Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Lossless audio comression

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 5:02:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

What are some lossless audio compressions?

I don't need to play the music but I do need to store it on hard drive.

So far I've only really heard of mp3, ATRAC and others that are lossy (very
lossy).

Thanks for the help.

Tom P.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 5:02:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Huh?

Sure there are. I'm hardly knowledgeable about them, but even I've
heard of FLAC, which stands for "Free Lossless Audio Compression". Do a
Google search and you'll find out more. From the very little I've read
I learned that you can achieve compression ratios of about 2:1 without
any loss.

Someone else please chime in with more up-to-date and in-depth
comments, because I'm sure there are others...

Thanks,

Dean

Phil Allison wrote:
> "Henry Padilla"
>
> > What are some lossless audio compressions?
>
>
> ** No such animal.
>
>
>
>
>
> ............ Phil
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 5:02:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> writes:

> What are some lossless audio compressions?

MLP - Meridian Lossless Packing.
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
randy.yates@sonyericsson.com, 919-472-1124
Related resources
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 5:02:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

You can also try out Monkey Audio Lossless compression. I've used it
before. It works well, and you can even play the compressed file as if
it were uncompressed. There is a plugin for winamp I believe. Anyhow,
The compression is about the same as FLAC (i.e. 2:1). I don't know
much abuot FLAC, but I've used Monkey Audio and I think the ability to
play the compressed files is a big bonus.

www.monkeysaudio.com
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 5:23:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Henry Padilla wrote:
> What are some lossless audio compressions?
>
> I don't need to play the music but I do need to store it on hard drive.
>
> So far I've only really heard of mp3, ATRAC and others that are lossy (very
> lossy).
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Tom P.
>
>

FLAC is good enough for Doug Oade, it's good enough for me.

Jonny Durango
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 7:40:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

drichard wrote:
> Sure there are. I'm hardly knowledgeable about them, but even I've
> heard of FLAC, which stands for "Free Lossless Audio Compression".

Quite right. I've used it too. The actual amount of compression cannot
be guaranteed but it does average about 50% on 16/44.1 stereo WAV files.

There may be others but it's unlikely that they'll be anything but
marginally better and as you say the FLAC spec is open and the software
is free so not much point in looking much further.

I use it occasionally for achiving stuff. I can easily get the audio
contents of a CD plus related documentation all on to one CDR if the
audio is FLAC compressed.

Conventional compression programs like ZIP are very bad at compressing
audio data because they are optimized for the wrong kinds of redundancy.

Anahata
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 8:17:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <02Hie.3849$tX5.593@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> padillah@hotmail.com writes:

> I don't need to play the music but I do need to store it on hard drive.

What's the point, then? If you're not going to play it, why store it?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 3:17:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Henry Padilla"

> What are some lossless audio compressions?


** No such animal.





............. Phil
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 3:17:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f0tj3F5es9sU1@individual.net...

> "Henry Padilla" wrote

> > What are some lossless audio compressions?

These would be systems that significantly decrease
long-term data storage requirements, while reproducing a
bit-perfect form of the original signal.

> ** No such animal.

...."no such animal" as:

AudioZip
FLAC
MLP
Monkey
LPAC
Shorten
MUSICompress/WaveZIP
WaveArc
Pegasus SPS (ELS-Ultra)
RKAU
Sonarc
WavPack...
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 3:17:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in news:3f0tj3F5es9sU1
@individual.net:

>
> "Henry Padilla"
>
>> What are some lossless audio compressions?
>
>
> ** No such animal.
>
>
>
>
>
> ............ Phil
>
>
>


Steinberg's Wavelab has a proprietary lossless compression(OSQ).
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 5:23:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

According to the comparison table at the monkey audio site, they can
have the best compression ration. Anyone confirm this?

http://www.monkeysaudio.com/comparison_compression.html

Quite intrigued by this as I often record bass lines for a friend and
hate sending huge wav files over a 25k uplink!
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 11:43:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger"
> "Phil Allison"
>> "Henry Padilla" wrote
>
>> > What are some lossless audio compressions?
>
> These would be systems that significantly decrease
> long-term data storage requirements, while reproducing a
> bit-perfect form of the original signal.
>
>> ** No such animal.
>
> ..."no such animal" as:
>
> AudioZip
> FLAC
> MLP
> Monkey
> LPAC
> Shorten
> MUSICompress/WaveZIP
> WaveArc
> Pegasus SPS (ELS-Ultra)
> RKAU
> Sonarc
> WavPack...
>


** What does listing names prove ??

Just what a jerk-off Arny is again ??




............. Phil
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 11:48:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article <02Hie.3849$tX5.593@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> padillah@hotmail.com writes:
>
> > I don't need to play the music but I do need to store it on hard drive.
>
> What's the point, then? If you're not going to play it, why store it?

A digital packrat ?

Graham
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 12:10:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:428C36B4.D0841DE5@hotmail.com...
>
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>> In article <02Hie.3849$tX5.593@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>
>> padillah@hotmail.com writes:
>>
>> > I don't need to play the music but I do need to store it on hard drive.
>>
>> What's the point, then? If you're not going to play it, why store it?
>
> A digital packrat ?
>
> Graham
>

I think he's saying he doesn't need it in an immediately playable format.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 12:41:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <02Hie.3849$tX5.593@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> padillah@hotmail.com writes:
>
>
>>I don't need to play the music but I do need to store it on hard drive.
>
>
> What's the point, then? If you're not going to play it, why store it?

I took "I don't need to play it" to mean that it would be OK if the
format required him to uncompress before playing, i.e. if it did
not support streaming straight from the file directly (through a
plug-in for some audio program).

- Logan
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 1:07:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Anahata wrote:
> drichard wrote:
>
>> Sure there are. I'm hardly knowledgeable about them, but even I've
>> heard of FLAC, which stands for "Free Lossless Audio Compression".

> Quite right. I've used it too. The actual amount of compression cannot
> be guaranteed but it does average about 50% on 16/44.1 stereo WAV files.

As it turns out, one of the properties of any kind of lossless compression
(not just audio) is that the ratio can never be guaranteed for all
possible inputs.

If it could be guaranteed, then you could re-run the compression
algorithm on its output over and over again until you got any file
down as small as you wanted it. Getting a bigger hard disk would
never be necessary again, as you could always just compress the
files you have further and further if you were running low on space.
Also, there would be no limit to the amount of audio you could fit
on a CD-R, for instance.

On the other hand, if you have lossy compression, then you can always
design your algorithm to get a guaranteed ratio. If the ratio starts
getting too bad, just sacrifice quality. (At the very worst, all you
have to do is start chopping down the sample rate, although there are
probably better ways.)

Anyway, the key with lossless algorithms is to invent an algorithm
that is likely to get a good ratio with the type of inputs people
tend to throw at it. Then, in a way, you get around the mathematical
property that a lossless compression algorithm must actually sometimes
expand instead of compress.

- Logan
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 2:20:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

StraightEight wrote:
> According to the comparison table at the monkey audio site, they can
> have the best compression ration. Anyone confirm this?
>
> http://www.monkeysaudio.com/comparison_compression.html

I've seen tabulated results for FLAC for several samples of different
types of music and they vary quite a lot. I suspect that different
compression algorithms do best on different samples, so monkey audio may
have been carefully selective in their listing - but as you can see
there's very little difference between any of them (except zip which is
looking for all the wrong kinds of redundancy in the data and hence
fails miserably)

> Quite intrigued by this as I often record bass lines for a friend and
> hate sending huge wav files over a 25k uplink!

Unless it's for absolutely no-compromise top quality commercial
recording, you'd do better with a high bit rate MP3 or Ogg Vorbis.
Especially for bass lines - most of the compromise in quality for
perceptual encoders is at the high end of the spectrum where the data
rates are necessarily higher; also a single line instrument has a
spectrum that's very easy to encode accurately. Try it with various ogg
quality settings or mp3 bit rates. My guess is you'll get much smaller
files that won't sound any different.

Anahata
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 3:30:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <kSXie.7149$796.6862@attbi_s21> rhunt22@hotmail.com writes:

> I think he's saying he doesn't need it in an immediately playable format.

If it's not in an immediately playable format, how likely is it that
it will be in a playable format some time in the future?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 5:13:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1116429562k@trad...
>
> In article <02Hie.3849$tX5.593@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>
> padillah@hotmail.com writes:
>
>> I don't need to play the music but I do need to store it on hard drive.
>
> What's the point, then? If you're not going to play it, why store it?

The point is I have over 1100 CD's worth of music and my brother has over
2000. Some of them are getting old and I've lost two or three to pitting
already. It's making me nervous.

I want to store the music as clean as I can then I can translate it into
whatever format I feel is good for listening later.
That's what I meant by "I don't need to play the music" I meant "I don't
need to play it NOW".

Tom P.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 5:14:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:NeKdnWUzHf5Y-xbfRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3f0tj3F5es9sU1@individual.net...
>
>> "Henry Padilla" wrote
>
>> > What are some lossless audio compressions?
>
> These would be systems that significantly decrease
> long-term data storage requirements, while reproducing a
> bit-perfect form of the original signal.
>
>> ** No such animal.
>
> ..."no such animal" as:
>
> AudioZip
> FLAC
> MLP
> Monkey
> LPAC
> Shorten
> MUSICompress/WaveZIP
> WaveArc
> Pegasus SPS (ELS-Ultra)
> RKAU
> Sonarc
> WavPack...

Thanks everybody, I'll give these a try and report back some findings (for
those that care).

Tom P.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 5:17:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:

> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> > In article <02Hie.3849$tX5.593@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> padillah@hotmail.com writes:
> >
> > > I don't need to play the music but I do need to store it on hard drive.
> >
> > What's the point, then? If you're not going to play it, why store it?
>
> A digital packrat ?

WOM - write-only memory.
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
randy.yates@sonyericsson.com, 919-472-1124
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 5:21:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> writes:

> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> news:znr1116429562k@trad...
> >
> > In article <02Hie.3849$tX5.593@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>
> > padillah@hotmail.com writes:
> >
> >> I don't need to play the music but I do need to store it on hard drive.
> >
> > What's the point, then? If you're not going to play it, why store it?
>
> The point is I have over 1100 CD's worth of music and my brother has over
> 2000. Some of them are getting old and I've lost two or three to pitting
> already. It's making me nervous.
>
> I want to store the music as clean as I can then I can translate it into
> whatever format I feel is good for listening later.
> That's what I meant by "I don't need to play the music" I meant "I don't
> need to play it NOW".

I still want to know how you met that perfect knat...
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
randy.yates@sonyericsson.com, 919-472-1124
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 6:21:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> The point is I have over 1100 CD's worth of music and my brother has over
> 2000. Some of them are getting old and I've lost two or three to pitting
> already. It's making me nervous.
>
> I want to store the music as clean as I can then I can translate it into
> whatever format I feel is good for listening later.
> That's what I meant by "I don't need to play the music" I meant "I don't
> need to play it NOW".
>

Also consider the longevity of the compression tool. Ten years from now will
you be able to get decompressors for some of these tools? Zip might not
compress so well, but it'll be around forever.

-John O
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:23:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:02Hie.3849$tX5.593@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> What are some lossless audio compressions?
>
> I don't need to play the music but I do need to store it on hard drive.
>
> So far I've only really heard of mp3, ATRAC and others that are lossy
> (very lossy).
>

Sony apps have their own lossless *data* compression format for audio - PCA
"Perfect Clarity Audio".

Amnd there used to be WaveZip.

geoff
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:23:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:23:17 +1200, Geoff Wood <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz>
wrote:
>
> "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:02Hie.3849$tX5.593@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> What are some lossless audio compressions?
>>
>> I don't need to play the music but I do need to store it on hard drive.
>>
>> So far I've only really heard of mp3, ATRAC and others that are lossy
>> (very lossy).
>>
>
> Sony apps have their own lossless *data* compression format for audio - PCA
> "Perfect Clarity Audio".
>
> Amnd there used to be WaveZip.
>
> geoff
>

You can also use .rar, .zip, .gzip, .bzip or anything else you might
wish.

Things like Monkey Audio are optimized to have good speed performance
with audio data to minimize CPU load for realtime playback.

If you don't need to compand data realtime, you can use most anything.
May 19, 2005 8:23:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 19 May 2005, Charles Krug <cdkrug@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:wX%ie.790353$w62.511485@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> You can also use .rar, .zip, .gzip, .bzip or anything else you
> might wish.

ZIP does a very poor job of compressing wav files. FLAC and APE are
much more efficient. Here's a quick comparison I just did (most of the
compressors have more extreme settings that will save you a few extra
bytes):

44,410,508 test.wav
40,787,357 test.zip
29,019,094 test.rar
27,213,759 test.flac
26,308,116 test.ape
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:23:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Charles Krug wrote:
> You can also use .rar, .zip, .gzip, .bzip or anything else you might
> wish.

You can , but they don't work well.

> Things like Monkey Audio are optimized to have good speed performance
> with audio data

No (well maybe that as well, but...) they're optimized for better audio
compression performance.

ZIP, RAR etc. are based on the assumption that certain sequences of
consecutive byte values tend to occur frequently in data. It's obvious
how that's true for text where words and word fragments recur all over
the place, but it happens a lot for executable code and many kinds of
binary data too, where certain 16 bit and 32 bit data values, strings
or instruction sequences crop much more frequently than they would in
random data.

None of this applies to audio, but audio does contain other kinds of
redundancy. I haven't strudied the subject but I'm sure that FLAC,
Monkey etc. need to know about the data size and format of an audio file
(16/32 bits, how many channels etc) and I'd expect that much of the time
the difference between consecutive sample values is quite small, so
encoding the differences with a variable-length encoding can take
advantage of that.

That's why typical 16 bit WAV files only reduce to about 90% using ZIP,
but more like 55% using FLAC etc.

Anahata
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 9:48:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Randy Yates" <randy.yates@sonyericsson.com> wrote in message
news:xxpwtpvrv0z.fsf@usrts005.corpusers.net...
> "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
>> news:znr1116429562k@trad...
>> >
>> > In article <02Hie.3849$tX5.593@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>
>> > padillah@hotmail.com writes:
>> >
>> >> I don't need to play the music but I do need to store it on hard
>> >> drive.
>> >
>> > What's the point, then? If you're not going to play it, why store it?
>>
>> The point is I have over 1100 CD's worth of music and my brother has over
>> 2000. Some of them are getting old and I've lost two or three to pitting
>> already. It's making me nervous.
>>
>> I want to store the music as clean as I can then I can translate it into
>> whatever format I feel is good for listening later.
>> That's what I meant by "I don't need to play the music" I meant "I don't
>> need to play it NOW".
>
> I still want to know how you met that perfect knat...


Umm.... What?

Tom P.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 9:48:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> writes:

> "Randy Yates" <randy.yates@sonyericsson.com> wrote in message
> news:xxpwtpvrv0z.fsf@usrts005.corpusers.net...
> > "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> >> news:znr1116429562k@trad...
> >> >
> >> > In article <02Hie.3849$tX5.593@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>
> >> > padillah@hotmail.com writes:
> >> >
> >> >> I don't need to play the music but I do need to store it on hard
> >> >> drive.
> >> >
> >> > What's the point, then? If you're not going to play it, why store it?
> >>
> >> The point is I have over 1100 CD's worth of music and my brother has over
> >> 2000. Some of them are getting old and I've lost two or three to pitting
> >> already. It's making me nervous.
> >>
> >> I want to store the music as clean as I can then I can translate it into
> >> whatever format I feel is good for listening later.
> >> That's what I meant by "I don't need to play the music" I meant "I don't
> >> need to play it NOW".
> >
> > I still want to know how you met that perfect knat...
>
>
> Umm.... What?

First movement of last song on Kansas' Leftoverture.
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
randy.yates@sonyericsson.com, 919-472-1124
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 10:31:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <Gh0je.2719$VS6.1841@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com> padillah@hotmail.com writes:

> The point is I have over 1100 CD's worth of music and my brother has over
> 2000. Some of them are getting old and I've lost two or three to pitting
> already. It's making me nervous.
>
> I want to store the music as clean as I can then I can translate it into
> whatever format I feel is good for listening later.
> That's what I meant by "I don't need to play the music" I meant "I don't
> need to play it NOW".

That's a lot of transferring, both to an intermediate medium and to
the medium you'll eventually use for playback. Perhaps you should just
not get so nervous. Three bad disks out of 3200 is unfortunate, but
not a heartbreaker. Put out a call for replacements.

With hard disks as cheap as they are today, if you really want to go
through with this project (and you realize that if you don't do it
completely, you haven't done it) I'd recommend that you bag the
compression and "rip" the CDs as 16-bit WAV files. It will save you
considerable time and will at worst double the amount of disk space
you'll need.

In order to really save space, you'll need to use some heavy duty
lossy compression, but take the hit in sound quality. Frankly,
though, I don't think you realize the magnitude of the task of
transferring 3000 CDs on alternate media, and then actually finding
what you're looking for once they're transferred.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 11:13:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> > > I still want to know how you met that perfect knat...
> >
> >
> > Umm.... What?
>
> First movement of last song on Kansas' Leftoverture.

"Father Padilla Meets the Perfect Gnat"

-John O
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:00:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Randy Yates wrote:

> Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > Mike Rivers wrote:
> >
> > > In article <02Hie.3849$tX5.593@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> padillah@hotmail.com writes:
> > >
> > > > I don't need to play the music but I do need to store it on hard drive.
> > >
> > > What's the point, then? If you're not going to play it, why store it?
> >
> > A digital packrat ?
>
> WOM - write-only memory.

Decades ago one of the major US semi manufacturers dreamt up a spoof WOM IC data sheet !

Graham
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:00:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> > > > > I don't need to play the music but I do need to store it on hard
drive.
> > > >
> > > > What's the point, then? If you're not going to play it, why store
it?
> > >
> > > A digital packrat ?
> >
> > WOM - write-only memory.
>
> Decades ago one of the major US semi manufacturers dreamt up a spoof WOM
IC data sheet !
>
That sheet made it into their data books, or so the legend goes.

http://www.ganssle.com/misc/wom.html

-John O
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 3:48:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

John O wrote:
> Also consider the longevity of the compression tool. Ten years from now will
> you be able to get decompressors for some of these tools?

For any kind of backup medium: Archive the reader with the data. And be
prepared to recopy/reformat to new media on a regular basis, to guard
against "bit decay" (both aging of the actual medium, and obsolescence
of the technology.)

The nice thing about lossless compression is that you can move to a
different lossless compression later without <ahem/> losing anything.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:55:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 20:30:36 GMT, "John O"
<johno@!noSPAM!heathkit.com> wrote:

>> > > A digital packrat ?
>> >
>> > WOM - write-only memory.
>>
>> Decades ago one of the major US semi manufacturers dreamt up a spoof WOM
>IC data sheet !
>>
>That sheet made it into their data books, or so the legend goes.
>
>http://www.ganssle.com/misc/wom.html

I've seen that link a few times in recent years, but there must
have been a similar data sheet if not another page of that one, as I
distinctly remember a graph not on either of those pages, called the
"Female Follower Response" that showed a curve that, while perhaps not
mathematically possible, showed a recognizable outline. I saw this
circa 1978-1980. Does anyone know of any other such data sheets? That
one is from Signetics, the one I'm thinking of may have been from
National Semiconductor.

>
>-John O
>

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 6:48:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article <Gh0je.2719$VS6.1841@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com> padillah@hotmail.com writes:
>
> > The point is I have over 1100 CD's worth of music and my brother has over
> > 2000. Some of them are getting old and I've lost two or three to pitting
> > already. It's making me nervous.
> >
> > I want to store the music as clean as I can then I can translate it into
> > whatever format I feel is good for listening later.
> > That's what I meant by "I don't need to play the music" I meant "I don't
> > need to play it NOW".
>
> That's a lot of transferring, both to an intermediate medium and to
> the medium you'll eventually use for playback. Perhaps you should just
> not get so nervous. Three bad disks out of 3200 is unfortunate, but
> not a heartbreaker. Put out a call for replacements.
>
> With hard disks as cheap as they are today, if you really want to go
> through with this project (and you realize that if you don't do it
> completely, you haven't done it) I'd recommend that you bag the
> compression and "rip" the CDs as 16-bit WAV files. It will save you
> considerable time and will at worst double the amount of disk space
> you'll need.
>
> In order to really save space, you'll need to use some heavy duty
> lossy compression, but take the hit in sound quality. Frankly,
> though, I don't think you realize the magnitude of the task of
> transferring 3000 CDs on alternate media, and then actually finding
> what you're looking for once they're transferred.

Hmmmm. Approx 1.8 terabytes of data uncompressed.

That should be fun !

How many months free do you have to do this ?

Graham
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 7:28:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Anahata wrote:
> StraightEight wrote:

>> Quite intrigued by this as I often record bass lines for a friend and
>> hate sending huge wav files over a 25k uplink!

> Unless it's for absolutely no-compromise top quality commercial
> recording, you'd do better with a high bit rate MP3 or Ogg Vorbis.
> Especially for bass lines - most of the compromise in quality for
> perceptual encoders is at the high end of the spectrum where the data
> rates are necessarily higher;

On the other hand, precisely because there is much less high-frequency
information, it might be a much easier task for a lossless encoder to
achieve much better compression ratios than it would on normal music.

So, while the loss with a lossy encoder would probably not be too bad
(the normal bad feature of lossy encoders), the bad compression ratio
of a lossless encoder (the normal bad feature of lossless encoders)
might not be as bad as normal either.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried encoding a bare bass line with
a lossless encoder? If so, how does the compression ratio compare to
when you compress music with more high frequency content?

- Logan
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 7:29:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <kSXie.7149$796.6862@attbi_s21> rhunt22@hotmail.com writes:
>
>
>>I think he's saying he doesn't need it in an immediately playable format.
>
>
> If it's not in an immediately playable format, how likely is it that
> it will be in a playable format some time in the future?

Perhaps "immediately playable format" means "format that you can start
playing before you've finished decoding", i.e. "format that you can
stream".

- Logan
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 7:39:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 20 May 2005 03:28:25 GMT, Logan Shaw
<lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>On the other hand, precisely because there is much less high-frequency
>information, it might be a much easier task for a lossless encoder to
>achieve much better compression ratios than it would on normal music.

I'm not really convinced by the theoretical argument. Electric bass
amplifier/speakers usually have very nasty little tweeters included.

The nastiness alone has just *got* to be significant.

But in the mix... well...

Chris Hornbeck
"They're in *everybody's* eggs."
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 7:54:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

FLAC - Free Lossless Audio Codecs
Generally the favorite among internet traders. Nero-pluggin is rock solid.
WinAmp playback is flawless. Built in error checking. Metallica uses it
for their Concert Download site livemetallica.com

SHN - shorten
Considered by many to be the original lossless compression format. Older
versions can only be played from start to finish in Winamp.

APE - monkey's audio
Closed sourced, and it authour seems to have no interest in creating a
Macintosh port. I find it a little heavier on system resources on playback.

"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:02Hie.3849$tX5.593@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> What are some lossless audio compressions?
>
> I don't need to play the music but I do need to store it on hard drive.
>
> So far I've only really heard of mp3, ATRAC and others that are lossy
(very
> lossy).
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Tom P.
>
>
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 12:03:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1116512082k@trad...
>
> In article <kSXie.7149$796.6862@attbi_s21> rhunt22@hotmail.com writes:
>
>> I think he's saying he doesn't need it in an immediately playable
>> format.
>
> If it's not in an immediately playable format, how likely is it that
> it will be in a playable format some time in the future?


Ohfercrissake Mike, he's saying he wants to compress audio files for
storage the same way you'd zip a folder full of documents. One does
this to save disk space, reducing the number of drives one must keep on
hand. You simply re-expand the data when you need it.

Why is this such an issue for you?

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:04:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <ZQgje.6088$tt5.2942@edtnps90>,
Lorin David Schultz <Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote:
>"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
>news:znr1116512082k@trad...
>>
>> In article <kSXie.7149$796.6862@attbi_s21> rhunt22@hotmail.com writes:
>>
>>> I think he's saying he doesn't need it in an immediately playable
>>> format.
>>
>> If it's not in an immediately playable format, how likely is it that
>> it will be in a playable format some time in the future?
>
>Ohfercrissake Mike, he's saying he wants to compress audio files for
>storage the same way you'd zip a folder full of documents. One does
>this to save disk space, reducing the number of drives one must keep on
>hand. You simply re-expand the data when you need it.
>
>Why is this such an issue for you?

It's an issue for him because he's always getting material in weird
formats.

And he expect that, twenty years down the road when the PC architecture
is dead and gone, that someone will drop a CD-R with these compressed files
on his desk or my desk and expect us to read them. Just like they are
currently dropping 3-track tapes and 16" acetates on our desks today.

What will we do then? That's a question that needs to be asked.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:13:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Gh0je.2719

> I want to store the music as clean as I can then I can translate it into
> whatever format I feel is good for listening later.
> That's what I meant by "I don't need to play the music" I meant "I don't
> need to play it NOW".

Your old CDs will likely last longer than any hard drive.

geoff
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:39:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <428D41F1.B2B4FDC3@hotmail.com> rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com writes:

> Hmmmm. Approx 1.8 terabytes of data uncompressed.

Surprisingly affordable at today's disk prices.

> How many months free do you have to do this ?

This isn't.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:39:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <ZQgje.6088$tt5.2942@edtnps90> Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca writes:

> Ohfercrissake Mike, he's saying he wants to compress audio files for
> storage the same way you'd zip a folder full of documents. One does
> this to save disk space, reducing the number of drives one must keep on
> hand.

I don't do that. I store my "valuables" in uncompressed format on
floppy disks or CDs. It's practical for the size documents that I
think I might want to access some time in the future. Back when I
still used 360K floppy disks, I used ARC and ZIP to save disk space,
but that's no longer necessary. Since those would reduce a text or
word processor file to about 10 or 15% of its original size, the
saving was worth while. A reduction of only 50% at today's hard disk
prices is hardly worth the risk added by having another layer between
the data stored and the data in usable format.

> Why is this such an issue for you?

Because a few years back, I wanted to use a file I had downloaded that
was in some compressed format I hadn't heard of before (or since) and
had to hunt for the utility to uncompress it. Ten years later, I
suspect it would be much more difficult to find that utility, and
twenty years later it might be difficult to find a computer on which
to run the utility (and for that matter, that will accommodate the
storage media) to uncompress the file.

I can see someone wanting to put his entire CD collection on a disk
for convenience of playing at a given location, but not as a long term
archive. He has CDs. He can buy replacements if they fail. He can play
those CDs on his computer, on a boom box at the beach, in the living
room, in the car, lend it to a friend . . . If it's on a hard disk, he
has to go to the computer and make a CD in order to do anything but
listen to it on that computer.

It's a pain in the butt, and it's not a very good archive media
anyway. That's why I discourage it for that purpose.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:02:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:428d0169$1@clear.net.nz...
>
> "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Gh0je.2719
>
>> I want to store the music as clean as I can then I can translate it into
>> whatever format I feel is good for listening later.
>> That's what I meant by "I don't need to play the music" I meant "I don't
>> need to play it NOW".
>
> Your old CDs will likely last longer than any hard drive.
>
> geoff

I don't see how that's possible since they are already NOT lasting longer.

I've lost three to pitting already and I'm getting nervous.
Tom P.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:02:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ylkje.5602$tX5.4317@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Geoff Wood" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:428d0169$1@clear.net.nz...
> >
> > "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Gh0je.2719
> >
> >> I want to store the music as clean as I can then I can
translate it into
> >> whatever format I feel is good for listening later.
> >> That's what I meant by "I don't need to play the music"
I meant "I don't
> >> need to play it NOW".
> >
> > Your old CDs will likely last longer than any hard
drive.

Agreed. When I bought my first CDs, I believe I was also
using an IBM PC with an internal Seagate 20 MB (not GB!)
full-height hard drive and Western Digital ISA hard drive
controller. Those CDs are still in my library and I've
listened to some of them recently. The PC, the hard drive
and the controller didn't even make it into the 1990s, let
alone the new millenium.

My previous generation hard drives (mostly 8-16 GB) date
back to about 2001-2002, and AFAIK they are still
operational. However, hard drives go bad on the shelf, so
their status is not assured. Needless to say I have a
zillion CDs and CDRs that date back that far or further.
AFAIK they all play just as brilliantly as they did the day
I obtained them with few exceptions.

I have found an occasional burned CD-R from 5-8 years back
that won't load, let alone play. They appear to be
undamaged.

> I don't see how that's possible since they are already NOT
lasting longer.

Than the hard drive you were using on the day you bought the
CDs?

> I've lost three to pitting already and I'm getting
nervous.

Sorry to hear. Moisture problems?
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:10:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:428D41F1.B2B4FDC3@hotmail.com...
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>> In article <Gh0je.2719$VS6.1841@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>
>> padillah@hotmail.com writes:
>>
>> > The point is I have over 1100 CD's worth of music and my brother has
>> > over
>> > 2000. Some of them are getting old and I've lost two or three to
>> > pitting
>> > already. It's making me nervous.
>> >
>> > I want to store the music as clean as I can then I can translate it
>> > into
>> > whatever format I feel is good for listening later.
>> > That's what I meant by "I don't need to play the music" I meant "I
>> > don't
>> > need to play it NOW".
>>
>> That's a lot of transferring, both to an intermediate medium and to
>> the medium you'll eventually use for playback. Perhaps you should just
>> not get so nervous. Three bad disks out of 3200 is unfortunate, but
>> not a heartbreaker. Put out a call for replacements.
>>
>> With hard disks as cheap as they are today, if you really want to go
>> through with this project (and you realize that if you don't do it
>> completely, you haven't done it) I'd recommend that you bag the
>> compression and "rip" the CDs as 16-bit WAV files. It will save you
>> considerable time and will at worst double the amount of disk space
>> you'll need.
>>
>> In order to really save space, you'll need to use some heavy duty
>> lossy compression, but take the hit in sound quality. Frankly,
>> though, I don't think you realize the magnitude of the task of
>> transferring 3000 CDs on alternate media, and then actually finding
>> what you're looking for once they're transferred.
>
> Hmmmm. Approx 1.8 terabytes of data uncompressed.
>
> That should be fun !
>
> How many months free do you have to do this ?
>
> Graham

Tell me about it. That's 9-250 gig drives (I got 2.1Tb). That's $1350 in
drives alone.

And I know the organization is going to be a small nightmare but I know it's
better than finding them now - I just look and look and look until I find it
or give up.

What the heck am I going to do?

Tom P.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:47:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2005-05-18, Henry Padilla <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What are some lossless audio compressions?
>
> I don't need to play the music but I do need to store it on hard
> drive.
>
> So far I've only really heard of mp3, ATRAC and others that are lossy
> (very lossy).

I usually use FLAC.

I used Monkey's Audio once because it compressed slightly better
and I was able to fill a CD-ROM but FLAC has better Unix
support. It has a man page, a sane command line syntax and is
widely supported by Unix audio apps.

--
André Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/&gt;
(Counterfeit: acigic@singable.com uhutowid@affluence.org)
What worries me is not the violence of the few, but the
indifference of the many. -- M. L. King
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:55:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> What the heck am I going to do?
>

All of the CDs I bought in 1985 are just fine, in fact I was playing one of
them in my new car deck earlier this week. I have a few floppies that are a
bit newer, and they still work, surprisingly. But I don't have any hard
drives from 1993 that are any good. I have a couple older ST-506/ESDI
drives, but I'm pretty sure I don't have a computer that will accept their
drive controller.

-John O
!