Re: (313) A reasonable compression rate?
Original message Subject:Re: (313) A reasonable compression rate? Author: matt kane's brain [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 24th June 2005 3:55:23 24-bit 96kHz is 16.9 Mbytes / minute per channel. Yeah, I should correct my post from yesterday. A 7:00 track was 307MB at 32 bit (float)/96KHz, but that's still 200MB at 24 bit/96KHz for a 6 minute track, which is obscene. I've only encoded a fraction of my collection over the last six months, and that's 1129 tracks (110 hours). That takes up 10.8 GB in 256kbps mp3 as opposed to 223 GB at 24 bit 96 KHz. I'd definitely be looking at terrabytes of storage if I didn't chose a compressed format. From a practical point of view, I don't know when I'll get around to doing all my vinyls. So far I've just been encoding new purchases as I get them rather than recording straight to minidisk, and recently I've decided to start working on my 5-600 CDs, as that's a (relatively) quick win. Even with the small chunk I've got so far I've found it's really nice to just press shuffle and redicsover things I haven't heard in ages. I have yet to 'go digital' and don't think I will until I've at least finished with the CDs. As a DJ the main benefit to me will be to have a huge range of stuff a click away, and without that mass it just seems pointless not to use vinyl. It's a totally different approach than carefully picking 50 records to fill the bag, and means recalibrating loads of tendencies and habits. Also, I'm sure I'll just start messing around once I get the tools and won't ever get around to encoding the rest of my stuff. However, I'm starting to get quite excited about that day's arrival. I think it'll be loads of fun once I get there. @Kamal: Will you pay for palletising and shipping? I know a good freighter or two. ;) Tristan === [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phonopsia.co.uk
Re: (313) A reasonable compression rate?
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 12:21:08PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Tristan Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: A reasonable compression rate?
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The storage requirements for 1000 records at 24 bit 96 KHz would be =
astronomical. IIRC, I mixed down a 6 minute track to 32 bit 96 KHz and it =
was over 300MB! If you actually decide to encode an average of 2 =
tracks/record that would require ~600GB. 1500 records and you're nearly at =
a terrabyte (don't even worry about albums for now).=20
Even if you're thinking that hard disk space is cheap these days, the =
backup requirements are crazy. Plunking that on DVD's you've got an =
organisational nightmare, and if you're thinking of using a NAS, a =
terrabyte is bloody expensive.=20
Nice point Tristan. I agree with you that \emph{today} some of these
numbers sound obscene, but they will not in, say, 5 years time.
And if I am embarking in the mission to digitalise a lot of music, I
want to do it right from the first time.
Personaly, I will never dispose the vinyl I like the most. But I want to
digitalise because 1) I am living abroad now and will for some time,
maybe changing location a couple of times. It is hard to carry around a
lot of records, but much easier to carry, say, 40 DVD-Rs or 2x200GB HD
(2x to get it mirrored, 200GB in 24/96 gives 100 hours of music, which
then can be easily compressed...)
2) I often buy records which I end up not enjoying, or maybe buy without
listening at all (through internet, etc). Digitalising is a way of
keeping the music and allows me to sell these records.
In the long term terabyte storage wont be that expensive and we will be
able to afford with or DIY terabyte NAS or disk-servers.
If you are really mental and rich, one of those nice robotic tape
jukeboxes would do the job even today.
Since network connection is getting faster and cheaper, you could get a
central server, with all your collection digitalised, and allow your
friends to access it, giving them the choice of final bitrate
(compressed from the originals in your server), but this is another
history...
Anyway, a shuffle feature through a whole collection sounds great.
G
Re: (313) A reasonable compression rate?
Original message
Subject:Re: (313) A reasonable compression rate?
Author: Guilherme Menegon Arantes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25th June 2005 3:13:12
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 12:21:08PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Tristan Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: A reasonable compression rate?
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The storage requirements for 1000 records at 24 bit 96 KHz would be =
astronomical. IIRC, I mixed down a 6 minute track to 32 bit 96 KHz and it =
was over 300MB! If you actually decide to encode an average of 2 =
tracks/record that would require ~600GB. 1500 records and you're nearly at =
a terrabyte (don't even worry about albums for now).=20
Even if you're thinking that hard disk space is cheap these days, the =
backup requirements are crazy. Plunking that on DVD's you've got an =
organisational nightmare, and if you're thinking of using a NAS, a =
terrabyte is bloody expensive.=20
Nice point Tristan. I agree with you that \emph{today} some of these
numbers sound obscene, but they will not in, say, 5 years time.
And if I am embarking in the mission to digitalise a lot of music, I
want to do it right from the first time.
Personaly, I will never dispose the vinyl I like the most. But I want to
digitalise because 1) I am living abroad now and will for some time,
maybe changing location a couple of times. It is hard to carry around a
lot of records, but much easier to carry, say, 40 DVD-Rs or 2x200GB HD
(2x to get it mirrored, 200GB in 24/96 gives 100 hours of music, which
then can be easily compressed...)
I hear ya! I still need to recover around 6-700 records from the states. I
haven't had them in almost three years and am really starting to miss them! But
it's become painfully clear that I won't be reuniting with all of them any time
soon. It's just way too expensive to ship that much vinyl across an ocean. If
only I could pay someone to digitise them all and send me the hard disks.
Err... what I really need is a digitiser/shipper/eBay broker. Once I get the
hard disks I'll decide what I *really* need to keep. You ship me that half and
the other half is your for keeps or eBay. Less than 50 are crap because I
already thinned it down to essentials. Any volunteers in Iowa City? ;) Kent,
you should have some free time when your youngest moves out. :)
Tristan
===
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phonopsia.co.uk
RE: (313) A reasonable compression rate?
Getting fanatical about any of these choices is a bit silly if you ask me,as five years from now there'll probably be a new format that poops all over the compession of today and we'll all be glad we kept the vinyls so that we can re-encode everything from the source in the new format. My point in a nutshell. And I think that if the current choices don't move me like I want, then I'm cool holding out with my source material. If you should ever finish encoding all your vinyl, please allow me to take care of the disposal...for a nominal fee of course :) Kamal K. Stoddard Turner Broadcasting Systems -Original Message- From: Tristan Watkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 3:54 PM To: 313 Subject: (313) A reasonable compression rate? The storage requirements for 1000 records at 24 bit 96 KHz would be astronomical. IIRC, I mixed down a 6 minute track to 32 bit 96 KHz and it was over 300MB! If you actually decide to encode an average of 2 tracks/record that would require ~600GB. 1500 records and you're nearly at a terrabyte (don't even worry about albums for now). Even if you're thinking that hard disk space is cheap these days, the backup requirements are crazy. Plunking that on DVD's you've got an organisational nightmare, and if you're thinking of using a NAS, a terrabyte is bloody expensive. But hell, 32 bit 96 KHz is nothing. Why not go for one of those audiophile formats like Sony's 1 bit 2.1 MHz DVD audio format which is meant to replicate the stream of analogue audio more accurately than larger bit types? No clue what kind of file sizes you'll get with that, but I think it's similar to the 5 channel 24 bit 96 KHz files from that other DVD audio format, which is large. Personally, I reckon 32 bit 256 Kbps mp3 is plenty good with today's compression formats. Has anyone actually ever noticed the difference at this bitrate? That's what I'm using anyway. Getting fanatical about any of these choices is a bit silly if you ask me, as five years from now there'll probably be a new format that poops all over the compession of today and we'll all be glad we kept the vinyls so that we can re-encode everything from the source in the new format. Maybe I'll be done with my current collection by then. ;) @ Joe: I recorded a 6-hour mix to VHS once upon a time. Good for that uninterrupted feel. :) Tristan === [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phonopsia.co.uk
Re: (313) A reasonable compression rate?
.. i'm using lame LAME 3.90.3 for MP3 encoding using VBR [which in average turns out to be ~200kbps]. been mostly encoding seedee extracted WAVs as well as my own production and i can't tell much of a difference, maybe sounds a little more 'compact'. lame encoding presets are optimized and tweaked to reach good quality/size ratio, the only complaint might be it cuts highs in the name of 'no human is able to hear above 18khz' so you cant encode up to 22khz. btw, the decoder is also important and there's still room to advance. i'm using Mad plug-in for Winamp http://www.mars.org/home/rob/proj/mpeg/mad-plugin/ i guess some lossless format will take over sooner or later as bandwidth and storage makes it accessible already the Sony format you mentioned sounds interesting! i wonder of the way of interpreting and describing audio characteristics there, gotta google it up -- ///Z Tristan Watkins wrote: The storage requirements for 1000 records at 24 bit 96 KHz would be astronomical. IIRC, I mixed down a 6 minute track to 32 bit 96 KHz and it was over 300MB! If you actually decide to encode an average of 2 tracks/record that would require ~600GB. 1500 records and you're nearly at a terrabyte (don't even worry about albums for now). Even if you're thinking that hard disk space is cheap these days, the backup requirements are crazy. Plunking that on DVD's you've got an organisational nightmare, and if you're thinking of using a NAS, a terrabyte is bloody expensive. But hell, 32 bit 96 KHz is nothing. Why not go for one of those audiophile formats like Sony's 1 bit 2.1 MHz DVD audio format which is meant to replicate the stream of analogue audio more accurately than larger bit types? No clue what kind of file sizes you'll get with that, but I think it's similar to the 5 channel 24 bit 96 KHz files from that other DVD audio format, which is large. Personally, I reckon 32 bit 256 Kbps mp3 is plenty good with today's compression formats. Has anyone actually ever noticed the difference at this bitrate? That's what I'm using anyway. Getting fanatical about any of these choices is a bit silly if you ask me, as five years from now there'll probably be a new format that poops all over the compession of today and we'll all be glad we kept the vinyls so that we can re-encode everything from the source in the new format. Maybe I'll be done with my current collection by then. ;) @ Joe: I recorded a 6-hour mix to VHS once upon a time. Good for that uninterrupted feel. :) Tristan === [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phonopsia.co.uk
Re: (313) A reasonable compression rate?
seconded! however i'm making use of encoded audio already and most likely i'll have to deal with it a lot during next 5 years, so i'm interested to handle the matter best way possible at any time. ///Z Getting fanatical about any of these choices is a bit silly if you ask me,as five years from now there'll probably be a new format that poops all over the compession of today and we'll all be glad we kept the vinyls so that we can re-encode everything from the source in the new format. My point in a nutshell. And I think that if the current choices don't move me like I want, then I'm cool holding out with my source material. If you should ever finish encoding all your vinyl, please allow me to take care of the disposal...for a nominal fee of course :)
Re: (313) A reasonable compression rate?
At 03:54 PM 6/24/2005, Tristan Watkins wrote: But hell, 32 bit 96 KHz is nothing. Why not go for one of those audiophile formats like Sony's 1 bit 2.1 MHz DVD audio format which is meant to replicate the stream of analogue audio more accurately than larger bit types? No clue what kind of file sizes you'll get with that, but I think it's similar to the 5 channel 24 bit 96 KHz files from that other DVD audio format, which is large. don't those get compressed like the rest of DVD content usually does? I mean, Dolby AC-3 doesn't have noticeable glitches (usually) and that's compressed 5.1. 1 bit 2.1MHz is 15.2 Mbytes / minute per channel. I assume that's like a 1-bit DAC. 32-bit (floats not ints, I presume) 96kHz is 22.5 Mbytes / minute per channel. 24-bit 96kHz is 16.9 Mbytes / minute per channel. -- /* Halley */ (Halley's comment.) matt kane's brain podcast | http://www.hydrogenproject.com | netradio | on-the-air [EMAIL PROTECTED] || AIM: mkbatwerk
Re: (313) A reasonable compression rate?
At 03:41 PM 6/24/2005, z66 wrote: i guess some lossless format will take over sooner or later as bandwidth and storage makes it accessible already flac and Apple Lossless give 2:1 compression. Eh. the Sony format you mentioned sounds interesting! i wonder of the way of interpreting and describing audio characteristics there, gotta google it up -- i'll bet it's something like this: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question620.htm http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=dualda.htmurl=http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/onebit/primer.htm -- /* Halley */ (Halley's comment.) matt kane's brain podcast | http://www.hydrogenproject.com | netradio | on-the-air [EMAIL PROTECTED] || AIM: mkbatwerk
