Limited lifespan MP3

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Damos, Sep 14, 2004.

  1. Damos

    Damos Guest

    I curious as to opinions.

    MP3 and various compacting protocols were designed I imagine to make
    music/audio files smaller for ease of storage and transmission.

    With ever increasing transfer speeds (internet, usb2 etc) and every
    more space of storage medium, will these compacting protocols become
    relics of a particular time where costs of storage and file transfer
    created a need?

    Why compact when I can contain all my audio DVD in my watch sized ipod
    6th generation.


    Damos



    "It's a foreboding I have - maybe ill placed - of my children's generation
    or my grandchildren's generation ... when clutching our horoscopes, our
    critical faculties in steep decline, unable to distinguish between what
    right and what feels good, we slide, almost without noticing, into
    superstition and darkness."

    Carl Sagan.
     
    Damos, Sep 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Damos

    Richard Guest

    Damos wrote:

    > Why compact when I can contain all my audio DVD in my watch sized ipod
    > 6th generation.


    Why rip and compress when all my audio CDs will fit on a desktop PC.

    If something like itunes would be able to re-encode my flacs to lame encoded
    MP3s when uploading to the ipod they may serve some use.
     
    Richard, Sep 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Damos" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I curious as to opinions.
    >
    > MP3 and various compacting protocols were designed I imagine to make
    > music/audio files smaller for ease of storage and transmission.
    >
    > With ever increasing transfer speeds (internet, usb2 etc) and every
    > more space of storage medium, will these compacting protocols become
    > relics of a particular time where costs of storage and file transfer
    > created a need?
    >
    > Why compact when I can contain all my audio DVD in my watch sized ipod
    > 6th generation.


    There are many reasons. For a simple answer, you could liken it (in a sense)
    to using environmentally friendly products instead of non-friendly ones.

    Or you could reason out something like this:

    At the moment storage media are becoming bigger because there is still a use
    for the extra space. Eventually we will get to the point where noone (except
    maybe people using finite-element software) will need more space, and then
    the drive to produce bigger and better things will drop off. The same is
    true of computer hardware in general - at present there are still many
    features that could be implemented that would be used by a lot of people.
    Eventually we will get to the point where there are few (useful) new
    features that can be added if sufficient processor power/graphics
    performance/ram/storage/whatever else is available. When that happens there
    will be a very limited market for more powerful systems.

    One can easily deduce from this that if one can buy a pc that can store all
    the video etc that one is ever likely to need then there would be little
    reason to buy a bigger storage medium. Which would mean that there would be
    little reason for them to be produced. Which would mean that those that were
    produced would eventually become very expensive. At the moment we are
    nowhere near this limit :). But I would speculate that since uncompressed
    video requires enormously more space than compressed video and uncompressed
    audio requires maybe 10x as much space as compressed audio we would run into
    the financial limitations long before systems capable of storing that much
    uncompressed data are produced.

    Andrew Bryson
    http://www.bryson.co.nz
     
    Andrew Bryson, Sep 14, 2004
    #3
  4. Damos

    Genius Guest

    Damos wrote:

    > I curious as to opinions.
    >
    > MP3 and various compacting protocols were designed I imagine to make
    > music/audio files smaller for ease of storage and transmission.
    >
    > With ever increasing transfer speeds (internet, usb2 etc) and every
    > more space of storage medium, will these compacting protocols become
    > relics of a particular time where costs of storage and file transfer
    > created a need?


    yes. but not today, or tomorrow. give it another 20 years.

    >
    > Why compact when I can contain all my audio DVD in my watch sized ipod
    > 6th generation.
    >
     
    Genius, Sep 14, 2004
    #4
  5. Damos

    Herb Garden Guest

    Richard wrote:
    > Damos wrote:
    >
    >> Why compact when I can contain all my audio DVD in my watch sized
    >> ipod 6th generation.

    >
    > Why rip and compress when all my audio CDs will fit on a desktop PC.
    >
    > If something like itunes would be able to re-encode my flacs to lame
    > encoded MP3s when uploading to the ipod they may serve some use.


    Why rip and compress ?
    You ripped and compressed your CDs to make them into flac format files
     
    Herb Garden, Sep 15, 2004
    #5
  6. Damos

    Herb Garden Guest

    Damos wrote:
    > I curious as to opinions.
    >
    > MP3 and various compacting protocols were designed I imagine to make
    > music/audio files smaller for ease of storage and transmission.
    >
    > With ever increasing transfer speeds (internet, usb2 etc) and every
    > more space of storage medium, will these compacting protocols become
    > relics of a particular time where costs of storage and file transfer
    > created a need?
    >
    > Why compact when I can contain all my audio DVD in my watch sized ipod
    > 6th generation.
    >


    So you can put more on it in even less space.
    You have a choice of lossy or lossless compression and of lower or higher
    cpu power required for encoding and decoding.
    DVD and CD are already lossy compressed files of the original information
    but can be further compressed losslessly by various techniques.
    It depends on whether cpu processing power is cheaper than file space.
    Its ironic that as the quality of audio formats has increased the quality of
    the transducers that the average punter uses to listen to them has declined.
    Most seem to listen on some Aiwa atrocity powered by one ic with a glowing
    spectrum analyzer display.
    Most ipod users would be astounded at the quality that can be achieved with
    custom earmold balanced transducers as used by professional performers. Hifi
    has declined to where the gearnut shops have really boring little $5000 per
    pair 2 way towers with a bunch of paid for reviews by snob classical column
    writers and home theatre is a bunch of 2 inch computer speakers and some
    boomy little midrange "sub" that only sounds like sub because the rest of
    the speakers sound so bad.
    /rant
     
    Herb Garden, Sep 15, 2004
    #6
  7. Damos

    Genius Guest

    Herb Garden wrote:

    > Damos wrote:
    >> I curious as to opinions.
    >>
    >> MP3 and various compacting protocols were designed I imagine to make
    >> music/audio files smaller for ease of storage and transmission.
    >>
    >> With ever increasing transfer speeds (internet, usb2 etc) and every
    >> more space of storage medium, will these compacting protocols become
    >> relics of a particular time where costs of storage and file transfer
    >> created a need?
    >>
    >> Why compact when I can contain all my audio DVD in my watch sized ipod
    >> 6th generation.
    >>

    >
    > So you can put more on it in even less space.
    > You have a choice of lossy or lossless compression and of lower or higher
    > cpu power required for encoding and decoding.
    > DVD and CD are already lossy compressed files of the original information
    > but can be further compressed losslessly by various techniques.


    what techniques are those?

    > It depends on whether cpu processing power is cheaper than file space.
    > Its ironic that as the quality of audio formats has increased the quality
    > of the transducers that the average punter uses to listen to them has
    > declined. Most seem to listen on some Aiwa atrocity powered by one ic with
    > a glowing spectrum analyzer display.
    > Most ipod users would be astounded at the quality that can be achieved
    > with custom earmold balanced transducers as used by professional
    > performers. Hifi has declined to where the gearnut shops have really
    > boring little $5000 per pair 2 way towers with a bunch of paid for reviews
    > by snob classical column writers and home theatre is a bunch of 2 inch
    > computer speakers and some boomy little midrange "sub" that only sounds
    > like sub because the rest of the speakers sound so bad.
    > /rant
     
    Genius, Sep 15, 2004
    #7
  8. Damos

    Herb Garden Guest

    Genius wrote:
    > Herb Garden wrote:
    >
    >> Damos wrote:
    >>> I curious as to opinions.
    >>>
    >>> MP3 and various compacting protocols were designed I imagine to make
    >>> music/audio files smaller for ease of storage and transmission.
    >>>
    >>> With ever increasing transfer speeds (internet, usb2 etc) and every
    >>> more space of storage medium, will these compacting protocols become
    >>> relics of a particular time where costs of storage and file transfer
    >>> created a need?
    >>>
    >>> Why compact when I can contain all my audio DVD in my watch sized
    >>> ipod 6th generation.
    >>>

    >>
    >> So you can put more on it in even less space.
    >> You have a choice of lossy or lossless compression and of lower or
    >> higher cpu power required for encoding and decoding.
    >> DVD and CD are already lossy compressed files of the original
    >> information but can be further compressed losslessly by various
    >> techniques.

    >
    > what techniques are those?
    >


    correlation, predictive encoding, increased encoding efficiency
    look up lossless compression, flac, mpeg4
    You are the abusive Harry/Jay as easily spotted as Woger so I will killfile
    you now.
    <plonk>
     
    Herb Garden, Sep 15, 2004
    #8
  9. Damos

    Genius Guest

    Herb Garden wrote:

    > Genius wrote:
    >> Herb Garden wrote:
    >>
    >>> Damos wrote:
    >>>> I curious as to opinions.
    >>>>
    >>>> MP3 and various compacting protocols were designed I imagine to make
    >>>> music/audio files smaller for ease of storage and transmission.
    >>>>
    >>>> With ever increasing transfer speeds (internet, usb2 etc) and every
    >>>> more space of storage medium, will these compacting protocols become
    >>>> relics of a particular time where costs of storage and file transfer
    >>>> created a need?
    >>>>
    >>>> Why compact when I can contain all my audio DVD in my watch sized
    >>>> ipod 6th generation.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> So you can put more on it in even less space.
    >>> You have a choice of lossy or lossless compression and of lower or
    >>> higher cpu power required for encoding and decoding.
    >>> DVD and CD are already lossy compressed files of the original
    >>> information but can be further compressed losslessly by various
    >>> techniques.

    >>
    >> what techniques are those?
    >>

    >
    > correlation, predictive encoding, increased encoding efficiency
    > look up lossless compression, flac, mpeg4


    thanks

    > You are the abusive Harry/Jay as easily spotted as Woger so I will
    > killfile you now.
    > <plonk>


    oh right, i must be woger or whatever.
    that explains everything.
     
    Genius, Sep 15, 2004
    #9
  10. Herb Garden wrote:
    > You are the abusive Harry/Jay as easily spotted as Woger so I will killfile
    > you now.
    > <plonk>


    Harry=Jay=Genius? no fucking wonder I thought they were all annoying.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Sep 15, 2004
    #10
  11. Damos

    Genius Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > Herb Garden wrote:
    >> You are the abusive Harry/Jay as easily spotted as Woger so I will
    >> killfile you now.
    >> <plonk>

    >
    > Harry=Jay=Genius? no fucking wonder I thought they were all annoying.


    what on earth is wrong with people in this ng?
    constant bickering, harry,jay,woger this, woger that, ...
     
    Genius, Sep 15, 2004
    #11
  12. Damos

    richard Guest

    Herb Garden wrote:

    > Why rip and compress ?
    > You ripped and compressed your CDs to make them into flac format files


    Because it can contain the cuesheet within the .flac file, wav files cant do that.

    The OP was talking about compression that loses detail, as opposed to something
    thats the same as the original
     
    richard, Sep 15, 2004
    #12
  13. Damos

    Herb Garden Guest

    richard wrote:
    > Herb Garden wrote:
    >
    >> Why rip and compress ?
    >> You ripped and compressed your CDs to make them into flac format
    >> files

    >
    > Because it can contain the cuesheet within the .flac file, wav files
    > cant do that.
    >
    > The OP was talking about compression that loses detail, as opposed to
    > something thats the same as the original


    The flac file is smaller than the original though, it has all the advantages
    of compression, its a much better way to archive your CDs, but they are
    still ripped witha DAE application and compressed with an encoder.
    There doesn't seem to be a universal lossless format for hardware players
    like mp3 is for perceptual encoders yet.
     
    Herb Garden, Sep 15, 2004
    #13
  14. Damos

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:39:37 +1200, "Herb Garden" <> wrote:

    >richard wrote:
    >> Herb Garden wrote:
    >>
    >>> Why rip and compress ?
    >>> You ripped and compressed your CDs to make them into flac format
    >>> files

    >>
    >> Because it can contain the cuesheet within the .flac file, wav files
    >> cant do that.
    >>
    >> The OP was talking about compression that loses detail, as opposed to
    >> something thats the same as the original

    >
    >The flac file is smaller than the original though, it has all the advantages
    >of compression, its a much better way to archive your CDs, but they are
    >still ripped witha DAE application and compressed with an encoder.
    >There doesn't seem to be a universal lossless format for hardware players
    >like mp3 is for perceptual encoders yet.


    Probably because you would only get 2 albums on a CD vs about 6 or 7 done with
    mp3. And memory devices are still too expensive for that kind of data.

    Flac gives 20 to 30mb per song.
     
    Craig Shore, Sep 16, 2004
    #14
  15. In article <uCU1d.2712$>,
    richard <> wrote:

    >Herb Garden wrote:
    >
    >> Why rip and compress ?
    >> You ripped and compressed your CDs to make them into flac format files

    >
    >Because it can contain the cuesheet within the .flac file, wav files cant do
    >that.


    I don't think there's any architectural reason why not--it's just that
    no one has as yet defined an extension to the WAV format to do that.
    It's like someone had to be the first to add ID3 tags to MP3, since the
    format didn't have them to begin with. When the demand appears, someone
    will supply.

    The nice thing about extensible formats is that you can add new data
    chunks, and existing readers which don't understand them should simply
    ignore them.
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Sep 16, 2004
    #15
  16. Damos

    Herb Garden Guest

    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    > In article <uCU1d.2712$>,
    > richard <> wrote:
    >
    >> Herb Garden wrote:
    >>
    >>> Why rip and compress ?
    >>> You ripped and compressed your CDs to make them into flac format
    >>> files

    >>
    >> Because it can contain the cuesheet within the .flac file, wav files
    >> cant do that.

    >
    > I don't think there's any architectural reason why not--it's just that
    > no one has as yet defined an extension to the WAV format to do that.
    > It's like someone had to be the first to add ID3 tags to MP3, since
    > the format didn't have them to begin with. When the demand appears,
    > someone will supply.
    >
    > The nice thing about extensible formats is that you can add new data
    > chunks, and existing readers which don't understand them should simply
    > ignore them.


    There is an extended WAV format with metadata used by sound editing software
    called BWF or broadcast wav file.
    Its often used as an interchange format between proprietary workstation
    formats like between Fairlight and Protools.
    It doesn't have any compression like flac though
     
    Herb Garden, Sep 17, 2004
    #16
  17. In article <T0p2d.3885$>,
    "Herb Garden" <> wrote:

    >Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    >> In article <uCU1d.2712$>,
    >> richard <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Herb Garden wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Why rip and compress ?
    >>>> You ripped and compressed your CDs to make them into flac format
    >>>> files
    >>>
    >>> Because it can contain the cuesheet within the .flac file, wav files
    >>> cant do that.

    >>
    >> I don't think there's any architectural reason why not--it's just that
    >> no one has as yet defined an extension to the WAV format to do that.
    >> It's like someone had to be the first to add ID3 tags to MP3, since
    >> the format didn't have them to begin with. When the demand appears,
    >> someone will supply.
    >>
    >> The nice thing about extensible formats is that you can add new data
    >> chunks, and existing readers which don't understand them should simply
    >> ignore them.

    >
    >There is an extended WAV format with metadata used by sound editing software
    >called BWF or broadcast wav file.
    >Its often used as an interchange format between proprietary workstation
    >formats like between Fairlight and Protools.
    >It doesn't have any compression like flac though


    Again, this kind of thing can be added. After all, Apple was able to add
    compression to AIFF to create AIFF-C, wasn't it?
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Sep 17, 2004
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?aG9yc2VmbHk=?=

    limited connectivity for limited users

    =?Utf-8?B?aG9yc2VmbHk=?=, Mar 24, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    812
  2. Lifespan of camera flash

    , Sep 12, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    759
    dadiOH
    Sep 12, 2005
  3. GCW

    Any stats on lifespan of digital cameras?

    GCW, Aug 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    811
    JetRacr304
    Aug 17, 2003
  4. Router - limited lifespan???

    , Sep 18, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    704
  5. music-fan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,437
    music-fan
    Dec 24, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page