Lossless audio comression

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Nil]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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."

 

[Guest]

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.
>
>