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: I need Lossless Compression for 90% without Quality Loss (Read 7907 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I need Lossless Compression for 90% without Quality Loss

Reply #25 –
OP is look for a "Lossless Compression Codec that can give me 95% File Size reduction", so using white noise would be a bad choice. We need something that's highly compressible.

I need Lossless Compression for 90% without Quality Loss

Reply #26 –
OP is looking for something impossible. He's not just looking to compress some simple signal which contains little information, but actual songs.

"I hear it when I see it."

I need Lossless Compression for 90% without Quality Loss

Reply #27 –
OP seems like someone whom we will probably not be hearing much from anytime soon.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
União e reconstrução

I need Lossless Compression for 90% without Quality Loss

Reply #28 –
OP is likely trolling

I need Lossless Compression for 90% without Quality Loss

Reply #29 –
Quote from: Thad E Ginathom on
Quote from: Porcus on
... ... ...

Are you looking for one single piece of real music where you hit 95, or do you want a good average?


On another thread a recent comment notes that silence compresses well. I wonder what compression could be achieved on that well-known silence-for-piano piece? I guess a performance recording would include some ambient noises


I'm sure that piano silence - recorded properly - has all kinds of entropy terms you'd destroy by compressing it. 

Why am I sure? 

I've been reading amplifier and cable reviews.  How on earth could those reviewers wax so poetical about the many textures, temperatures and the rainbow hue of blacknesses they're hearing if silence isn't just chock full of information? 

Just because I haven't learned to hear it yet doesn't mean I won't learn, if only I buy enough of the right equipment.

I need Lossless Compression for 90% without Quality Loss

Reply #30 –
Quote from: saratoga on
Losslessly compress the file with the most efficient algorithm available.

There might be some pattern in the data easily exploited for compression which none of the current algorithms can spot, though.

I need Lossless Compression for 90% without Quality Loss

Reply #31 –
Quote from: Thad E Ginathom on
I wonder what compression could be achieved on that well-known silence-for-piano piece? I guess a performance recording would include some ambient noises


I thought of that ... should of course have found a recording rather than meandring un-empirical "it's got to be", but background noise isn't very compressible, is it? If you take 24-bit hi-rez, those last 8 bits which aren't really good for anything, will take a lot of space compared to the useful music.

But you need to read the top entry here: http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-reco...-John-Cages-433
One of those stories which makes you want to not do the hoax search, uh?

I need Lossless Compression for 90% without Quality Loss

Reply #32 –
OK, so... not-so-silent compresses not-so-well!

(I think that must have been a wonderful performance. I'd like to have been there)
The most important audio cables are the ones in the brain
 

I need Lossless Compression for 90% without Quality Loss

Reply #33 –
Quote from: Martel on
Quote from: saratoga on
Losslessly compress the file with the most efficient algorithm available.

There might be some pattern in the data easily exploited for compression which none of the current algorithms can spot, though.


Usually though some secret pattern (like the sequence is actually just the Nth to N+Mth digits of pi) isn't considered, since what you really mean by entropy is 'how random are the digits from the point of view of the computer without a priori information'.  If you think about it in the broader sense of how the numbers are generated, the entropy of many sequences will be low because there are only so many books ever written, so many songs ever recorded, etc but you can't usefully use this information for compression.

Of course, using a lossless compressor just gives you an upper bound on the entropy, and not the true value.  But usually it'll be pretty close, at least in the common sense if the compressor is very good.