[KyPeN]

Software engineer here.
 
You're gonna have to detail, and I mean detail, what "dedicated file copier software means."  If I use Windows standard copy within Explorer, a Python script that copies the file over directly, or a C++ program that copies the bits over directly via its own (let's assume custom) buffering mechanism, they're all going to be calling into the same exact operating system API that interfaces with motherboard controller and harddisk firmware to copy blocks.  The higher level code mechanisms don't really matter here, because the underlying code in the hardware is doing the heavy lifting and everything is using the same APIs the OS provides.
 
A proper analogy would be that if you have a multilingual person flipping light switches.  If you tell him in English to flip a switch over, I tell him in Spanish, and a third person tells him in Japanese, he flips the switch exactly the same, regardless of how we told him, from where, or using what language.
 
Either the bits come out the same or they don't.  Provide a SHA-1 hash of all files.  Are they the same?  Same data.  Move on with life.  Period.  If you're going to discredit that, you better have SERIOUS data to back it up, because it would be invalidating not just audiophile "man, this sounds better when I copy over with your special software" scientific research, but also biological, industrial, and literally EVERY OTHER field that uses computers to copy data and assume it's lossless.  Lossless is lossless, period.  If you can provide data, and I mean HARD DAMNED DATA, that discounts that, I'm all ears.  Otherwise, nope.  
 
EDIT:  Just a couple updates:
1)  It looks like SHA-1 has been deprecated and SHA-2 or SHA-3 is more recommended for cryptography purposes.  Any of these should be more than sufficient.
2)  Can we take a moment to appreciate how impossible it is to actually validate the claims here?  If any of us download the files, do a comparison, and prove they're identical, OP can simply attempt to invalidate that whole debate by arguing that the download over the internet was not a valid copy under the test requirements, because of the assertions in his initial post.  You've just got to be there.  Trust me.  Yeah, sure.  Like I said, I demand HARD data or this is so debunked it was never bunked in the first place.  

 

[WindowsX]

I'll do that when I run audiophile file copying software business. For now, I'm just testing out to see some result and share with the method with people to find out. As everyone is so smart enough to the point that no one's going to test this software, I don't see the point why I should do as you said. I mean, it doesn't really affect me in anyway if you can notice the difference or not. I just want to know the result from other people. If none does, that's it.
 
I'll come by again if someone post result from listening test. Science started from observing the subject, not defining ones. It looks pointless to continue without people who's willing to unlearn and relearn.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

 

[bfreedma]

  I'll do that when I run audiophile file copying software business. For now, I'm just testing out to see some result and share with the method with people to find out. As everyone is so smart enough to the point that no one's going to test this software, I don't see the point why I should do as you said. I mean, it doesn't really affect me in anyway if you can notice the difference or not. I just want to know the result from other people. If none does, that's it.
 
I'll come by again if someone post result from listening test. Science started from observing the subject, not defining ones. It looks pointless to continue without people who's willing to unlearn and relearn.
 
Regards,
Keetakawee

 
How many times are you going to play this game:
 
Make a technically outrageous claim
Ignore the actual reality of how the technology in question works
Refuse to properly test your own claim
Blame others for not testing what is already established but rely on uncontrolled listening tests to make a conclusion supporting your claim.
 
Expecting copies to sound different is like hoping a compressed file of your bank account changes the balance to a billion due to a particular compression/decompression algorithm.  If you want me (or anyone else) to take this seriously, it's incumbent on you to describe what in the various copying front ends could possibly cause any differences, let alone audible ones.  Something more than speculation would be beneficial

 

[WindowsX]

   
How many times are you going to play this game:
 
Make a technically outrageous claim
Ignore the actual reality of how the technology in question works
Refuse to properly test your own claim
Blame others for not testing what is already established but rely on uncontrolled listening tests to make a conclusion supporting your claim.
 
Expecting copies to sound different is like hoping a compressed file of your bank account changes the balance to a billion due to a particular compression/decompression algorithm.  If you want me (or anyone else) to take this seriously, it's incumbent on you to describe what in the various copying front ends could possibly cause any differences, let alone audible ones.  Something more than speculation would be beneficial

 
The only reality I see here is no one ever installed and listened to the file from both normal OS and ultracopier with my suggested configuration side by side. I clearly understand the logic behind your suggestion and I admit I used to think the same until I heard CD transport that sounds so much better than crappy computer audio transport I used to have.
 
How long do you guys plan on bashing this silly concept without taking action to prove me right here? It's very simple, really. You test the software and tell me you can't hear any difference. You know what? I argued with my audiophile friend another day and I put micro sd card on his device to listen. He was surprised said unbelievable.
 
It's getting stupid to argue with people who never have experience about it. I have better things to do than arguing over such cases and doing whatever you guys demand and ended up having no response in the end if I can actually prove it.

 

[bfreedma]

   
The only reality I see here is no one ever installed and listened to the file from both normal OS and ultracopier with my suggested configuration side by side. I clearly understand the logic behind your suggestion and I admit I used to think the same until I heard CD transport that sounds so much better than crappy computer audio transport I used to have.
 
How long do you guys plan on bashing this silly concept without taking action to prove me right here? It's very simple, really. You test the software and tell me you can't hear any difference. You know what? I argued with my audiophile friend another day and I put micro sd card on his device to listen. He was surprised said unbelievable.
 
It's getting stupid to argue with people who never have experience about it. I have better things to do than arguing over such cases and doing whatever you guys demand and ended up having no response in the end if I can actually prove it.

 
Your claim, your burden of proof.  Anecdotal evidence from something you did with your friend isn't sufficient.  For all we know, he might simply be humoring you to end the conversation.
 
I'm not going to bother for the same reason I don't jump off tall buildings just to make sure gravity still works as we expect.  KyPeN provided a succinct explanation of the mechanics behind file copy, yet you seem to completely ignore it.
 
Feel free to provide evidence that the high end transport sounds better than a standard disk spinner while you're at it.

 

[VNandor]

   
The only reality I see here is no one ever installed and listened to the file from both normal OS and ultracopier with my suggested configuration side by side. I clearly understand the logic behind your suggestion and I admit I used to think the same until I heard CD transport that sounds so much better than crappy computer audio transport I used to have.
 
How long do you guys plan on bashing this silly concept without taking action to prove me right here? It's very simple, really. You test the software and tell me you can't hear any difference. You know what? I argued with my audiophile friend another day and I put micro sd card on his device to listen. He was surprised said unbelievable.
 
It's getting stupid to argue with people who never have experience about it. I have better things to do than arguing over such cases and doing whatever you guys demand and ended up having no response in the end if I can actually prove it.

I did not test the ultracopier, however I've tested windows' original data copier a couple of times already. I did that when I compared WAV against FLAC (please don't ask what I was hoping for and why). Going by your logic I should have noticed a difference but I didn't, not to mention they nulled out so the data duplicating went totally perfectly and not just "I didn't notice the little difference" kind of perfectly. Now after those tests all I'm achieving is to be called a tin-ear or listening to people who want to send me to an ear specialist instead of proving anything to them. A negative outcome of a blind test proves nothing, sorry.

 

[KyPeN]

   
The only reality I see here is no one ever installed and listened to the file from both normal OS and ultracopier with my suggested configuration side by side. I clearly understand the logic behind your suggestion and I admit I used to think the same until I heard CD transport that sounds so much better than crappy computer audio transport I used to have.
 
How long do you guys plan on bashing this silly concept without taking action to prove me right here? It's very simple, really. You test the software and tell me you can't hear any difference. You know what? I argued with my audiophile friend another day and I put micro sd card on his device to listen. He was surprised said unbelievable.
 
It's getting stupid to argue with people who never have experience about it. I have better things to do than arguing over such cases and doing whatever you guys demand and ended up having no response in the end if I can actually prove it.

 
So why are you here?  The tweaks DBT-free forum is 20 pixels above this from the forum homepage.  Go there if you want to make unsubstantiated claims.  I don't care what you think, what you used to think, what your "audiophile friend" thinks, what he was surprised about, or your emotions.  Couldn't possibly care less.  I care about the data.  You've provided none.  Bye.

 

[gregorio]

  It's the exact same digital data, only difference is writing mechanism that affect data reading block.

 
This is your fundamental problem, just as it was in a previous thread. The writing mechanism is NOT the only difference!! There are numerous other differences, the question is only which of those differences you believe is the cause.
 

  I tried copying with the same writing mechanism, same sound, no difference. But comparing to default OS file copying, it sounds different.

 
Tell us something we don't already know, something which hasn't already been known for decades. Of course it's possible to perceive a difference between the exact same digital (or analogue) audio files. There are various effects which can cause this, the one most people here are probably most familiar with is the McGurk Effect, the discovery of which is 40 years old.
 
Quote:

 
I believe it's something to do issues that Rewrite Data trying to solve.

 
If you're going to publicly state something on a science forum, then as others have said, we need some actual science, not just your belief. Maybe I could hear a difference but maybe I could believe it was "something to do" with my neighbour's power usage or maybe to do with the alignment of the stars/planets. In fact, although both of these beliefs would be absurd, either of them is actually more plausible than your belief because they are actual differences, whereas with writing the exact same digital data there is by definition no difference.
 

  [1] If we can improve file copying mechanism, [2] we can minimize effect from such problem.

 
1. We can't improve the file copying mechanism. If it's copying exactly the same data then it's operating perfectly and therefore cannot be improved.
2. That's not the effect and therefore there is no minimising of it! Instead of inventing (or re-iterating) a nonsense explanation of the "effect", why do you refuse to ignore the obvious explanation, the explanation long proven by science, especially as you're posting in a Science forum?
 
G

 

[Ancipital]

 
It's getting stupid to argue with people who never have experience about it. I have better things to do than arguing over such cases and doing whatever you guys demand and ended up having no response in the end if I can actually prove it.

 
You haven't even offered a coherent description of the "effect", let alone a viable hypothesis to explain it. Next comes the necessary extraordinary proof. The burden of proof when making such a claim is obviously upon the claimant, and solidly so. Angrily insulting people who are unimpressed with your increasingly bizarre claims is not a replacement for rational process.
 
It's not getting stupid. It is stupid.