sandyk Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 Ok I heard back from my friend. He heard a slight difference and between the two files--one labeled "this" and the other labeled "or this"--he chose the EOM-treated file as being slightly more dynamic, this without knowing anything about the source of these files or what, if anything, had been done to them. So that's something, I guess. It could be a coincidence--a data sample of one is hardly conclusive--but it deepens the mystery a bit, at least from where I sit. Hailey Ideally, your friend should now confirm that the checksums of the downloaded files are still identical, and be able to choose correctly a number of times under non sighted conditions. If you are both able to do this under non sighted conditions, then welcome to the club ! Not that Kumakuma and others will believe you though .(grin) Regards Alex https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=md5+checksum+mac+os How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
Hailey Posted September 2, 2016 Author Share Posted September 2, 2016 Hailey Ideally, your friend should now confirm that the checksums of the downloaded files are still identical, and be able to choose correctly a number of times under non sighted conditions. If you are both able to do this under non sighted conditions, then welcome to the club ! Not that Kumakuma and others will believe you though .(grin) Regards Alex https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=md5+checksum+mac+os I don't believe me, either. Either I've made some absurd procedural mistake or there is no bottom to this audiophile hell and every anal retentive tweak, no matter how insane, counts. Link to comment
kumakuma Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 I don't believe me, either. Either I've made some absurd procedural mistake or there is no bottom to this audiophile hell and every anal retentive tweak, no matter how insane, counts. The fact that the files are not the same size means that there is some difference between the files and the checksums won't be the same. Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
sandyk Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 The fact that the files are not the same size means that there is some difference between the files and the checksums won't be the same. Except in the highly unlikely event the header info is slightly different. Hailey needs to confirm that the checksums are actually identical. Even if the files had different checksums due to a few minor masked errors, they should still sound the same according to the resident "experts" here ! How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
Hailey Posted September 2, 2016 Author Share Posted September 2, 2016 Ok how do I confirm the checksums are the same? I thought that's what AccurateRip did... Link to comment
sandyk Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 Ok how do I confirm the checksums are the same? I thought that's what AccurateRip did... See post 76 How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
Hailey Posted September 2, 2016 Author Share Posted September 2, 2016 Ok I'll try it this weekend. But I've decided to return for refund. The effect, if it is there, is too evanescent for the price, at least to my ears. Now it's possible, perhaps likely, that my ears aren't really all that good. According to the EOM people, I am the first person who has ever sent the product back for refund. I'm not sure what to make of that. Link to comment
mansr Posted September 2, 2016 Share Posted September 2, 2016 1) I've never seen such clean CDs in my life post-essencing. Stuff that wouldn't really come off my old way of cleaning--a breath fogging and a t-short wipe-just vanished under the EOM onslaught. The CDs appeared a bit more iridescent as well. Very cool. That just means that whatever solvent they used, probably some alcohol, is good at removing typical CD smudges. Hopefully it didn't damage the plastic. 2) Somebody please explain this to me: The ripped post-EOM'd ripped files were, of course, check sum identical to the pre-EOM ripped files because "bits are bits," right? BUT... The file sizes were different. Not by much. Generally the EOM'd files were 20 to 30 bytes larger than the baseline files--although in one case they were smaller--so this hardly qualifies as a rounding error. Nevertheless, it's there and since "bits are bits" why a file size discrepancy of any degree given the fact that these files are "check sum identical"? What checksum are you referring to here? A straight md5sum or similar of the entire files would definitely come out different if the sizes differ (unless you stumbled upon a hash collision which is exceedingly unlikely). Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now