the position of OP like I understand it.
obviously it's something that will be very very very hard to replicate with an actual blind test instead of basically asking people how they felt in a test much closer to sighted evaluation than to blind test.
it's such a controversial idea, yet OP didn't bother gathering serious evidence to prove there really is an audible sound difference. I guess we need to change the old saying into: "extraordinary claims require ... a few people who share a subjective opinion and it's all good".

 

[Ancipital]

   
it's such a controversial idea, yet OP didn't bother gathering serious evidence to prove there really is an audible sound difference. I guess we need to change the old saying into: "extraordinary claims require ... a few people who share a subjective opinion and it's all good".

 
Extraordinary claims require people who don't understand how computers work, in this case 

 

[WindowsX]

 
what he's trying to say is that you need a special software(that I'm sure will come soon) to copy your files so that they sound the best, and that even when the MD5 check tells the files to be identical, they still sound differently.
that's the position of OP like I understand it.
obviously it's something that will be very very very hard to replicate with an actual blind test instead of basically asking people how they felt in a test much closer to sighted evaluation than to blind test.
it's such a controversial idea, yet OP didn't bother gathering serious evidence to prove there really is an audible sound difference. I guess we need to change the old saying into: "extraordinary claims require ... a few people who share a subjective opinion and it's all good".

 
I just recommend software to try and see if you can find difference. It's a waste of time to write file copying software when there's a few that can work already.
 
And why do I have to get serious to prove when everyone here is so lazy doing part-time objectivist jobs. They can spend days making fun of bizzare theories yet they can't just download this file to try that can be done in 5 minutes.
 
Allow me tell you step-by-step to test this out.
 
1. Download and install ultracopier from https://ultracopier.first-world.info/download-all.html
 
2. Go to tray icon, select options and configure performance like this.
 

 
3. Reboot
 
4. Click on music file, press Ctrl-C then Ctrl-V. You should get 'music - Copy' file. I recommend WAV format because uncompressed should be easier to notice than lossy/lossless.
 
5. Drag 'music' and 'music - Copy' files into player and listen.
 
Also, you don't have to be such a jerk to moderate this forum. It's full BS conspiracy like I'm preparing file copying software to release. I thought you'll behave yourself better after screwing me over from last PM incident but no. I can't believe I'm getting trolled by moderator himself. This is getting ridiculous now. I'm out.
 
You don't need to try it at all. Just believe in whatever you want. I've lost my curiosity in this topic now thanks to you guys.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[VNandor]

  It's the exact same digital data, only difference is writing mechanism that affect data reading block. I tried copying with the same writing mechanism, same sound, no difference. But comparing to default OS file copying, it sounds different.
 
I believe it's something to do issues that Rewrite Data trying to solve. If we can improve file copying mechanism, we can minimize effect from such problem.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

It's still flying above my head. You have a dedicated file copier software (what???) that you used to copy a file, then you compared it against a copy which was made by the default windows file copier and they didn't sound the same? Because if that's the case, just do a null test and if they null, the differences are not caused due to bad copying.

   
I just recommend software to try and see if you can find difference. It's a waste of time to write file copying software when there's a few that can work already.
 
And why do I have to get serious to prove when everyone here is so lazy doing part-time objectivist jobs. They can spend days making fun of bizzare theories yet they can't just download this file to try that can be done in 5 minutes.
 
Allow me tell you step-by-step to test this out.
 
1. Download and install ultracopier from https://ultracopier.first-world.info/download-all.html
 
2. Go to tray icon, select options and configure performance like this.
 

 
3. Reboot
 
4. Click on music file, press Ctrl-C then Ctrl-V. You should get 'music - Copy' file. I recommend WAV format because uncompressed should be easier to notice than lossy/lossless.
 
5. Drag 'music' and 'music - Copy' files into player and listen.
 
Also, you don't have to be such a jerk to moderate this forum. It's full BS conspiracy like I'm preparing file copying software to release. I thought you'll behave yourself better after screwing me over from last PM incident but no. I can't believe I'm getting trolled by moderator himself. This is getting ridiculous now. I'm out.
 
You don't need to try it at all. Just believe in whatever you want. I've lost my curiosity in this topic now thanks to you guys.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

But isn't the point is to not find any differences? If it's a better way of copying the files, they definitely should sound the same. By the way I never had any problems with copying my files. If it was music, they sounded the same and if it was a software, they worked flawlessly.

 

[Ancipital]

 
It's still flying above my head. You have a dedicated file copier software (what???) that you used to copy a file, then you compared it against a copy which was made by the default windows file copier and they didn't sound the same? Because if that's the case, just do a null test and if they null, the differences are not caused due to bad copying.

 
No, you don't understand, it's like USB cables that "really open up the sound stage". Leaving aside how digital audio works, it all makes perfect sense.