OT: Digitizing My LP Collection - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection
Quoted text here. Click to load it


In my experience (after having digitized around 100 LPs, and around
500 CDs), the .flac files coming out of the usual "flacenc" encoder
are *not* "the same size as the original wav file."  Not even close.

They're usually 40% - 60% of the size of the .WAV file... roughly a
2:1 compression ratio.

I imagine that anybody who actually experiments with FLAC compression
of music-grade audio data files will see similar results.


--
Friends of Jade Warrior home page:  http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yep!

Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:44:21 -0400, Jamie

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  FLAC is preferred by those that know.

  MP3 is ALWAYS a compressed, AND lossy format.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  Please?  Fuck Off And Die, dumbfuck.

  Facts? "can both be compressed..."  They can ALSO both NOT be
compressed.  Sheesh.

Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection

Quoted text here. Click to load it

 Now I know you are an idiot.

 A frame of redundant info in a video MPEG-2 schema gets skipped.  There
is no such analysis made on music data streams, and that is NOT what is
referred to when the term "lossless" is used.

Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection

Quoted text here. Click to load it
  It removes spaces of blank 'info' and replaces them upon playback.

  The original data is what ends up getting played.

  That is NOT EVER the case with MP3.

Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You said FLAC was *not a compressor  all* and the FLAC home page on the
first paragraph says your wrong. The fact is you didn't / don't know the
difference between lossless compression and lossy compression.

If you read further about FLAC on (links on the same page I already gave
you) you would see it does much more than "remove spaces of blank info".

It is also apparent that you have little understanding of things like
acoustic masking, the difference between audible and inaudible and
redundancy and entropy. You need to have a basic understanding of them
before you can usefully engage in this thread.

Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection

Quoted text here. Click to load it


 Entropy?

  You have already experienced it between your ears.

Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Let me see...

You gave advice from on high about a subject you know little about and
that advice was... inconsistent

You then attemtepted to defend your position and accidentally exposed
how little you know about the subject.

You then used your own short comings to justify a personal attack on me.

Magnificent!

Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection Typo fix
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  Now that would be a miracle.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

  A clear contradiction of terms.  If 'from on high', the tomes would not
be advice, idiot.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  I studied the CD format and the rainbow books related to it before the
device were even available on the market.  I have studied many forms of
quantisization and digitization of various signals.  I have made
stimulators for the testing of fighter aircraft...  recently.

  I have owned more player types, and own more optical disc formats than
you have or have even seen.

  I watched (and participated) as "DDD" was the term-of-the-day back when
CD was all there was.

  I have assisted in the production of a CD recording back in 1993, when
the masters were 1GB hard drives and DAT tapes.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  Says the dork that is arguing FOR MP3?  Bwuahahahahaha!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  I know more about digital signal processing (and have experience with)
than you are aware, chump.  Your claim is baseless bullshit.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  A true scientist would see that the response proved your claim untrue.
You are, however, too thick to have seen it.  Not surprised.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  You need a magnifier but not for the reasons you think.

Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection
Quoted text here. Click to load it


You're hilarious! I hope it is intentional. Everyone can see what you
posted and how hopelessly wrong (or confused) it was. It's public record
and *you* created it. Your wonderful embellishments of your carer
highlights, even if true, can't change it and probably won't change any
opinions of you.

More of your weirdness: I didn't suggest MP3. I suggested the OP save as
.WAV ie. uncompressed format. You suggested he should stay away from
compression altogether and use FLAC, which the first paragraph of their
home page tells you is an audio compressor.

You said:
A FLAC format encoding does NOT compress the file and merely packetizes
it up for better error handling in playback engines.

FLAC said:
FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec, an audio format similar to
MP3, but lossless, meaning that *audio is compressed in FLAC* without
any loss in quality. This is similar to how Zip works, except with FLAC
you will get much better compression because it is designed specifically
for audio, and you can play back compressed FLAC files in your favorite
player (or your car or home stereo, see supported devices) just like you
would an MP3 file.


Don't abuse other people for your mistakes. You didn't distinguish
between lossless and lossy compression. If it was just poorly chosen
words then just correct yourself. If you didn't know the difference than
be happy you have learnt something new or just stay silent. Booming and
blubbering more error and spittle just makes you look pathetic.

Maybe you could try changing your user Usenet name again?

Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  And if you had a clue, you would find that it is an "audio compressor"
merely by the nature of the family of software it falls in with.

  The fact remains that FLAC does NOT compress ANY info.  It ONLY
compresses the dead space, and even that puts what an MP3 encoder does to
the signal to shame.

Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Now here again you are wrong. I'm pretty sure you can read so perhaps it
is a related comprehension error.

Since FLAC reduces a wave file to about 50% of it's former size it is
obvious that it does not just compress the "dead space" as you call it
now. Previously you claimed it just compressed the "silence" so I assume
you are using those terms interchangeably. It does much more than that.

If you read about FLAC you would have come across this description from
the FLAC home pages

http://flac.sourceforge.net/documentation_format_overview.html


INTER-CHANNEL DECORRELATION

In the case of stereo input, once the data is blocked it is optionally
passed through an inter-channel decorrelation stage. The left and right
channels are converted to center and side channels through the following
transformation: mid = (left + right) / 2, side = left - right. This is a
lossless process, unlike joint stereo. For normal CD audio this can
result in significant extra compression. flac has two options for this:
-m always compresses both the left-right and mid-side versions of the
block and takes the smallest frame, and -M, which adaptively switches
between left-right and mid-side.

MODELING

In the next stage, the encoder tries to approximate the signal with a
function in such a way that when the approximation is subracted, the
result (called the residual, residue, or error) requires fewer
bits-per-sample to encode. The function's parameters also have to be
transmitted so they should not be so complex as to eat up the savings.
FLAC has two methods of forming approximations: 1) fitting a simple
polynomial to the signal; and 2) general linear predictive coding (LPC).
I will not go into the details here, only some generalities that involve
the encoding options.

First, fixed polynomial prediction (specified with -l 0) is much faster,
but less accurate than LPC. The higher the maximum LPC order, the
slower, but more accurate, the model will be. However, there are
diminishing returns with increasing orders. Also, at some point (usually
around order 9) the part of the encoder that guesses what is the best
order to use will start to get it wrong and the compression will
actually decrease slightly; at that point you will have to you will have
to use the exhaustive search option -e to overcome this, which is
significantly slower.

Second, the parameters for the fixed predictors can be transmitted in 3
bits whereas the parameters for the LPC model depend on the
bits-per-sample and LPC order. This means the frame header length varies
depending on the method and order you choose and can affect the optimal
block size.

RESIDUAL CODING

Once the model is generated, the encoder subracts the approximation from
the original signal to get the residual (error) signal. The error signal
is then losslessly coded. To do this, FLAC takes advantage of the fact
that the error signal generally has a Laplacian (two-sided geometric)
distribution, and that there are a set of special Huffman codes called
Rice codes that can be used to efficiently encode these kind of signals
quickly and without needing a dictionary.

Rice coding involves finding a single parameter that matches a signal's
distribution, then using that parameter to generate the codes. As the
distribution changes, the optimal parameter changes, so FLAC supports a
method that allows the parameter to change as needed. The residual can
be broken into several contexts or partitions, each with it's own Rice
parameter. flac allows you to specify how the partitioning is done with
the -r option. The residual can be broken into 2^n partitions, by using
the option -r n,n. The parameter n is called the partition order.
Furthermore, the encoder can be made to search through m to n partition
orders, taking the best one, by specifying -r m,n. Generally, the choice
of n does not affect encoding speed but m,n does. The larger the
difference between m and n, the more time it will take the encoder to
search for the best order. The block size will also affect the optimal
order.


================================

I am sorry but you are wrong again.

Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection
On a sunny day (Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:11:09 +1000) it happened David Eather

Quoted text here. Click to load it



This is actually fun,
Long time ago somebody in a Linux newsgroup asked me if one could
make a system that would send stereo, but if bandwidth was an issue
fall back on mono, all in little bandwidth of course.
So I came up with the idea of sending the difference (between left and right)
on a separate channel (like in FM broadcasts on the subcarrier), but I used mp3
for the base (sum) and also mp3 for the difference channel.
 http://panteltje.com/panteltje/dvd/mono-stereo.txt

One would perhaps not expect this to work, but it works increadibly well.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection
On a sunny day (Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:21:05 +1000) it happened David Eather

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I have decided to ignore that person from now on, as he does not learn.
He keeps repeating the same mistakes that were pointed out to him in the past.
So it is a waste of time to try to teach him.
All you end up with is arguments.


Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection

Quoted text here. Click to load it

AlwaysWrong should read this:
http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/an-article-for-the-never-wrong /

[This space reserved for argument]

Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection
On a sunny day (Tue, 07 Jun 2011 07:49:06 -0400) it happened JW

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Best is to let the subject rest I think.
There are a lot of nicer things in the world worth attention.


Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection
Quoted text here. Click to load it

But you must admit it is fun to watch him scramble to find a way to hide
his own mistakes!

Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection

Quoted text here. Click to load it

A few times, OK.  Maybe even several times.  But the same errors for =
years
on end?  That is soo past boring.

Re: OT: Digitizing My LP Collection
Quoted text here. Click to load it
past.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sorry. This is my first, first hand encounter with always wrong - at
first I thought GooseMan was just a common overstimulated juvenile but
then it became obvious who it was. Like I said, my first encounter.

Site Timeline