Quantcast
Moving folders around in Windows XP - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Moving folders around in Windows XP
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #31
Lives for gear
 
Jovas's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
lol, its hilarious to see how this topic is turning out haha, imagine how bored we are..

I think i`m gonna get some krocketts on the Damrak.. Or should i go for some twisted taco`s in Los Angeles?
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #32
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacosWhenTwisted ➡️
I dont get why you guys are making such a big deal of this lol.

There is definately a loss in quality when copying a file from one place to another place.

Here is a test you can run. Take an MP3. Drag the MP3 around from folder to folder and hard drive to hard drive, do it like 10 times. And then turn both the original untouched version of the source MP3, and the MP3 you dragged around into .wav file and view them closely within a .wav editor and let me know what you see. Pictures are the same, if copied and duplicated and moved around in folders they loose some of their image quality. No im not going to sit here debate this with some of you tech nerds, this just my observation from using a computer for the past 10+ years. But I guess you learned something new today from a non techy =)

Dear Sir,

Please stop talking ****.

Yours faithfully,

Filin
Attached Thumbnails
Moving folders around in Windows XP-please_stop_talking_shit.jpg  
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #33
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacosWhenTwisted ➡️
Here is a test you can run. Take an MP3. Drag the MP3 around from folder to folder and hard drive to hard drive, do it like 10 times. And then turn both the original untouched version of the source MP3, and the MP3 you dragged around into .wav file and view them closely within a .wav editor and let me know what you see. Pictures are the same, if copied and duplicated and moved around in folders they loose some of their image quality. No im not going to sit here debate this with some of you tech nerds, this just my observation from using a computer for the past 10+ years. But I guess you learned something new today from a non techy =)
I mainly reply to this because somebody mentioned Walters, which is similar to my last name. So ...

1. This depends on the rotational speed of the hard drive: At 5400rpm, you will not notice much difference. At 10000rpm, the disk is so loud that your ears will get tired while copying so the 10th copy will - and this is a FACT - sound worse than the original.
2. As Bob Katz stated about posting at GS, some electrons are inconvenienced by doing so. The same is true for copying files.
3. Make sure to deactivate your UAD cards while copying mp3 files. Or remove the micro tubes from your UAD cards. If you don't know what micro tubes are, do a search on GS or UAD.

On a more serious side, I tend to agree with the "tech geeks" in this thread. Some more input:

1. A software mp3 player does not play back a file from your disk; rather, it copies your file to the RAM memory and plays back the copy.
2. Use a program like "winmd5sum" (or write one of your own if you distrust the tech geeks that made winmd5sum) to check whether 2 files are identical.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #34
Lives for gear
 
TheMarqueeYears's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Come on guys you know he's winding you up.

.... and still you get hooked, just a little. LOL

TMY
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #35
Lives for gear
 
mdoelger's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Yeah I had problems with converting wav files to mp3 some time ago.

After doing some research I found out that this was caused, you named it, by the microtubes on the UAD card.

So I got rid of them. But now the UAD plugs sounded more like solid-state. It was especially noticable with the pultec.

So I decided to solder 12ax7 tubes onto the UAD card, to give me back some analog warmth. And that really solved my problem.

I now have rich harmonics with the plugs and outstanding MP3 conversion.

Both with lots of character and really nice coloring.

Amazing!
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #36
Lives for gear
 
joris de man's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Taco,

Where can I send you my laundry bill?
I just read your post while drinking a cup of tea, and as a result ended up laughing so hard that the tea went through my nostrils, staining my shirt and pants in the process...(it was earl grey)
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #37
Lives for gear
 
rhythmtech's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunale ➡️
Yeah I had problems with converting wav files to mp3 some time ago.

After doing some research I found out that this was caused, you named it, by the microtubes on the UAD card.

So I got rid of them. But now the UAD plugs sounded more like solid-state. It was especially noticable with the pultec.

So I decided to solder 12ax7 tubes onto the UAD card, to give me back some analog warmth. And that really solved my problem.

I now have rich harmonics with the plugs and outstanding MP3 conversion.

Both with lots of character and really nice coloring.

Amazing!
ahh the old UAD microtubes.. arent they modelled on the original UAD microtubes from the 1967 flexi pack?
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #38
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacosWhenTwisted ➡️
I dont get why you guys are making such a big deal of this lol.

There is definately a loss in quality when copying a file from one place to another place.

Here is a test you can run. Take an MP3. Drag the MP3 around from folder to folder and hard drive to hard drive, do it like 10 times. And then turn both the original untouched version of the source MP3, and the MP3 you dragged around into .wav file and view them closely within a .wav editor and let me know what you see. Pictures are the same, if copied and duplicated and moved around in folders they loose some of their image quality. No im not going to sit here debate this with some of you tech nerds, this just my observation from using a computer for the past 10+ years. But I guess you learned something new today from a non techy =)
This is the problem for people who put faith in untested assumptions.

For ten plus years you've presumably jumping through hoops you didn't have to jump through -- if we're to believe you're not just pulling our collective leg -- all because you convinced yourself you could just hear the difference...

This is just one of the more outrageous examples of the consequences of blind faith in one's informal and untested observations. Obviously, a lot of folks allow such blind faith to lead them down other dark and irrational alleys... as we often see here.


If you've been using a computer for 10+ years (I'm going on 25 years of daily computing, myself -- and 12 years since I moved from digital tape to DAW) maybe you've come across this handy DOS (Windows) utility:

Microsoft File Compare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can test two files -- bit for bit -- by opening a DOS command line window... Start/Run/... type the letters "cmd" without quotes to open a full command line prompt window and then:

fc file1.wav file2.wav

If the files are different, FC will output a list of differences, bit for bit.

If they are the same, you'll get the message: no differences encountered


Now
... I know there are those who will not believe that a simple bit-for-bit file comparison should trump the 'evidence' of their ears... but, guess what, your whole production paradigm is made possible by people who put their faith in testable, repeatable science... the kind of tech nerds () whose advice and knowledge you disdain with an airy wave of phrase, that you've been 'using a computer for the past 10+ years' and, so, apparently know what is what and don't need a bunch of tech nerds telling you differently.


Brother, I'd like to introduce you to a little thing we've learned to call reality.

And it can be a bitch.

Do your friggin' homework and stop wasting time on this foolishness.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #39
Lives for gear
 
Jovas's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Its time to twist the taco's here..
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #40
Lives for gear
 
DeadPoet's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
You know I hear it too. And it is not because I can't give you files to null that I don't hear the difference.


Oh yeah, I use a $750 AC cable for my computer, it points out the copying errors way better.



Old 29th January 2009
  #41
Gear Addict
 
FredYeah's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacosWhenTwisted ➡️
Is it possible to move a folder to another folder without physically copying and pasting the folder. I want to move some samples from one hard drive to another hard drive but i dont want to copy and paste because there is some loss in quality during that transition, so i was wondering if there is something I can type in the folders properties to change its location, or is this only possible if its within the same hard drive?
There is man. Don't let these cats get to you! Just rename the folder you want to copy without copying to "Ignorant". Get the HardDrive out, and the destination HardDrive where you want to copy the files without copying. Rub the two together real hard and start praying.

Don't hold your breath though.
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #42
Lives for gear
 
taturana's Avatar
 
12 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
This is exactly why i only use analog hard disks with tubes (micro?) on them... i actually dig the tape hiss when copying files...
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #43
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by taturana ➡️
This is exactly why i only use analog hard disks with tubes (micro?) on them... i actually dig the tape hiss when copying files...
Don't get Samsung drives them. They come with a little DSP that emulates microtubes which causes a lack of warmth. Evil!
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #44
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
Although this thread is pretty obvious I´d like would like to give just a little credit to Mr. Taco.

There is something about images and quality loss.
Something about JPEGs and the compression that means everytime you open a JPEG in an image editor and save it again, you loose a bit of information. - That should be correct. (though, its a mathematical fact, not a thing you should be able to see)

But as long as were talking merely moving or copying data, everything should be exactly the same!

Best,
Morten.
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #45
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortenpilegaard ➡️
Although this thread is pretty obvious I´d like would like to give just a little credit to Mr. Taco.

There is something about images and quality loss.
Something about JPEGs and the compression that means everytime you open a JPEG in an image editor and save it again, you loose a bit of information. - That should be correct. (though, its a mathematical fact, not a thing you should be able to see)

But as long as were talking merely moving or copying data, everything should be exactly the same!

Best,
Morten.
Morten -- yes, depending on the photo editor, that's true when ecoding to a lossy format like JPEG. (Some photo editors are 'smart' enough to simply not save if you haven't actually made a change to the lossy format image.)

Now, I'm sure you're totally on top of this but, for the benefit of others, I'll just say that the analogy is very parallel to opening up an Mp3 in an audio editor (where it is treated more or less like any other PCM file) and then saving that back to the Mp3 format -- you've just gone through another lossy process.

Depending on the JPEG quality your photo-editor is currently set to, you could see some serious degradation by opening and saving a file over and over again.

But that would be precisely parallel to re-encoding an Mp3 or other lossy audio format over and over.


Once one is modifying a file, of course, more or less anything can happen.

But today's OS's like OSX, Win, and *NIX, are all about file integrity when it comes to moving and copying files.

After all, every time you defragment your hard drive, you're making copies of all those files.

If there was such a problem as Tacos suggested, it would quickly make the OS pretty much unusable.
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #46
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MATTI ➡️
Converting a mp3 to wav is the problem, it won´t be the same twice.

Matti
Why not?
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #47
Lives for gear
 
Matti's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
I was refering to same kind of logig as theblue1 above speaking of lossy formats.
-And did it by instict more than deep knowledge of the algos...

Matti
Old 30th January 2009 | Show parent
  #48
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I suspect what he meant was converting a wav to a lossy mp3 and then back to a wav will leave you with something different than the original wav file, rather than that it was an unpredictable or chaotic process.
Old 30th January 2009 | Show parent
  #49
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Ah, gotcha
Old 30th January 2009 | Show parent
  #50
Lives for gear
 
timbreman's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Read the first myth in this article. Might clear some things up if they havent already.

Debunking Digital-Audio Myths--Get the lowdown on common digital-audio fallacies.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #51
Lives for gear
 
Matti's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Didn´t read the myth 2 through but got the impression you might agree if I claim that when you convert the same mp3 twice and there will be differences at sample level?

Matti
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #52
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MATTI ➡️
Didn´t read the myth 2 through but got the impression you might agree if I claim that when you convert the same mp3 twice and there will be differences at sample level?

Matti
Myth 2 isn't all that long and if you'd read even as far as paragraph two, you'd have seen that while he acknowledged that Mp3 was lossy, the headline of the myth referred to lossless compression forms (he cites the lesser known Emagic Zap [wouldn't be surprised if that became Apple Lossless, though] and Waves’ TrackPac, but most folks know about the FLAC format, which reduces file size by roughly half, but 'expands' to a bit-for-bit copy of the original).

Before asking your question about the material in his link, maybe you should have read the material in his link:

Quote:
Myth No. 2: All file compression degrades audio. Compressed audio formats, such as MP3, have truly changed the face of recorded media by letting music be exchanged easily over the Internet. The MP3 format shrinks audio files using “lossy” compression, which means that not all of the musical data is actually stored in the MP3 file. The more important data is maintained while less important data is thrown away. The audio file is then reconstructed on playback with varying results in audio quality (see Fig. 1). In any event, MP3 audio quality is degraded somewhat with respect to the original file.

Because MP3 is one of the most widely known audio-compression formats, many people assume that all methods of compressing audio files work the same lossy way. However, not all of them do. Some programs, such as Emagic’s Zap and Waves’ TrackPac, are specifically designed for lossless audio compression (see Fig. 2). Those programs can’t shrink files as much as MP3 does, but they do retain all data while compressing files to about 50 percent of their original sizes.

Also lossless by design are general-purpose compression programs such as PKWare’s PKZIP, WinZip Computing’s WinZip, and Aladdin Systems’ StuffIt. To these programs, an audio file is just like a Microsoft Excel document; every byte of data must be retained. Again, the file-size reduction isn’t as dramatic as with MP3 compression (and it’s often less effective than audio-specific compression programs), but you can be sure that the quality of any zipped or stuffed audio file is completely unaffected by the compression.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #53
Lives for gear
 
Matti's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Well, yes

This going out of hands, I feel -- but I was talking of lossy formats like mp3
I compress sometimes to lossless but prefer not to as internet speeds are up to
large file transfers.
My last post on this

Matti
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #54
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Thanks for the laugh guys, I didn't expect some of the replies in this thread. I think it was aided by the fact that I know for a fact that when an MP3 or .Wav file is used repeatedly it loses some of its quality over time. Actually over time sitting on a hard drive it probably loses quality even if its not being used. If you look at the .wav conversion of an .mp3 in something like .Wavelab the volume Peaks are Lower than what they were when the MP3 was new. Do this test over two years. Buy an MP3 or Rip an MP3 from a CD. Have 2 copies. Turn one into a .wav and take a picture of that .Wav at normal resolution. Use the second for the test without converting it to .wav yet. And then in 2 years after listening to that .mp3 and moving it around a folder or two. Turn it to .wav and you will see a big difference not only in the .wav but the quality and volume. Someone should pay me for this info, since its obviously a new finding in pc audio format history. But its ok, i'll share my analysis for free with my fellow gearslutz =)
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #55
Gear Maniac
 
Malcolm Boyce's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #56
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Please tell me he's joking.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #57
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacosWhenTwisted ➡️
Turn one into a .wav and take a picture of that .Wav at normal resolution. Use the second for the test without converting it to .wav yet. And then in 2 years after listening to that .mp3 and moving it around a folder or two. Turn it to .wav and you will see a big difference not only in the .wav but the quality and volume.
I do this test with Excel documents, and over the years some of the letters in the document start turning to lower case.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #58
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltermusik ➡️
I do this test with Excel documents, and over the years some of the letters in the document start turning to lower case.
Thanks for proving music people usually dont have a good sense of humor, as have many others proved in this thread. Stick to music man =). Im surprised i'm the only one that has come accross this finding. They should make a Wiki about me, the man who found out mp3's and .wavs lose quality over time if stored on a hard drive. I'm not going to debate this any furthur, but just ask for people to just observe their files and the quality of them, all digital audio files decline over time.

/contribution to my own thread that evolved into something that it wasn't meant to be about.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #59
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
Maybe its those bloody neutrinos randomly flipping bits heh
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #60
Lives for gear
 
mdoelger's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacosWhenTwisted ➡️
Thanks for proving music people usually dont have a good sense of humor, as have many others proved in this thread. Stick to music man =). Im surprised i'm the only one that has come accross this finding. They should make a Wiki about me, the man who found out mp3's and .wavs lose quality over time if stored on a hard drive. I'm not going to debate this any furthur, but just ask for people to just observe their files and the quality of them, all digital audio files decline over time.

/contribution to my own thread that evolved into something that it wasn't meant to be about.
I'm not going to debate about this any further, too. And I'm sorry to proove my bad sense of humor.


But let me ask: We all have tried to explain why those files cannot loose quality. Have you even read those posts? Have you ever thought about it for just a secound?

You said we are smartasses. Do yourself a favour and think that over!

And for all those others who search for this subject. Don't trust Tacos opinion. It's absolutely BS.

Cheers!
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 119 views: 11954
Avatar for Deleted c3d96187aa25e9e
Deleted c3d96187aa25e9e 7th April 2018
replies: 11 views: 2168
Avatar for Jim@SSL
[email protected] 8th May 2020
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump