electro-music.com   Dedicated to experimental electro-acoustic
and electronic music
 
    Front Page  |  Articles  |  Radio
 |  Media  |  Forum  |  Wiki  |  Links  |  Store
Forum with support of Syndicator RSS
 FAQFAQ   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   LinksLinks
 RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in  Chat RoomChat Room 
Live streaming at radio.electro-music.com

  host / artist show at your time
<on air> Special Sunday Episode - Twyndyllyngs Live Chez Mosc

poster

Please visit the chat
 Forum index » Online Music
Positivity
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Page 1 of 1 [17 Posts]
View unread posts
View new posts in the last week
Mark the topic unread :: View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Silke F



Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Posts: 1154
Location: Germany
Audio files: 89

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:59 am    Post subject: Positivity Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread




Silke_F_-_Positivity.wav
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  Silke_F_-_Positivity.wav
 Filesize:  25.43 MB
 Downloaded:  280 Time(s)

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blue Hell
Site Admin


Joined: Apr 03, 2004
Posts: 22096
Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 207
G2 patch files: 319

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Nice track!

Could you post mp3 or ogg files instead of wav? These take a long time to load ...

_________________
Jan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Silke F



Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Posts: 1154
Location: Germany
Audio files: 89

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Blue Hell wrote:
Nice track!

Could you post mp3 or ogg files instead of wav? These take a long time to load ...


Of course I can add also mp3 downloads. My goal is not to have perfect sounding clear music, so I always try to make it sound a bit wrong, a bit to much here and a bit less there, so its not sounding to clear and balanced. This tune "Positivity" as a example should stay like that with this unfinished and broken dynamic balance, because I like it this wrong sounding way.

My other compositions "Strings Of Heaven" that I published on this forum here minutes ago has to be wav because mp3 would take a lot away from the higher and additional energy of the composition so I really like wav the most, but if you like I can upload also as mp3.

I don´t talk about high fidelity sound when I say that I like wav more, because I like a more rough dusty like old vintage sound for my music thats not perfect. A real clear digital sound is what I try to avoid in my music. But on the other side I like to keep all the energy without loosing it trough mp3.

I just like wav files because they got higher quality as flac and ogg. When I make a composition I change so often and so much the sound on every possible level that a mp3 transformation takes away all the details that I changed for so long, so thats the reason why I like wav a lot, but I can process my music in future as mp3 for this forum if its helping you.

I like this forum by the way, a nice little place to publish, explore other unsigned artists and learn something, but I prefer just to publish. I hope its not to much that I publish. I just compose so much because I´m very productive, so if I publish to much here, just tell me to stop publishing so much here on your forum! Have a nice day! ;o)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blue Hell
Site Admin


Joined: Apr 03, 2004
Posts: 22096
Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 207
G2 patch files: 319

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Ah no there is plenty of disk space, so do not worry about sending too much.

Flac files should sound exactly the same as wav files, so maybe flac would be the best option for you then maybe? They would upload faster too than wavs.

The tooling here works best with mp3 files, but for the radio mp3, ogg and flac can all be used (but not wav, wavs can only be downloaded).

_________________
Jan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Silke F



Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Posts: 1154
Location: Germany
Audio files: 89

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Ok here is the Mp3 Version! ;o)


Silke F - Positivity.mp3
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  Silke F - Positivity.mp3
 Filesize:  3.46 MB
 Downloaded:  343 Time(s)

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PHOBoS



Joined: Jan 14, 2010
Posts: 3240
Location: Moon Base
Audio files: 515

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Yes this one is very nice, I actually played this one saturday as a bonus track when Alan had some trouble with his butt.

Personally I prefer wav over flac, but that's mostly because I have more software that can handle wav than flac files.
And yeah there is no quality loss in flac you can actually convert them back to wav without a problem. Didn't know the radio
couldn't handle wav files btw.

oh and you like pones ? Very Happy



edit: now that I think about I actually don't know if the 'no quality loss with flac' is still true for high quality wave files like 96khz 24bit.

_________________
"My perf, it's full of holes!"
http://phobos.000space.com/ http://www.acidtrash.com/ Stickney Synthyards
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
robsol
Stream Operator


Joined: Apr 24, 2009
Posts: 1992
Location: Bristol UK
Audio files: 298

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

PHOBoS wrote:

edit: now that I think about I actually don't know if the 'no quality loss with flac' is still true for high quality wave files like 96khz 24bit.


No loss at any rate. It's lossless. Very Happy

_________________
Muied Lumens Base Star
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PHOBoS



Joined: Jan 14, 2010
Posts: 3240
Location: Moon Base
Audio files: 515

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

oh is that what lossless means, that actually makes a lot of sense. Embarassed
_________________
"My perf, it's full of holes!"
http://phobos.000space.com/ http://www.acidtrash.com/ Stickney Synthyards
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Silke F



Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Posts: 1154
Location: Germany
Audio files: 89

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

PHOBoS wrote:
Yes this one is very nice, I actually played this one saturday as a bonus track when Alan had some trouble with his butt.

Personally I prefer wav over flac, but that's mostly because I have more software that can handle wav than flac files.
And yeah there is no quality loss in flac you can actually convert them back to wav without a problem. Didn't know the radio
couldn't handle wav files btw.

oh and you like pones ? Very Happy



edit: now that I think about I actually don't know if the 'no quality loss with flac' is still true for high quality wave files like 96khz 24bit.


Thanks.

Thats just a little funny pop song I did.

My experimental stuff sounds very different.

Wav files have 8 blocks per header and bit resolution and sound quality are captured and saved in these header blocks.

Flac files have less blocks per header and this is making flac files so little.

The information for flac file headers, thats generating and capturing the sound quality, is not so complete like the informations for wav file headers.

But the other subject here is that you say most audio editors do not work with flac files, but there are patches so you can work with flac files.

I use Adobe Audition 3 because Adobe Audition is one of the best audio editors that you can buy and it even has a very good video export function plus many extra functions, so here is the link to download the patch so you can use flac files:

http://www.vuplayer.com/audition.php

Of course there exist audio editors with many special functions like Pro Tools, Cubase and Logic, but normal artists do not need these super editor tools and Adobe Audition anyway is a ferrari if you want to compare it with these lamborghinis! ;o)

For my experimental music I use sometimes Audiomulch because its a lot more complex as Native Instruments Reaktor.

I use Audiomulch since 13 years or so, its supreme, but almost nobody knows about its existence. You can design with Audiomulch absolutly amazing super complex abstract beats and melodic stuff, even if its ultra super complex abstract what you do on sonical levels.

Posted Image, might have been reduced in size. Click Image to view fullscreen.

Posted Image, might have been reduced in size. Click Image to view fullscreen.

Posted Image, might have been reduced in size. Click Image to view fullscreen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robsol
Stream Operator


Joined: Apr 24, 2009
Posts: 1992
Location: Bristol UK
Audio files: 298

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Omega Wood wrote:

Wav files have 8 blocks per header and bit resolution and sound quality are captured and saved in these header blocks. ...


Really...? As i understood it, flac is no different than wav in sound quality, it just takes more DSP power to play it back.

_________________
Muied Lumens Base Star
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silke F



Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Posts: 1154
Location: Germany
Audio files: 89

PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

robsol wrote:
Omega Wood wrote:

Wav files have 8 blocks per header and bit resolution and sound quality are captured and saved in these header blocks. ...


Really...? As i understood it, flac is no different than wav in sound quality, it just takes more DSP power to play it back.


If flac takes away less space, it will take away less DSP power. Big files take away more. Little files take away less.

The best sounding player is Aimp and it has a higher soundquality as Winamp[/b] and every other player, Aimp has a lot super nice extras and its for many good reasons the best sounding and best working player thats available on internet. Its very fast and supreme.

The sound quality of Aimp is crystal clear without the distorted and muddy coloring that Winamp has as a negative effect on the sound.

Here you can download this super high quality player that plays flac files and all other important files in a high fidelity sound quality. The sound quality difference is intense and this player also is very fast and nice if its about playing high fidelity files with 32 bit and 192 khz or stuff of that kind.

Download Aimp 4.0:
http://www.aimp.ru/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PHOBoS



Joined: Jan 14, 2010
Posts: 3240
Location: Moon Base
Audio files: 515

PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Omega Wood wrote:
If flac takes away less space, it will take away less DSP power. Big files take away more. Little files take away less.

hmm that sound rather illogical. I don't know anthing about DSP's but if two files have the same quality and one of them
is compressed than I would expect that playing back the compressed one will take more processing power.

Oh and although I don't use Pro Tools, Cubase, Logic, Audition or any of that I never though about looking for a sollution to use
FLAC files, so maybe I can actually get that working. I also wrongly thought mixere doesn't have flac support but apperently it does. Smile

_________________
"My perf, it's full of holes!"
http://phobos.000space.com/ http://www.acidtrash.com/ Stickney Synthyards
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Silke F



Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Posts: 1154
Location: Germany
Audio files: 89

PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

PHOBoS wrote:
Omega Wood wrote:
If flac takes away less space, it will take away less DSP power. Big files take away more. Little files take away less.

hmm that sound rather illogical. I don't know anthing about DSP's but if two files have the same quality and one of them
is compressed than I would expect that playing back the compressed one will take more processing power.


No, what you say is illogical because flac files are not compressed. They just contain less information and less headers. So there is almost no DSP that these files use. There is no compression. Mp3 is compressed, but not flac files, its a complete different process and even compressed mp3 files take away less DSP as uncompressed wav files, so what you say is very illogical.

PHOBoS wrote:
Oh and although I don't use Pro Tools, Cubase, Logic, Audition or any of that I never though about looking for a sollution to use
FLAC files, so maybe I can actually get that working. I also wrongly thought mixere doesn't have flac support but apperently it does. Smile


You don´t need pro audio software for the stuff that you make. A free audio editor is enough for someone of your fraction. You are not working on 12.000 - 32.000 dollar (or more expansive) song projects to make a composition sound good on every popular speaker, headphone and whatever.

For your little sonical experiments a soundchip is enough and a soundblaster AWE 32 from the year 1994.

Even I could get most of my shit done with a AWE soundblaster soundchip and Cool Edit 95 without any special arrangement tools or special products or exotic plugins.

The music I do these days I could have composed already 1995 without hardware and without any plugins that you can buy these days.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PHOBoS



Joined: Jan 14, 2010
Posts: 3240
Location: Moon Base
Audio files: 515

PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I hate to dissapoint you but from the source itself:
Quote:
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.

_________________
"My perf, it's full of holes!"
http://phobos.000space.com/ http://www.acidtrash.com/ Stickney Synthyards
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Silke F



Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Posts: 1154
Location: Germany
Audio files: 89

PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

PHOBoS wrote:
I hate to dissapoint you but from the source itself:
Quote:
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.


You mix up compression with reduction. This site is also mixing this up and explaining it the wrong way. Flac is NOT compressing files. It creates compressed files.

Compression is for me a effect to increase information. Actually compression stands for reducing information, but for me its the opposite because I don´t use standard logic.

Maybe I´m to intense with the use and meaning of terms in the regular way and maybe the use of terms is not always the same for different areas.

Reducing file data is not compressing file data trough transforming the sonical spectrum. Compression means to increase the sonical data because the higher power level will create a finer dynamical range.

What you mean is reducing audio file data so its less data and more little. This is something else. But I see also this site is explaining it the wrong way because they use terms in a unintelligent way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PHOBoS



Joined: Jan 14, 2010
Posts: 3240
Location: Moon Base
Audio files: 515

PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 7:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

oh ok I see what you mean,. we are talking about 2 completely different things that just happen to use the same name.
Yeah there is a thing called compression in audio but I am purely talking about data compression here. And agree with it
or not but compression is the widely accepted term for it, but reduction is used as well.

Anyway, ok lets call it reduction. Than I would still expect it to take more processing power to play it back with the original quality.
Maybe I am seeing wrong but I think of it as using the contents from a zip file compaired to already having it unpacked. If you first
need to unpack it you would need more power.

I see there is something else involved though, haven't read all of yet but here it states:
Quote:
What happens if you play WAV?
A codec will interpret the content, translating it to raw PCM.
As the content is almost identical to raw PCM, this codec has almost nothing to do so have very little impact on CPU use.
However, as the file is uncompressed, you do have a lot of I/O

What happens if you play FLAC?
Exactly the same, a codec will interpret the content, translating it to raw PCM.
However, as the audio is compressed, it must be unpacked. This requires more CPU.
The file is about half size compared with WAV, so I/O is substantially reduced.

_________________
"My perf, it's full of holes!"
http://phobos.000space.com/ http://www.acidtrash.com/ Stickney Synthyards
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Silke F



Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Posts: 1154
Location: Germany
Audio files: 89

PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

PHOBoS wrote:
oh ok I see what you mean,. we are talking about 2 completely different things that just happen to use the same name.
Yeah there is a thing called compression in audio but I am purely talking about data compression here. And agree with it
or not but compression is the widely accepted term for it, but reduction is used as well.

Anyway, ok lets call it reduction. Than I would still expect it to take more processing power to play it back with the original quality.
Maybe I am seeing wrong but I think of it as using the contents from a zip file compaired to already having it unpacked. If you first
need to unpack it you would need more power.

I see there is something else involved though, haven't read all of yet but here it states:
Quote:
What happens if you play WAV?
A codec will interpret the content, translating it to raw PCM.
As the content is almost identical to raw PCM, this codec has almost nothing to do so have very little impact on CPU use.
However, as the file is uncompressed, you do have a lot of I/O

What happens if you play FLAC?
Exactly the same, a codec will interpret the content, translating it to raw PCM.
However, as the audio is compressed, it must be unpacked. This requires more CPU.
The file is about half size compared with WAV, so I/O is substantially reduced.


Oh yes of course, what you say makes sense now because to me it looked like you talk about compression of frequency, but you talked about data compression! Ok thats funny if I sense now after all how we 2 passed each other with the use of terms.

Reduction is a metaphysical subject because you have to ask yourself, WHERE DOES THE INFORMATION GO? Its like filtering away something, but you notice no change in the sound, if you haven´t got super good ears like me.

But this change again creates a change in the way how frequency and dynamics create the sound and in the end you can have subtractive EQs that also take away, but make the tones sound better if its making sense.

DSP activity is less if the file is smaller, because there is less to get encoded. But you say the encoding takes away a lot DSP power, so its maybe a question of what laptops and computers you use, because you sense no difference if you got at least 1,2 GHz, 4 Gb RAM and Windows 7. Nobody should notice any latency.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Page 1 of 1 [17 Posts]
View unread posts
View new posts in the last week
Mark the topic unread :: View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Online Music
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
e-m mkii

Please support our site. If you click through and buy from
our affiliate partners, we earn a small commission.


Forum with support of Syndicator RSS
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Copyright © 2003 through 2009 by electro-music.com - Conditions Of Use