Can System Noise be saved to HDDs, SDs, etc. in digital audio files?

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

That’s single blinded.

Their faith is double-blind.

[kumakuma]

18 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

I have also said that you can REGENERATE the files to very close to that of the original.

 I use an Uptone USB Regen powered by a very low noise battery derived PSU to do this.

 

Alex, 

So here is my understanding of your claims.

 

1. Ripped data from a CD drive connected to a good PSU sounds better different than ripped data connected to a crappy power supply, even if the files are bit identical.

 

2. Sending a file over the Internet causes a decrease in sound quality, even if the files at both ends are bit identical.

 

3. Zipping the files into an archive without compression before sending over the Internet allows files to be protected from this degradation.

 

4. Compressing and then uncompressing files causes a decrease in sound quality.

 

5. Files can be restored to "very close" to their original quality using a low noise power supply. 

 

Have I missed anything? 

 

[pkane2001]

16 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

I have also said that you can REGENERATE the files to very close to that of the original.

 I use an Uptone USB Regen powered by a very low noise battery derived PSU to do this.

 

No, Alex. Nothing needs to be regenerated after a file copy or a download operation. It’s already bit perfect, and any between-the-bits noise from the transmission is not stored with the file. Since it’s not stored, it can’t affect the playback.

 

There’s no need to do DBTs to prove this — the mechanism for transferring digital data is invented entirely by humans. There are no unknowns or questions about how this works, it is designed to work like this. But we’ve had this conversation before, so I don’t expect that you’ll change your mind.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

Have I missed anything? 

 

 The fact that I have already told you that I have no further interest in anything you have to say .

 

[fas42]

It's not whether system noise can alter the analogue qualities of the digital information when stored, it's whether those analogue deficiencies can be replicated in any way, when copying say. As an extreme example, a CD-R may be technically poor in how the pits are burnt, because electrical noise is disturbing the write mechanism - will that poor burning survive transferring to another medium? Only but only in the extremely subtle sense that because the reading mechanism may struggle to read the poorly written CD-R, then the way the copy is being written may vary very slightly; in part because the normal timing of operations is interrupted, from having to do many retries to retrieve the data.

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

But we’ve had this conversation before, so I don’t expect that you’ll change your mind.

 

 I simply disagree with what you are saying. I am able to make an audio file sound different simply by PSU area changes, just as I am able to do with Video file visible differences..

 Several prominent members have confirmed this recently too, one using the videos side by side on his 4K monitor for comparison.

Quote

 Replied: Tuesday at 02:35 PM

Wow Alex.  I looked at the first two links...big quality difference in the video.
 How are they different?  Or, what did you change when recording them? 

 

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

Then why don't you sh*t the fuck up?

 

Nasty, nasty, first attacks on al'fe's credentials, now this.

[tmtomh]

39 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 More Ad Hominem and Ad Nauseum !

 

Please explain how it's ad hominem.

 

(And you realize that Argument from Authority is the converse of Ad Hominem, yes? They both partake of the same core logical fallacy.)

[tmtomh]

43 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Unlike some, I don't keep referring people to textbooks by Henry Ott etc.

 

Nor do I. What is your point?

[tmtomh]

12 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 The fact that I have already told you that I have no further interest in anything you have to say .

 

 

Now that's ad hominem.

[pkane2001]

Just now, sandyk said:

 

 I simply disagree with what you are saying. I am able to make an audio file sound different simply by PSU area changes, just as I am able to do with Video file visible differences..

 Several prominent members have confirmed this recently too, one using the videos side by side on his 4K monitor for comparison.

 

 

I don’t believe this, Alex, and the blurry hand-held photos of the video screen you sent me by PM proved absolutely nothing. But I also recall that our PM conversation didn’t end well, so I’m not going to repeat the same mistakes.

[kumakuma]

 

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Nasty, nasty, first attacks on al'fe's credentials, now this.

 

How can he attack someone's credentials when he doesn't even know what they are?

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I don’t believe this, Alex, and the blurry hand-held photos of the video screen you sent me by PM proved absolutely nothing. But I also recall that our PM conversation didn’t end well, so I’m not going to repeat the same mistakes.

 

In this case they were quite high quality BluRay standard video clips . # 132

1920 x 1080 25000kbps 29.97 FPS 16/48KHZ .m2t

[Ralf11]

I am still waiting for a description of the methodology, Sandy

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

In this case they were quite high quality BluRay standard video clips . # 132

 

Share the clips, then, prove your point to everyone.

[kumakuma]

19 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Several prominent members have confirmed this recently too, one using the videos side by side on his 4K monitor for comparison.

 

 

My recent experience with your "testing" revealed serious issues with your methodology including the fact that your file names make it clear what the "answer" is.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Share the clips, then, prove your point to everyone.

 I have previously given my reasons for not making them generally available, . including Copyright and Bandwidth availability.

 They are 523MB each. Doing this would shut down my Dropbox account due to the bandwidth used.

This happened previously, with luckily only 1 pair of files. 

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 I have previously given my reasons for not making them generally available, . including Copyright and Bandwidth availability.

 They are 523MB each. Doing this would shut down my Dropbox account due to the bandwidth used.

This happened previously, with luckily only 1 pair of files. 

 

Too bad you can’t reproduce this effect on something smaller and not copyrighted. 

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

My recent experience with your "testing" revealed serious issues with your methodology including the facts that your file names make it clear that the "answer" is.

 Garbage.

 Only one of the ADDITIONAL 2 files ,(there were 4 different versions of the same original file)  in this case https://www.dropbox.com/s/q57dco1uqafh5f0/Amadeus Electric Quartet - Carmen (Habanera) warm.m2t?dl=0  gave any clue as to which file was which, and was given as a reference point ONLY .

 

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Garbage.

 Only one of the ADDITIONAL 2 files ,(there were 4 different versions of the same original file)  in this case

 

DELETED LINK

 

  gave any clue as to which file was which, and was given as a reference point ONLY .

 

 

You might want to delete that Dropbox link from your post.

[kumakuma]

The primary problem with your testing methodology is related to what Eloise told you almost four years ago:

 

Quote

As I see it; the main problem with Martin Collums so called "blind" testing was that it started out with a false assumption ("the files are different") and then tried to ascertain which was the best. He isn't testing IF they are different.

 

[sandyk]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

Too bad you can’t reproduce this effect on something smaller and not copyrighted. 

 

I can right now, but I am not prepared to provide them to those who simply wish to discredit my reports.

 Most of the participants in this thread have already demonstrated that they have already made their minds up, and would not give them a fair chance.

 I have already done a trial run of them with one prominent poster.

[esldude]

https://www.groovypost.com/howto/mozilla-firefox-send-to-share-large-files-securely/

 

This explains a few details on using https://send.firefox.com/ which allows up to 2.5 gig files if you have an account.  An account is free, and very easy to set up.  If you use Firefox you may even have an account already. They are available for 7 days and up to 100 downloads.  They can even be password protected if you wish.  

 

Even without an account you can send 1 gig files though I think to only a few people.  

 

Upload the files, get a link, and mail the link to whomever you want to have access.  Everything is encrypted.  One of the handier one off ways to send large files though I know there are dozens of such places to do such things on the internet. 

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

Even without an account you can send 1 gig files though I think to only a few people.  

 

 I am able to do a little better than that, but there are limitations on the amount of DLs in a timeframe apparently

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

I can right now, but I am not prepared to provide them to those who simply wish to discredit my reports.

 Most of the participants in this thread have already demonstrated that they have already made their minds up, and would not give them a fair chance.

 I have already done a trial run of them with one prominent poster.

 

It’s bit suspicious to keep using as proof  someone else’s results that you can’t name, using testing methodology that’s not published, with test samples that you don’t want to share with anyone but those who already agree with you prior to doing the test.