Skip to main content
Topic: I Have Decided To Go With Ape... (Read 22204 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I Have Decided To Go With Ape...

Reply #75
1 percent of 250 GB is a lot already (2.5 GB!!), enough to store a few more albums losslessly. I would go for that extra space (if I EVER go lossless), given that processors now are more than capable of decoding more than 20x realtime.

I'm not sure if people actually have collections larger than 250 GB though. Well, my lossy encoded files already take up 2 GB out of 58 available GB.

I Have Decided To Go With Ape...

Reply #76
2,5 GB cost about 3 €. And the person who can buy a 250 GB HD for sure has 3 € left. 
But you seemed to have missed my point of criticism: 1 % gain on one hand and 68 % loss (processor-side) on the other, is always and forever a bad deal - never mind how fast the processors will ever get !
My used codecs and settings:
FLAC V1.1.2 -4 / APE V3.99 Update 4 -high / MPC V1.15v --q 5 / LAME V3.97b2 -V2 --vbr-new / OGG aoTuV V4.51 Lancer -q5

I Have Decided To Go With Ape...

Reply #77
Quote
1 percent of 250 GB is a lot already (2.5 GB!!), enough to store a few more albums losslessly. I would go for that extra space (if I EVER go lossless), given that processors now are more than capable of decoding more than 20x realtime.

I'm not sure if people actually have collections larger than 250 GB though. Well, my lossy encoded files already take up 2 GB out of 58 available GB.

Agreed that 1% of 250GB is a lot, but my main priority is being able to decode in the least hardware I can get away with (ie so I can run a fanless, completely slient pc, and possibly even build a single board computer (SBC) to run in the car) so decoding speed is very important.

I've got a 400GB lossless MA collection, so the 1% saving *could* be important, but disks are cheap, and as mentioned, if it takes lots more processing power to decode then it's not as useful.
My decoding pc stays on all the time. If you think through the issues far enough,  it consumes about 15 watts of power (max) and so electricity bills are not a problem. If the file need more processing power to decode, I couldn't have such a power efficient pc and therefore my electricty bills would go up. I'm fairly sure the increase in electricity bills would have more than paid for buying a small (20Gb) harddrive. There goes the extra space saved, and then some.

Anyway, hard drives are getting bigger every year, and CD audio is no longer a problem to store. If you start talking about video, that's a different matter.

If MA is ever going to get included in a hardware player, like Flac has, then processing power is a big issue. Josh (jcoalson) posted a few comments here a couple of days ago which I think were spot on. The one thing he mentioned but didn't make a big deal of is an efficient implementation. When you design consumer electronics hardware, cost of individual components is a really big consideration. If you need more processing power, costs will go up. Not a good thing for end consumer prices.

I'm sure I've gone on for far too long here, and probably completely off-topic, so apologies about that, but this thread has been interesting.

Audio Spyder

I Have Decided To Go With Ape...

Reply #78
Well, firstly, I use lossy, so I'm less biased, but I'm also less in-the-know about lossless

My assessment is that, most people would go for decoding speed over space savings, and aim for the sweetest spot possible. Decoding speed is also important in hardware players, given that they run on batteries. Thank goodness for FLAC in this case.
However, there will always be people who will want to squeeze the most out of their HD space, and will always go for the highest (or second highest) compression setting possible. I guess in this case, those who use LA are hardcore. But really, to each his/her own.
Anyway, RAF, your little test will definitely be much appreciated by those who agonise over figures and statistics . 68% to 1% is a, well, large difference indeed.

I Have Decided To Go With Ape...

Reply #79
Quote
Well, firstly, I use lossy, .....

... Then we are already two.    - Is there anyone out there also using lossy codecs ?! .... .... .... No one?!

Edit:
But now seriously, in 2 or 3 weeks I will get a 1,5 MBit S-DSL-line for a remarkably cheap price (only 49 €/month), and therefore I will indeed take my focus more on lossless. Until now I have had only a 1,5 MBit A-DSL-line, with only 256 kbit upstream - and that was simply too slow for that, what I wanted (and want) to do. .... You sure know what I mean.
My used codecs and settings:
FLAC V1.1.2 -4 / APE V3.99 Update 4 -high / MPC V1.15v --q 5 / LAME V3.97b2 -V2 --vbr-new / OGG aoTuV V4.51 Lancer -q5

I Have Decided To Go With Ape...

Reply #80
Quote
But now seriously, in 2 or 3 weeks I will get a 1,5 MBit S-DSL-line for a remarkably cheap price (only 49 €/month)

Damn, I gotta move to Germany... 
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

I Have Decided To Go With Ape...

Reply #81
Quote
Damn, I gotta move to Germany... 

Better not, ´cause the ppl here are so cold and unkind. 
No, seriously: It´s only a minority of the people which can get this offer, maybe 20 or 25 %. Only those in bigger towns (>100.000 citizens, but it depends), and there only in some quarters. So, I just have had a dull of luck. .... And I told you only the half of the truth: This high bandwidth is given free for only the half of the day (or better: night; from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am), ´cause it´s a business-lines provider, and over the day the bandwidth is reserved for the companies, who pay a multiple of what I have to pay (49,- €). The rest of the day I will only have only 192/192. Not much, but enough for surfing and small downloads maybe. But all in all I´m lucky with this offer and it´s far better than this shitty A-DSL which I have at the moment with that extreme relation of 6:1 (1536/256). Because out of the high downstream you can nearly never take advantage - but the upstream is always and forever fully in use. Anyway I´m more than lucky with that new offer, as I´m over the day mostly not at home.

P.S.:
This offer is brand-new, and if any germans are reading this and want to know more about it, take a look the webpage of this provider. The customer-support is really great compared to the Deutsche Telekom or Arcor (where I am at the mo).
My used codecs and settings:
FLAC V1.1.2 -4 / APE V3.99 Update 4 -high / MPC V1.15v --q 5 / LAME V3.97b2 -V2 --vbr-new / OGG aoTuV V4.51 Lancer -q5

I Have Decided To Go With Ape...

Reply #82
Quote
But all in all I´m lucky with this offer and it´s far better than this shitty A-DSL which I have at the moment with that extreme relation of 6:1 (1536/256).

Heh. I have an even more extreme 24:1 (3072/128) with my ADSL connection.

It really sucks having only 128kbps upstream when you have a healthy 3072kbps downstream at your disposal.
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

I Have Decided To Go With Ape...

Reply #83
Quote
Heh. I have an even more extreme 24:1 (3072/128) with my ADSL connection.

Bandits ! - This line is for sure for no big use, ´cause this offer violates even extremely the recommendations of a norming-group for A-DSL (sorry, I forgot the name), where a ratio of 4:1 should be used at least, as there must be sent for each download so-called "acknowledge-packets" back (it´s in the TCP-IP-protocol). And the higher your downstream is, the more of those packages must be sent and the more the upstream is already occupied by this. But when there´s running already another upload (for what reasons ever), these acknowledge-packets can´t be sent anymore in time, and the whole download-speed drops down then dramatically. In theory (and also reality) often only to the maximum value of the upstream-speed. All, who have A-DSL can "sing a song" about that phenomena. For more infos how to avoid this, read the article in my POLL here, which I started a few days ago.
I already foresee the next offer of your provider: 6 MBit Downstream, with 64 kbit Upstream.    - and that of course for the very special price of only 40 € more than now! Haha.....

.... But now I believe, we are fully off-topic. So, if, then let´s continue this discussion in the formerly mentioned poll.
My used codecs and settings:
FLAC V1.1.2 -4 / APE V3.99 Update 4 -high / MPC V1.15v --q 5 / LAME V3.97b2 -V2 --vbr-new / OGG aoTuV V4.51 Lancer -q5

I Have Decided To Go With Ape...

Reply #84
Quote
the recommendations of a norming-group for A-DSL (sorry, I forgot the name), where a ratio of 4:1 should be used at least, as there must be sent for each download so-called "acknowledge-packets" back (it´s in the TCP-IP-protocol). And the higher your downstream is, the more of those packages must be sent and the more the upstream is already occupied by this. But when there´s running already another upload (for what reasons ever), these acknowledge-packets can´t be sent anymore in time, and the whole download-speed drops down then dramatically.

THere is no bloody such thing as "acknowledge-packets" in the TCP/IP specification.

I Have Decided To Go With Ape...

Reply #85
Quote
There is no bloody such thing as "acknowledge-packets" in the TCP/IP specification.

OK. Then let´s say "somewhere". 
My used codecs and settings:
FLAC V1.1.2 -4 / APE V3.99 Update 4 -high / MPC V1.15v --q 5 / LAME V3.97b2 -V2 --vbr-new / OGG aoTuV V4.51 Lancer -q5

I Have Decided To Go With Ape...

Reply #86
why anyone would want to archive CDs, and even 3000, is beyond me. i guess you'll buy more CDs in the future, so you wont even have the time to listen to the 3000, except maybe your favourite 50, so why not just archive them?

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019