Computer Storage - Best Practices

[Ralf11]

8 hours ago, mansr said:

It has also not been confirmed, and won't be. A single test result proves nothing. That's all there is to say until substantial new information is obtained. Unfortunately, hauling my lab gear to your place isn't practical.

 

oh no - this single test result "proves" to xx level of significance that he could hear a difference in the 2 regimes

 

what we don't know was the cause - unfortunately, software settings differed, and that appears likely to have been the reason; it is certainly the most parsimonious mechanistic explanation

[manisandher]

9 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

what we don't know was the cause - unfortunately, software settings differed, and that appears likely to have been the reason

 

The outputs were bit-identical.

 

Let me know if you're still finding this a difficult concept to grasp, and I'll try to put it more simply for you.

[numlog]

what software settings could cause an explainable difference in this case?

[numlog]

4 hours ago, marce said:

Bits are bits though, maybe you should listen to the 95% who realise bits are bits...

you mean the 95% who parrot what a handful of actual researchers have proved for them over the years.

 

[Ralf11]

44 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

The outputs were bit-identical.

 

Let me know if you're still finding this a difficult concept to grasp, and I'll try to put it more simply for you.

 

 

yeh - while you're at it, give the entire methodology so we can check this unusual result

 

you never did that in the whole, loooong thread

 

 

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

oh no - this single test result "proves" to xx level of significance that he could hear a difference in the 2 regimes

 

what we don't know was the cause - unfortunately, software settings differed, and that appears likely to have been the reason; it is certainly the most parsimonious mechanistic explanation

 It's also possible that he simply got lucky. Given the odds involved, I'd consider that the more likely explanation.

[manisandher]

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

 It's also possible that he simply got lucky. Given the odds involved, I'd consider that the more likely explanation.

 

Are you serious? So confident was I that I could hear a difference between bit-identical replay, that I paid for your train ticket to demonstrate it to you. And I just happened to have got lucky?

 

It just goes to show how entrenched your beliefs are that you'd throw rationality and logic out of the window to hold on to them.

[manisandher]

36 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

you never did that in the whole, loooong thread

 

Wrong.

[Ralf11]

point it out - I read the entire thread carefully

 

more likely is that you don't know how to write up a methodology section - most people don't

[manisandher]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

point it out - I read the entire thread carefully

 

more likely is that you don't know how to write up a methodology section - most people don't

 

You've hit over 10 posts per day since you signed up. Maybe give it a rest for a while?

[sandyk]

7 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I can see this as a plausible explanation.

 

I would also like to highlight that this is completely different from what Alex is claiming  (identical files played under identical conditions sounding different on a consistent basis). 

 

 Wake up !

 IF the saved files were identical then they would sound identical. Clearly there ARE differences that the Checksums and other Binary checks are presently incapable of showing.

It has already been recently demonstrated that even .md5 checksums  can be fooled.

[numlog]

can we get a computeraudiosciencereview subforum?

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, sandyk said:

IF the saved files were identical then they would sound identical. Clearly there ARE differences that the Checksums and other Binary checks are presently incapable of showing.

Does "identical" have a different meaning down under?

[fas42]

Bit identical files will sound identical if the mechanism, and procedure for playing them is absolutely identical. Change that process in what seems a trivial aspect could be enough to have an impact - e.g. comparing A to B, there should be an equal weighting to playing A, then B; versus, playing B, then A.

 

Time variant factors are a big part of hearing differences once setups are working to a certain level, and can be a nightmare to sort out, properly. There are obvious elements like how warmed up the speaker suspensions are, but just about every area of a rig can be sensitive to changes over time; unfortunately, right at the edge where sometimes it's hard to say what has changed - but, it is audible.

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

Does "identical" have a different meaning down under?

 No, but apparently it does to you.

The files that I provided for the DBTs MUST have had some differences, or no differences would have been verified. DUH !

 Clearly, the checksums are presently incapable of revealing the differences, just as they did with Mani's examples.

 You need to be able to capture in analogue form the actual digital streams to carefully examine them for differences, whether in the shape of the waveform or extraneous noise present with the data.

 

[kumakuma]

26 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Wake up !

 IF the saved files were identical then they would sound identical. Clearly there ARE differences that the Checksums and other Binary checks are presently incapable of showing.

It has already been recently demonstrated that even .md5 checksums  can be fooled.

 

I was referring to files that are identical when compared bit-by-bit to each others. This has nothing to do with checksums.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I was referring to files that are identical when compared bit-by-bit to each others. This has nothing to do with checksums.

 Once again, WAKE UP !

 According to presently accepted theory, if they are identical when compared bit by bit to each other, then the checksums WILL be identical too.

 You need to do as I just suggested in my previous post. Forget the BINARY DATA checks and closely examine the actual digital stream waveforms.

[STC]

14 hours ago, mansr said:

It has also not been confirmed, and won't be. A single test result proves nothing. That's all there is to say until substantial new information is obtained. Unfortunately, hauling my lab gear to your place isn't practical.

 

Too bad.  You took part and allowed the single test to proceed. It is no use now to cry that the methodology was invalid, especially when it was conducted by an objectivist. 

 

Frankly, I am now inclined to believe that under some controlled condition there could be some difference that may be audible for many of the things that supposedly outside human hearing threshold. And i emphasize again, “ controlled condition”. 

[Ralf11]

I am glad that both of the manxx people did this test.  It is certainly a step in the right direction.

 

And that is true even if manxx #1 got lucky, or if some bias was present besides SQ or if the files really did sound different.

 

But if the files do have a different sound then that is an extraordinary result, and further investigation is needed.

[sandyk]

19 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I am glad that both of the manxx people did this test

 

  ???

[Hugo9000]

@sandyk Pretty sure he means mansr and mani lol

[sandyk]

24 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

@sandyk Pretty sure he means mansr and mani lol

 

 You are undoubtedly correct, as I normally don't even bother reading most of what Ralf11 churns out .

I just skim through it.

 I would be far from the only one though.

[Ralf11]

keep skimming thru life

[manisandher]

@Ralf11, where's your post talking about my stock gone?

[moriez]

On 4/21/2019 at 9:47 PM, Ralf11 said:

The problem is the dissemination of BS to unsuspecting newbies.

 

If that truly is your goal to stand up against and the reason for the disrupting comments then you're missing the mark, a lot. I think you know very well the same it's clear to see for others that this presumable noble(!) goal is replaced by getting a kick out of playing one man army going against the grain. Your daily routine does affect the mental health of those who come here to en-joy and con-tri-bute to these topics.. Actually, what you're showing a little bit too much of seems to me a mild (mild?) form of cyberbullying: ''..in order to elicit a reaction, disruption, or for someone's own personal amusement''. 

 

I'm no saint by no means but I mostly just want to make you aware and you're even welcome to do me the favour back