Are any of you using lossless data compression for archiving and/or sending audio files over the net? If so , what are you using and how? If not , why?

rar

Why would you use any kind of compression for sending files instead of using speedyshare.com or yousendit.com?

RAR does work pretty well. I also use FLAC.

Doug, you still might use speedyshare or yousendit. The idea is you can reduce the filesize sometimes around 30-40% for uploading, then downloading purposes. Not a big deal if you're uploading small mp3's. But, imagine sending 20 tracks of zipped up 44.1/24 bit files to mix. I'll get tracks this way and will even compress the 2 track 44.1/16 file back for review. I've done whole albums this way. Over the long haul, it saves quite a bit of time. What I'm describing assumes both ends have pretty large bandwidth to start with. If not, it might be faster to mail the files.

If you're uploading tunes to share with the general public, it's probably not a good idea as not everyone will have the same app on their end to uncompress the data. If you're working a project remotely with another party, it's worth the two of you to sync up and pick a compression method to use. It's even worth it if you find yourself sharing CD quality waves often with folks. Apps like FLAC and APE (Monkey Boy) are free to use and have a few other benefits. If you do it often, you'll cut 1/3rd of your time uploading/downloading.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by tbrugh:
RAR does work pretty well. I also use FLAC.
Steve

To my ears RAR and FLAC do sound different to the source file. So far WavPack is the only one in which I could not hear a difference. Will try APE next. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by tbrugh:
Doug, you still might use speedyshare or yousendit. The idea is you can reduce the filesize sometimes around 30-40% for uploading, then downloading purposes. Not a big deal if you're uploading small mp3's. But, imagine sending 20 tracks of zipped up 44.1/24 bit files to mix. I'll get tracks this way and will even compress the 2 track 44.1/16 file back for review. I've done whole albums this way. Over the long haul, it saves quite a bit of time. What I'm describing assumes both ends have pretty large bandwidth to start with. If not, it might be faster to mail the files.
Steve

My thoughts exactly.

My ears hear no difference. So, you're saying these aren't really lossless? That would really shock me, but I have to admit I haven't tested it in a scientific way.

I didn't know about WavPack. I'll have to check that one out. Thanks.

Steve

I am surprised no one uses this, its amazing and free.

www.monkeysaudio.com

Jason

It's still my understanding that there is no such thing as true lossless data compression when it comes to audio. A waveform, once deconstructed, will be somehow "different" when reconstructed. There are complex algorithms that can "make assumptions" in order to reconstruct the waveform "intelligently", but I *think* that there are bound to be errors still...even if small. The bottom line is that with bandwidth and speed increasing, this becomes less and less of an issue. Even for non-critical (ie...home recording/indie) projects, people prefer to get as much fidelity in their multitracks and mixes/masters as they can. You can DL a bunch of files from an online server and walk away while it does it's thing. Also, if absolute fidelity weren't an issue...you can use high bitrate MP3's that sound very good and will also speed up the process considerably. They just don't pretend to be "lossless"

-john

We may have to agree to disagree, John.

I have a decent, asymmetrical network here. 20Mbps down, 768Kbps up. A 30-40% performance gain is still significant for me. Now, I will say if I was only sending a 2 track wave file once in a while, it would be a lot less significant. But when you're swapping an album's worth of individual tracks back and forth, it's a pretty big deal. It's also nice to zip all the tracks into one folder and send the folder instead of a bunch of individual files. Plus, it's a little more "green" of ya if you're on a shared resource as I am (cable). I'm using a little less network resources.

There are checksums being used to guarantee reconstruction, so I've never really worried about loss anymore than I do when I zip up a bunch of graphic artwork. I can certainly hear the difference of data compression for mp3, but I haven't heard it yet with RAR or FLAC. This isn't proof positive, but if there was a problem doing this, I would think that some ME's I've sent files to would have warned me about this.

Anyway, I still plan to do my own null tests when I have some time to see for myself. You may be right, I just don't *think* so.

Steve

No biggie Steve. In the end, it's what you believe works best that counts. I have regularly sent large files back and forth with my friend Pete Generous (drums), and just my personal preference is to not even consider using data compression...one less potential problem. I suspect that many people feel the same way and wonder how many "bigtime studios" would even bother as well when large amounts of $$$ are on the line. I start the DL and do other stuff and it's all done soon enough. As a matter of general practice, I would think that in the majority of cases where the project is being mixed at one location, the biggest files being sent are drums (say 10 tracks for example). I think it would be much less common for all the files for an album to be sent from one location to another, especially repeatedly!...so that say one person is tracking and another is mixing. I'm sure it happens, but just not that often. For sending smaller files for guitars, bass, keys vocals...it becomes even less of an issue.

On MP3s, I can hear a difference up to maybe 160 kbps...after that I'm guessing and by the time you get to 256 there's still a significant file-size reduction but I really doubt that the vast majority of people can pick it up. Even so...I would tend to think, without ever having tried it, that there could certainly be additive affects from building an entire multitrack from MP3s. Something similar could be the case (although again I don't know) with RAR etc.

So I don't really even see the "swapping of an album's worth of tracks back and forth" as a common occurence...certainly not the multitracks. For most people and common scenarios, people just aren't driven to "potentially" screw with their .wavs. If after your null tests it all works for you, you will at least have satisfied yourself that it's a good way to work...and that's what counts!

-john

quote:

Originally posted by tbrugh:
.... 20Mbps down, .... Steve

Thats f-a-s-t!
Who is your provider?

Myself and 3 others have used FLAC & APE for over a year with no problems. We all have the slowest DSL in our area, and this saves a great amount of time. We use it whenever anything over 4 tracks needs to be sent. Below that, it is .wav's only.

It works for us, and like was mentioned before, most folks can not tell the difference between high bit-rate mp3's and a CD......and I have had some friends listen to a CD of their favorite music and say it "don't sound right"! This whole generation don't have a clue about good sound, all they have is 1000's of mp3's that were over compressed in the first place to reference to!