Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Lossless : stop the madness. (Read 11059 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lossless : stop the madness.

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.......

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #1 –
Quote
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.

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #2 –
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.

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #3 –
Quote
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.

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #4 –
Quote
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
"Taking a jazz approach and concentrating on live playing, I wanted to use several different rhythm sections and vintage instruments and amps to create a timeless sound that's geared more around musicality and vibe than sonic perfection. The key was to write with specific rhythm sections in mind, yet leave open spaces for soloing." Lee Ritenour

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #5 –
Quote
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?

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #6 –
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.

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #7 –
Quote
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.
 

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #8 –
Quote
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.

Quote
Which codecs have the most active devellopment?


Monkey's Audio, probably. (Specially because Frank Klemm is helping to develop it)

Followed by Flac.

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #9 –
Quote
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.

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #10 –
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 ?
"Taking a jazz approach and concentrating on live playing, I wanted to use several different rhythm sections and vintage instruments and amps to create a timeless sound that's geared more around musicality and vibe than sonic perfection. The key was to write with specific rhythm sections in mind, yet leave open spaces for soloing." Lee Ritenour

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #11 –
Quote
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.

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #12 –
Quote
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...

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #13 –
Quote
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.

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #14 –
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

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #15 –
Quote
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

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #16 –
Quote
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

A riddle is a short sword attached to the next 2000 years.

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #17 –
Quote
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.

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #18 –
Quote
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

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #19 –
Quote
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 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

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #20 –
Quote
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...

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #21 –
Quote
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?
A riddle is a short sword attached to the next 2000 years.

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #22 –
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
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #23 –
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

Lossless : stop the madness.

Reply #24 –
Quote
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"...