Home
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
12:58:57 PM
Users online: 0   You are here >> Home > Audio

Forums | Audio Forums search
Forum FAQ
   
  1 | 2 Next Page 
Whats the average size of a FLAC file?
Master_Scythe 
29/8/08 12:56:59 PM
Titan

So whats the average size for a 5 minute song.

Ive done some reading, and i know it changes based on complexity of song etc. because its lossless. but there still has to be an average. Humans only listen to so many types of music, so averages are possible.

eg. for an mp3 its usually 1.5-2mb a minute for a nice 225-320kbps variable recording.

Actually. another questions too. Considering im worried about space, whats the LEAST lossful, lossful codec?

-----
4200+X2 939, ASUS A8N-SLI-D, Ati HD3850, 1gb,1tb total HDD, 109 DVD, LG DVD-rom.
Quote by Girvo
I've got a wicked tiny one that is ridiculously sensitive.



komuso 
29/8/08 2:20:17 PM
Overlord

Depends on the compression level.

I think flac is the best lossless codec. If you are worried only about storage, I remember there was a Logic audio compression tool years back that claimed up to ninety percent lossless compression for wav files, but it required decompression for playback.

-----

Redhatter 
29/8/08 5:29:49 PM
Hero
Titan


I think FLAC tends to have a compression ratio of around 50% or so.

And while it's true that we only listen to certain types of music... they differ wildly. Live recordings compress worse than studio recordings for instance: applause is notoriously difficult to compress since it's random with sharp spikes.

-----
Stuart Longland (aka. Redhatter, VK4FSJL)
I haven't lost my mind it's backed up on a tape somewhere...
http://atomicdoc.yi.org <-- AtomicDOC Wiki
Resident Coolie-hatted Gentoo geek. (Gentoo MIPS & Mozilla herd member)

Master_Scythe 
30/8/08 2:24:27 PM
Titan

You see im in a dilemma.

I wanna use FLAC on my PC. as its so nice.

however, i also wanna buy a good mp3 player. And by installing RockBox I can get it to play FLAC.

however, the file size would severely limit it i think.

Im considering just going for CBR 320kbps mp3.

Its just a fucking hard choice. as 'syncing' or 'converting' takes so much more time than delicious copypasta

-----
4200+X2 939, ASUS A8N-SLI-D, Ati HD3850, 1gb,1tb total HDD, 109 DVD, LG DVD-rom.
Quote by Girvo
I've got a wicked tiny one that is ridiculously sensitive.



cmos 
30/8/08 4:01:04 PM
Overlord

Quote by Master_Scythe
You see im in a dilemma.

I wanna use FLAC on my PC. as its so nice.

however, i also wanna buy a good mp3 player. And by installing RockBox I can get it to play FLAC.

however, the file size would severely limit it i think.

Im considering just going for CBR 320kbps mp3.

Its just a fucking hard choice. as 'syncing' or 'converting' takes so much more time than delicious copypasta




If it's any help I use 320kbps CBR LAME ripped with Cdex, and I can't hear the difference between those and FLAC's (but that's just me :).

Also, MP3 is compatible with all mp3 players so makes life that bit easier and they're a fair bit smaller than FLAC's so more music FTW!

-----
I no longer want to be a man. I want to be a horse. Men have small thoughts. I need a tail. Give me a tail. Tell me a tale.

Master_Scythe 
30/8/08 10:16:27 PM
Titan

Yeah I seem to stop noticing the difference at 256kbps, but for the small file size difference id use 320.


MP3s sound that LITTLE bit flat, HOWEVER, if they're in FLAC format, not only does that mean they take up more space. But it mean my music collections main purpose is moot. (which is to be accessible when i need it). If its FLAC, its limited in its playing areas, and the HDD space suddenly becomes a LITTLE more limiting.

I think my minds made up....

is MP3 the best of the lossy codecs?

It sounds like im once again decided, lol. I love my audio so much. bu i also like to USE my audio.... its a pain :P

-----
4200+X2 939, ASUS A8N-SLI-D, Ati HD3850, 1gb,1tb total HDD, 109 DVD, LG DVD-rom.
Quote by Girvo
I've got a wicked tiny one that is ridiculously sensitive.



@~thehung 
31/8/08 12:28:55 AM
Guru


"i also wanna buy a good mp3 player. And by installing RockBox I can get it to play FLAC"

imo a good mp3 player has native FLAC support.

http://www.minidisc.com.au/advanced_search_result.php?search_in_description=1&keywords=FLAC&a

-----
no pung intended

Electra 
1/9/08 12:56:14 AM
Learner

Quote by Master_Scythe
Yeah I seem to stop noticing the difference at 256kbps, but for the small file size difference id use 320.


MP3s sound that LITTLE bit flat, HOWEVER, if they're in FLAC format, not only does that mean they take up more space. But it mean my music collections main purpose is moot. (which is to be accessible when i need it). If its FLAC, its limited in its playing areas, and the HDD space suddenly becomes a LITTLE more limiting.

I think my minds made up....

is MP3 the best of the lossy codecs?

It sounds like im once again decided, lol. I love my audio so much. bu i also like to USE my audio.... its a pain :P


Settling for second best is sheer folly.
How hard is it to update your files on a weekly, or even daily basis?
I don't see the point of carrying your entire collection of crappy music with you 24/7 when you are lucky to listen to a poofteenth of it.

You say you love music?

Pfft!...I say.
(If you're hearing impaired, I apologise in advance)

-----

Master_Scythe 
1/9/08 1:08:12 AM
Titan

no, im vision imparied which makes me appreciate audio more.

Im using it almost literally 24\7

i sleep with it on, i drive, i walk, i work, all with my music going.

I only have like 200 CDs or so. its not a fuckload. once im finished 256-320kbps encoding them, I may FLAC them for archive purposes.

Even in this high quality mp3 format, im still lucky to get 10 albums on here. and id listen to at least 5 a day. and if i dont get home in a night. well.

so. as im getting an iriver, with 12gb of storage, that should be more than enough at 320kbps.

also. what you need to consider is the hardware being used.

atm im using Nforce4 audio, with logitech speakers.

and my headphones are earbuds, not full closed cup (they're hard to walk with).

so its nigh impossible to notice the difference in these circumstances anyway.

-----
4200+X2 939, ASUS A8N-SLI-D, Ati HD3850, 1gb,1tb total HDD, 109 DVD, LG DVD-rom.
Quote by Girvo
I've got a wicked tiny one that is ridiculously sensitive.



Electra 
1/9/08 1:25:00 AM
Learner

All that listening and you can't tell the difference?
Puleese.
If God wanted wanted you to listen to MP3s, he would have put a decoder in your head.

It's just unnatural!

-----

Master_Scythe 
1/9/08 11:36:07 AM
Titan

I cant tell the difference on sub $500 speakers. and sub $200 headphones.

the speakers themselves dont have the frequency response to play the frequency that MP3 is chopping. and with the quality of LAME these days, I dont hear any artifacting or anything. so what else is there.

-----
4200+X2 939, ASUS A8N-SLI-D, Ati HD3850, 1gb,1tb total HDD, 109 DVD, LG DVD-rom.
Quote by Girvo
I've got a wicked tiny one that is ridiculously sensitive.



Electra 
2/9/08 1:26:39 AM
Apprentice

You're not listening hard enough.

-----

Master_Scythe 
2/9/08 12:13:33 PM
Titan

Quote by Electra
You're not listening hard enough.



"the speakers themselves dont have the frequency response"

actually, no, no matter how hard I listen, the speakers dont touch the frequency MP3 chops, neither do my headphones.

I only spend about $100 on headphones\speakers each.

Im aware MP3 does a lot more than just chop high and low, however, if it ever does that badly it usually shows up as audio artifacting. and I cant pick any up above 160kbps (though it certainly sounds flat at that rate, no artifacting) so it doesnt surprise me that 256-320kbps is clear.

As said, its not a personal limitation, its a hardware limitation. the speakers\headphones wont play the 'quality' i 'lose'.

-----
4200+X2 939, ASUS A8N-SLI-D, Ati HD3850, 1gb,1tb total HDD, 109 DVD, LG DVD-rom.
Quote by Girvo
I've got a wicked tiny one that is ridiculously sensitive.



Electra 
3/9/08 8:27:31 AM
Apprentice

It's that flat/unnatural emphasis I was talking about.
The more you listen, the less you notice it.
Your ears are dumbed down over time.

-----

datafast69 
3/9/08 11:23:07 AM
Titan

I ripped a Concrete Blond song (Mexican Radio) at 256kBits using EAC & the Lame codec and the result was the removal of much of the very audible sections of the track, I mean it was copped like a Roadhouse Cook chops a chicken :P

You would be amazed at how much is removed, at best there are a lot of harmonics outside the 20hz-20khz area that are removed with compression, and they are very important to the audio within in that range that we hear, and that has a big effect on the end result.

I guess some of us notice it more than others.

But if you listened to the Mexican Radio track before and after compression you would think "fuck that compression shit"
:P


Edited by datafast69: 3/9/2008 1:46:44 PM

-----

@~thehung 
3/9/08 9:52:11 PM
Guru

Quote by datafast69
You would be amazed at how much is removed, at best there are a lot of harmonics outside the 20hz-20khz area that are removed with compression, and they are very important to the audio within in that range that we hear, and that has a big effect on the end result.



those extra harmonics, along with everything else above 20kHz, were quite possibly removed during recording or subsequent analogue-to-digital conversion AND if we are talking about an ordinary CD they are most certainly not present.

if you think you can hear them (or indeed their effect) in the CDA (or WAV rip) then this is more likely to be a moist rhythmic chafing sound coming from somewhere else.

NB: i am not denying the possibility that you can legitimately hear other differences :)

-----
no pung intended

datafast69 
4/9/08 12:17:36 AM
Titan

Granted a lot of the more recent recordings are butchered through the use of compression techniques :(

------------

But what is strange, is that when I was using ribbon tweeters crossed over at around the 20Khz region, I was hearing more, and I equated what I was hearing as harmonics throughout the audible range, not just in the upper area.

A lot of instruments seemed to have more air and texture to them, even Drums & Bass.

*shrugs*

I'm not up well on the tech' of sound, but I do know when I am hearing more than I had previously.

As far as compression goes, it does remove subtle stuff (sometimes not subtle) from the audible range that is important to the sound as a whole, this I think is fact.


Edited by datafast69: 4/9/2008 1:12:41 AM

-----

Master_Scythe 
4/9/08 1:12:16 AM
Titan

the fact that most of my music is electronica probably means its very 'clean' as it is.

which is likely why i dont lose anything.

-----
4200+X2 939, ASUS A8N-SLI-D, Ati HD3850, 1gb,1tb total HDD, 109 DVD, LG DVD-rom.
Quote by Girvo
I've got a wicked tiny one that is ridiculously sensitive.



datafast69 
4/9/08 1:16:03 AM
Titan

Quote by Master_Scythe
the fact that most of my music is electronica probably means its very 'clean' as it is.

which is likely why i dont lose anything.

I find that is a very confusing statement, so what is being removed when compression is done?

Not a style I listen to really anyway, closest would be Delerium

-----

Electra 
4/9/08 7:56:18 AM
Apprentice

Quote by datafast69
Quote by Master_Scythe
the fact that most of my music is electronica probably means its very 'clean' as it is.

which is likely why i dont lose anything.

I find that is a very confusing statement, so what is being removed when compression is done?





How does the file get substantially smaller if you don't lose anything?
Are you sure you're not hearing impaired?

-----

  1 | 2  | Next Page 
Forums | Audio