I have just completed ripping my CD collection to FLAC and am currently storing the files on my main HDD. I bought a second internal HDD that I plan to store the files on as well for archiving but would like to know whether copying files in Windows (Vista) is a secure process. Can I rest assured that my secure rips are going to be copied securely to a second HDD for archiving? This may be a stupid question, but I have had problems before with moving/copying files in Windows.

Thanks.

If the hardware works it should be no problem. You can use foobar or any md5 program to test after copying.

Can you explain how you test with foobar?


EDIT: Sorry if I seem paranoid, but I spent quite a bit of time ripping these files to my main HDD and want to make sure copying them to a second HDD is secure. Thanks.

You first drop the files from the original location. Then drop the copied files.
Then you select all the files, right-click and under utils (I think?) you find bit compare. This will compare the first half of the selected files to the second half.

I would also suggest flac -t or some type of GUI if you like that performs the same function.

I've heard vuplayer makes a nice one called audiotester if you're into the GUI thing.

Unless you have a bad hard drive, you should get a perfect copy. I'm not sure why you've had problems before.

I read somewhere that Windows Explorer always verifies, but I don't know if this applies to Vista. (The "DOS" copy command has a verify option). If you're really paranoid, you can find "file compare" programs on the Net.

Greynol's suggestion would be equivalent to using the "File Integrity Verifier" component for foobar: http://foobar2000.org/components/index.html.
If the flac files include a checksum (I don't know if this is/was always the case) this would be secure; otherwise note the limitation explained at the download page.

It's a good habit to make an .md5 hash file for each directory to be archived. That's the easiest way to check that your files were not changed during the process of copying. However, I must admit that single- or few-bit errors are extremely rare in modern storage devices, because of the amount of build-in error recovery.

edit: the tool I linked to is no longer freeware

Apparently File Integrity Verifier does not currently use md5 information. Hence you could have errors that did not result in an invalid file. These errors would not be detected. Flac -v uses md5 information when available and otherwise decodes the file (the latter is what File Integrity Verifier does).
Md5 would be the most secure of the alternatives.

Thanks for all the responses. Does anyone use an alternative to Windows Explorer for copying/moving files?

I now use KDiff3 to sync my music collection.
Several options to compare directories...from file size to a bit by bit comparison.

For hashes, I like FSUM.

I use robocopy.exe
It is short for Robust Copy and is a windows file that can be dLoaded off their website. I believe IT people use it to copy clients HDD while repairing. Anyway it works good for me; I use a batch file with it to make it a little easier, but it is a command line type thing. It's free on the windows site.
Google it up for more info.....it you like it, I can send you my batch file.

I lost some audio while trying to salvage from a dying drive, and while I got no errors, quite a bit was corrupt due to RAM problems, so it can happen. But, mainly, I'd move the drive into some type of storage outside the computer box after copying and verifying.

I have played with various audio tools quite a bit, I made a FLAC verification tool with shntool, which can compute the CRC of the audio data and output it. Compare it against FLAC's internal CRC, they should match, or the audio part is not the same. The metadata can also change without affecting FLAC verification this way (in case you should ever want to). The 'metaflac.exe' command-line tool will show the internal checksum in FLAC files. I just compare the two crc's..

Have not tested my tools in Vista though.

most certainly not. Some time ago, I had some bad ram and I wondered why some files were slightly different than the copy on another hard drive. That was on Win2000 though, so unless they changed in XP and up, which I doubt...

Some interesting freeware tools for you:

http://beeblebrox.org/hashtab/
http://www.slavasoft.com/hashcalc/index.htm

Also, Explorer itself has nothing to do with file copying quality. It is a shell that calls API for file copying after all. Cases of bad file copies are extremely rare, and are mostly due to hardware issues that cannot be resolved in software.

right. but if there is a hardware problem, it would be nice if it would tell the user. for instance by doing a hash check by default.

Very few people know it and even fewer use it nowadays, but the good old command

still works in modern Windows versions (at least in XP)
I don't know if it makes sense, because I suspect the data is verified from the cache memory, rather than from the actual magnetic media.

edit: I did some research and found out that the command is only there for compatibility reasons, it does not alter the way data are written.

I guess you are wondering why this kind of preventive measures are not provided by the OS by default. I cannot answer you exactly, but I think it is mainly because of performance reason and its unworthy trade-off. How often do you encounter a fault during file copy? For me, it is extremely rare, so rare that I could not remember when it happened last time. For most of the time, this function is not really needed and simply waste CPU time. For important data, you will sure have ways to make verifications. But is it so frequent that you need to have this function built-in and turn on by default? I doubt it as a user myself.


Even "copy /v" can perform verification. But it seems no such function is provided in the GUI built-in, hence those freeware tools.