When I stopped encoding with lossy to go lossless, I thought : "cool! there won't be any question about quality or transcoding, etc... The Hydrogen forum about lossless must be empty! I'm gonna sleep well"
NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!
Even here, people are crazy and fight about everything.
What's the fuck????????????
I have a question : I'm using Monkey (fast mode) because I want to get LOSSLESS files, can I sleep peacefully or have I to compare every codec, every preset.......
Originally posted by anubis
I have a question : I'm using Monkey (fast mode) because I want to get LOSSLESS files, can I sleep peacefully or have I to compare every codec, every preset.......
Sleep in peace. You're safe.
If you like Monkey, use Monkey. I like FLAC, but that is what I like and I'm not willing to convince you to do so.
Most of the time, differences in size aren't whortwhile.
Even here, people are crazy and fight about everything.
What's the fuck????????????
Two bald men, fighting over a comb...
This is HA, we can *always* find something to argue about .
Monkey is great if you're a Windows user.
If you're not a Windows user, then it's less great. Now the source is available, it is possible to compile it under *nix, although not very many people have done so.
If you're mainly a Unix user, and use lossless, then you're almost certainly using FLAC. It's the most cross-platform of all the lossless formats. The downside is that it doesn't compress as well, or as quickly, as Monkey does.
As long as you're either using Monkey or FLAC, then you're okay. They're the only decent lossless formats out there at the moment.
Originally posted by anubis
I have a question : I'm using Monkey (fast mode) because I want to get LOSSLESS files, can I sleep peacefully or have I to compare every codec, every preset.......
Congratulations, you have just approached to a prox to null compression ratio just...
...to sleep peacefully?
Leave the files as WAV.
lame --alt-preset superman --wont-sleep
Originally posted by unplugged
Congratulations, you have just approached to a prox to null compression ratio just...
...to sleep peacefully?
Leave the files as WAV.
lame --alt-preset superman --wont-sleep
I've got a better idea : Audiocatalyst 128
I should have thought about it before, it is written "cd-quality"
Just another question : It is possible that lossless compress really more in the future or will there only be minors changes?
Which codecs have the most active devellopment?
Yeah, the situation is weird. You can change your codec preference as many times as you want and not loose a bit of information and yet there is so much emotion involved. I remember the days when people argued about codec sound quality. Thanks to lossless compression that's history so we have to fight over something else or we would all live in harmony. Insert smilies to your liking.
Originally posted by anubis
I've got a better idea : Audiocatalyst 128
I should have thought about it before, it is written "cd-quality"
Oh! for God's love, no... WMA at 48kbps is labeled as "cd-quality" by Microsoft, but i know better.
Again, if you can encode losslessly 5 CDs into 3CDs, that is fine for me.
Originally posted by anubis
Just another question : It is possible that lossless compress really more in the future or will there only be minors changes?
If there are any compression improvements, they will probably be minimal. I would believe Monkey's Audio is already nearing the limit of best possible compression.
Which codecs have the most active devellopment?
Monkey's Audio, probably. (Specially because Frank Klemm is helping to develop it)
Followed by Flac.
Originally posted by unplugged
Congratulations, you have just approached to a prox to null compression ratio just...
...to sleep peacefully?
40% average compression is very satisfactory for me.
Yeah sure, I known it has ~1/2 average, but with such cutting-edge technology like MP3, AAC, Vorbis & Co that brings the minimal compression concept to a least 1/8...
...for non archivial/testing needs Is lossless worth it?
What's the convenience to burn 2 audio CDs into into 1 FLAC compressed CD (incompatible with hardware players), instead of 2 specular audio CDs playable anywhere ?
Originally posted by unplugged
Yeah sure, I known it has ~1/2 average, but with such cutting-edge technology like MP3, AAC, Vorbis & Co that brings the minimal compression concept to a least 1/8...
...for non archivial/testing needs Is lossless worth it?
What's the convenience to burn 2 audio CDs into into 1 FLAC compressed CD (incompatible with hardware players), instead of 2 specular audio CDs playable anywhere ?
...you already said why: for archiving. I use FLAC for that, vorbis for eveything else...
...but i will never use again lossy formats for backup.
Originally posted by unplugged
What's the convenience to burn 2 audio CDs into into 1 FLAC compressed CD (incompatible with hardware players), instead of 2 specular audio CDs playable anywhere ?
Error correction...
Originally posted by unplugged
What's the convenience to burn 2 audio CDs into into 1 FLAC compressed CD (incompatible with hardware players), instead of 2 specular audio CDs playable anywhere ?
Backup!
You do backups to store them safely, not to play them anywhere.
And, when you are storing, the less space you use to perform it, the better. So, storing one CD instead of two equals to 50% of space efficiency - you can store twice the CDs in the same place.
And no, lossy simply won't do for backup. At least IMO.
Regards;
Roberto.
I'm more scared of backup medium, not process.
Don't burned cd's have a life of 60-some years and then die on you?
How long do, say, OnStream or DAT tapes last? I'd be more adept to backing up on tape.. as I trust all my data to my OnStream drive.
Is there a medium (not vinyl--hehe) that can be stored away and not deteriorate to uselessness?
Sure in 20 years I'll archive that archive, but still, now with stories of some CDR's falling apart extremely soon, I'm not sure what to trust my most sensitive data to.. For now I'm sticking with my tape drive.
-r
Originally posted by rjamorim
Backup!
You do backups to store them safely, not to play them anywhere.
And, when you are storing, the less space you use to perform it, the better. So, storing one CD instead of two equals to 50% of space efficiency - you can store twice the CDs in the same place.
And no, lossy simply won't do for backup. At least IMO.
Regards;
Roberto.
Backing up 2x on to the same medium you backed up from sounds like suicide to me
Originally posted by meff
Backing up 2x on to the same medium you backed up from sounds like suicide to me
yeah, this is why servers usually don't have harddisks in raid arrays - too dangerous for the data
Originally posted by meff
Backing up 2x on to the same medium you backed up from sounds like suicide to me
You simply aren't getting my point.
The backup would be used if something happens with the original media. If it gets lost, stolen, it breaks in two, gets too scratched...
Then, you run to your safe and gets the backup, burn it in CD-DA format, and store the backup in the safe again.
Originally posted by ssamadhi97
yeah, this is why servers usually don't have harddisks in raid arrays - too dangerous for the data
*lol*
you can buy 4 identically hd's and an PCI raid controller. 2 disks in use. 2 disks in cellar for archiving.
if you go with raid2 and one disk crashes, you can replace the disk without losing data.
raid0 = 50% data on each disk, double speed but 100% save.
raid2 = 100% data on each disk, single speed but 200% save.
edit: if you run a unix box you can replace one hd without an reboot. just umount, replace, mount, and your beast is ready for you.
Dezibel
Originally posted by meff
Don't burned cd's have a life of 60-some years and then die on you?
How long do, say, OnStream or DAT tapes last? I'd be more adept to backing up on tape.. as I trust all my data to my OnStream drive.
There's a useful table HERE (http://www.dpconline.org/graphics/medfor/media.html#fig7) for the longevity of various media.
Note the effects of humidity and temperature - the freezer seems a better place for you back-ups than the safe
ß
Originally posted by Dezibel
edit: if you run a unix box you can replace one hd without an reboot. just umount, replace, mount, and your beast is ready for you.
That feature is called "Hotswap" and requires hardware support... Unix is hardly the only OS capable of that, just so you know... But as I said, you need the apropriate hardware for that or you'll likely end up killing your harddrive as you "yank" out the cables from it while it's running...
P.S. The soon to be released S-ATA interface will allow hotswapping without any special hardware...
Originally posted by Dezibel
*lol*
you can buy 4 identically hd's ....
that's about the point i wanted to make. you did note the sarcasm, didn't you?
I hadn't said it here yet so I will say it now.
Lossless is the only codec I will use on my recorded tracks because I will never find a another recording of the music played.
As for improving compression, you should see what Monkey's does for the bass guitar tracks with RMS -28dB to -24dB and background noise below -78dB -- it gets about 88% reduction. Not bad considering the audio data is completely intact.
edit: incorrect info can kill sometimes
I sometimes go lossless for four reasons/purposes:
1. Backup of my most valuable music or oldest cd:s. My rare cd:s from mid 80:s and beginning of 90:s are already beginning to get those horrible holes of erosion. Rescue while there is still time.
2. Backup of my live recordings from dat or md.
3. You will have a much safer store on a cd-r than an audio-cd due to the error correction.
4. No matter what will happen with the lossy formats in the coming decades - transcode from lossless to any device will be easier than grabbing the cd:s again and again.
For no other reason than OS compatibility - I use FLAC. Speed, a few bits more here and there are not a big issue.
Emanuel
Originally posted by Emanuel
For no other reason than OS compatibility - I use FLAC. Speed, a few bits more here and there are not a big issue.
Emanuel
Same here... "It's the only way to go"...
Originally posted by Dezibel
raid0 = 50% data on each disk, double speed but 100% save.
raid2 = 100% data on each disk, single speed but 200% save.
It's not as quite as simple as that.
Raid 0 (striping) does (sort of) have 50% of the data on each disk (if your array has two disks), but the speed is not double.
Raid 1 (mirroring) (as I think you are referring to) has 100% data on each disk (one disk is a mirror of the other), but the speed is actually faster than just having a single disk, because the controller (some controllers anyway) is able to load balance the reads between the drives.
Originally posted by Sachankara
That feature is called "Hotswap" and requires hardware support... Unix is hardly the only OS capable of that, just so you know... But as I said, you need the apropriate hardware for that or you'll likely end up killing your harddrive as you "yank" out the cables from it while it's running...
P.S. The soon to be released S-ATA interface will allow hotswapping without any special hardware...
Winxp an win2k supprot hot swap
just yank thedrive outof the ide/power. put on a new and search for new hardware.
it works
i do it all the time with both HDD drives and when i need to change from DVD to CDRW drive
jsut dont do it with the partition that contains windows or swapfile
What i am going to make here is quite a controversial statement, many educated people might come and "prove me wrong", thinking that I dont understand what Im talking about.
But I personally believe, philosophycaly, that lossless compression is only at its beginning.
Audio data is peculiar, it's different from "random-like" data (like socio-political stats( which, when analysed correctly, might as well not be considered so much "random-like")).
Without being redondant in itself, musical or sonic data possesses some specific patterns which may be exploited in order to concisely describe it. It's all about detecting those pattern, analysing the nature of the data.
At the moment there is mainly two aproaches to audio compression (or encoding, depending on the way we do it....)
1. Lossy, psychoacoustic encoding, reaching at best "transparent" compression at 1:8 ratio and less (MPC and AAC). Removing, in each frame, the unnescessary data, corresponding to the frequency (or partials) that are masked by others... etc....
2.Lossless, information theory based, mainly exploiting the redundance between L and R channel, then predicting the next sample, and only keeping the prediction error. Finally, we Huffman (run lengh) compress the leftover. Achieving completely transparent result around 1:2 ratio.
But something's annoyingly missing from both of them: taking into acount the deep relationship that exists between each note played by the same instrument...
If a codec was "intelligent" enough to determine which instrument is played, analysing it precisely, the nature of its timbre, all the harmonics (the partials...) that it generates. Then described the intrument in a concise way. What's left to do? To precisly note when the instrument comes on, when it comes off, what modulation the player imposes to it (modifying the timbre from the original model) what note is played (and in what way does it modify the formants of the sound (the part of the sounds that "doesn't" change, whatever note is played) Then, it might reproduce transparently the sound using a lot less bandwidth than Wav, Flac or MPC. You can see this aproach as a beefed up Midi file. With an incredibly excellent synthesizer and a excellent earing. To assure losslessness, it can then substract the original audio from the "predicted" (encoded) and huffman encode the slight difference that may be left.
scenario: The encoder detects: "Oh! This is a piano playing, than, basing itself on the generic piano model, it analyses the specific harmonics generated by this specific piano, and figures out somekind of physical model that would react about the same way then the piano is. It then tries to reproduce the exact same sound with the synth, and if losslessness is really desired, it then substracts the real from the false and huffman encodes the delta (the remainder). It does this for every instrument that it detects in the piece.
But the encoder would be useless for white noise, which can only be repruduced lossleesly by using at least the same number of byte. The trick would work precisely because we are NOT listenning to white noise all the time (hopefully ).
Anyways, don't believe that WAV is such a perfect way of reproducing sound. It introduces some artefact too (though it's nearly totally inaudible) But any frequency above 1/2 nyquist frequency is quite distorted... (11.025 KHz, for CD audio). A better aproach would be to encode some 192KHz, 32bit with some kind of MPC or AAC, in order to obtain a final product that would be 1411,22 Kbps (like CD audio). It would be a "lossy" method, but it would sounds a lot better than 16 bit wav (more dynamic available among other things, less distorting from the original sound when played back at half the speed....)) Just my two cents... Now... Beat me up
Your idea is pretty bad actually. And it is bad because you are referring to a very concrete type of music. You forget all the effects ( distortion, reverberation, chorusing, EQing, delay, echo, .... should I continue? ) and internal way of work (for synthetizers, the Oscillators, LFO's, Envelopes. For real instruments, the way you play them, which is generally always different from note to note).
You can not play a pattern, because the pattern is just described in your mind. The sound in there is not the same, for the reasons I've just mentioned.
Of course everything can be translated to a pattern based representation (MIDI, MOD's, etc...) but that very same moment, you're losing part of the information, due to repeating things instead of generating new.
Oh.. and btw... Wavpack in hybrid mode, creates a lossy file at a rate about 320kbps, and then a losslessly compressed file file which contains the differences between the lossy file and the original one, and this file is on par with directly compressing losslessly.
Originally posted by Ammethyl
Anyways, don<t believe that WAV is such a perfect way of reproducing sound. It introduces some artefact too (though it<s nearly totally inaudible) But any frequency above 1/4 nyquist frequency is quite distorted... (11.025 KHz, for CD audio
Sorry, not true.
Originally posted by sven_Bent
Winxp an win2k supprot hot swap
just yank thedrive outof the ide/power. put on a new and search for new hardware.
it works
i do it all the time with both HDD drives and when i need to change from DVD to CDRW drive
jsut dont do it with the partition that contains windows or swapfile
It still needs hardware to be reliable... Your way is not safe at all... You could easily screw up the HD anytime...