 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Compression Forum » Music Compression - advise needed... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| gJ... |
 Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Thanks folks.
well,I just completed checking a new algo for Music stub,
A 5minutes 2-channel song is going to be some where near between
100 - 150 Bytes. I tested a ' .cda ' file.
mp3 format is close to 4.2MB
where as mine is 100 - 150 Bytes.
It is producing the same quality as the original '.cda' file.
so, Any advises on how to commerialize it?
Have a nice time.
Smith. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom St Denis... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 5:07 am, gJ <j... at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote:
[quote]Thanks folks.
well,I just completed checking a new algo for Music stub,
A 5minutes 2-channel song is going to be some where near between
100 - 150 Bytes. I tested a ' .cda ' file.
mp3 format is close to 4.2MB
where as mine is 100 - 150 Bytes.
It is producing the same quality as the original '.cda' file.
so, Any advises on how to commerialize it?
Have a nice time.
Smith.
[/quote]
I suggest you hire a good patent attorney first. Sure it might be an
investment but it's money well spent. Come back to us once you secure
your patents first!!!
Tom |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Leonard... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 4:07 am, gJ <j... at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote:
[quote]so, Any advises on how to commerialize it?
[/quote]
I would fix your algorithm first, as it is clearly broken and/or you
are missing something obvious. 150 bytes to represent 300 seconds of
sound data means that, on average, one byte magically provides 2
seconds of CD-quality audio. You are clearly mistaken and should find
your errors before you waste money trying to commercialize your idea. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| gJ... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jim Leonard <mobygamer at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in news:51958f0a-9ef4-417e-be0a-
bcedd47a880e at (no spam) r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com comp.compression: On Wed 21 Oct
2009 06:40:08p,
[quote]On Oct 21, 4:07 am, gJ <j... at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote:
so, Any advises on how to commerialize it?
I would fix your algorithm first, as it is clearly broken and/or you
are missing something obvious. 150 bytes to represent 300 seconds of
sound data means that, on average, one byte magically provides 2
seconds of CD-quality audio. You are clearly mistaken and should find
your errors before you waste money trying to commercialize your idea.
[/quote]
no man, it is working very nicely.
I'm even compressing an Hour of music some where between 250-400 Bytes.
Thank you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| gJ... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Thomas Richter <thor at (no spam) math.tu-berlin.de> wrote in
news:hbn57k$lb1$1 at (no spam) infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de comp.compression: On Wed
21 Oct 2009 07:48:28p,
[quote]gJ schrieb:
Thanks folks.
well,I just completed checking a new algo for Music stub,
A 5minutes 2-channel song is going to be some where near between
100 - 150 Bytes. I tested a ' .cda ' file.
mp3 format is close to 4.2MB
where as mine is 100 - 150 Bytes.
It is producing the same quality as the original '.cda' file.
Except that my troll filter is blinking wildly here, my first question
is: "How do you define quality, then?"
Is a .midi file "the same quality as the original"? Its rather a
*different* quality since it is a different interpretation of the
music. While it might be well-made, I would rather prefer the original
at times...
Thomas
[/quote]
yes Thomas, I understand your doubt.
First of all forgive me for not provoding much details, bcoz as
I'm new to this newsgroup, I thought that I'll not get any replies.
Any how I got very nice replies from you wonderful people.
Thank You all.
__
well, if we listen a ' .cda ' file and it's mp3 format
the difference is very minimal.
like wise, if I compress the same file using my "New algo" instead of
the mp3 format; it is giving the same fidelity as the mp3 one.
well, what I want to say is
if there is dis-order in a system,
I think that, I've got a new way to approximate it.
Any comments/doubts? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom St Denis... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 11:58 am, gJ <j... at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote:
[quote]well, what I want to say is
if there is dis-order in a system,
I think that, I've got a new way to approximate it.
[/quote]
I'm sure you do *rolls eyes*
[quote]
Any comments/doubts?
[/quote]
About what? You haven't shared anything with us worth commenting
about. You're some anonymous troll who came into a usenet group
spouting exactly the sort of shite that is supposed to gather
attention. It's not that I don't believe you have such an invention,
it's that I know you don't. What I don't get is why you're wasting
time with such deviant unfriendly usenet behaviour.
I mean what you're saying is that on average you're storing 3 seconds
of audio per byte (300 sec/100bytes). That's a bit rate of 2.6bps.
Not even the best vocoders are even within 2 orders of magnitude that
good, and they with very lossy codecs deal with NARROWBAND voice
audio. What you're claiming is near lossless wideband compression
while being several magnitudes more efficient. If this were realtime
you'd put the telecom industry out of business for the most part
because anyone with a 35 year old 300 baud modem could have crystal
clear bidirectional telecommunications.
Do I think you're a liar? No. I know you're a liar.
Tom |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Thomas Richter... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
gJ schrieb:
[quote]Thanks folks.
well,I just completed checking a new algo for Music stub,
A 5minutes 2-channel song is going to be some where near between
100 - 150 Bytes. I tested a ' .cda ' file.
mp3 format is close to 4.2MB
where as mine is 100 - 150 Bytes.
It is producing the same quality as the original '.cda' file.
[/quote]
Except that my troll filter is blinking wildly here, my first question
is: "How do you define quality, then?"
Is a .midi file "the same quality as the original"? Its rather a
*different* quality since it is a different interpretation of the music.
While it might be well-made, I would rather prefer the original at times...
Thomas |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Industrial One... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
You idiots... a .cda is a REFERENCE file, it's not the actual song.
The dumbass OP probably tried to burn a WAV to a CD with some
ambiguous freeware program, saw the wavs have been turned into
tiny .cda files, realized the open source app is not patented and
thought he could steal the "technology" for himself.
Almost as much as a retard as the rest of you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BGB / cr88192... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Tom St Denis" <tom at (no spam) iahu.ca> wrote in message
news:239cc385-3e43-415f-8303-477bce3aaece at (no spam) l33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 11:58 am, gJ <j... at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote:
[quote]well, what I want to say is
if there is dis-order in a system,
I think that, I've got a new way to approximate it.
[/quote]
<--
I'm sure you do *rolls eyes*
-->
[quote]
Any comments/doubts?
[/quote]
<--
About what? You haven't shared anything with us worth commenting
about. You're some anonymous troll who came into a usenet group
spouting exactly the sort of shite that is supposed to gather
attention. It's not that I don't believe you have such an invention,
it's that I know you don't. What I don't get is why you're wasting
time with such deviant unfriendly usenet behaviour.
I mean what you're saying is that on average you're storing 3 seconds
of audio per byte (300 sec/100bytes). That's a bit rate of 2.6bps.
Not even the best vocoders are even within 2 orders of magnitude that
good, and they with very lossy codecs deal with NARROWBAND voice
audio. What you're claiming is near lossless wideband compression
while being several magnitudes more efficient. If this were realtime
you'd put the telecom industry out of business for the most part
because anyone with a 35 year old 300 baud modem could have crystal
clear bidirectional telecommunications.
Do I think you're a liar? No. I know you're a liar.
Tom
-->
it is still possible he is just a f***tard...
in the original post, it is worth noting that he was compressing the '.cda'
files.
it can also be noted that the '.cda' files are actually just Windows
synthesizing the info stored in the TOC as RIFF chunks, which in turn tell
info about the tracks on a CD.
one could very easily compress and decompress these files (to a very small
size), and have "CD quality playback", just, it would be such a playback
which would no longer work if you took the CD out of the drive, since then
the system would no longer have access to the audio...
now, would this be an achievement? no.
it is about like saying I compressed "The Count of Monte Cristo" to maybe 18
bytes...
technically it could be done (although not with gzip, which gives 44 bytes).
but, not because it is the actual book which is compressed, but rather
simply the title of the book... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BGB / cr88192... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Industrial One" <industrial_one at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd9c4853-9547-42e4-b62d-08d33a82bbd9 at (no spam) l33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
[quote]You idiots... a .cda is a REFERENCE file, it's not the actual song.
The dumbass OP probably tried to burn a WAV to a CD with some
ambiguous freeware program, saw the wavs have been turned into
tiny .cda files, realized the open source app is not patented and
thought he could steal the "technology" for himself.
Almost as much as a retard as the rest of you.
[/quote]
this was the comment I was making here, had my comment been read... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom St Denis... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 3:20 pm, Industrial One <industrial_... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]You idiots... a .cda is a REFERENCE file, it's not the actual song.
The dumbass OP probably tried to burn a WAV to a CD with some
ambiguous freeware program, saw the wavs have been turned into
tiny .cda files, realized the open source app is not patented and
thought he could steal the "technology" for himself.
Almost as much as a retard as the rest of you.
[/quote]
I'm going to throw this idea out as nicely as I can.
Some of us don't use defective by design software like Windows. I
thought he typo'ed cdda which is the standard extension for an
extracted track.
Stop thinking every one of us is running some junk OS like windows...
Tom |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Industrial One... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 22, 1:26 am, Tom St Denis <t... at (no spam) iahu.ca> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 3:20 pm, Industrial One <industrial_... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
You idiots... a .cda is a REFERENCE file, it's not the actual song.
The dumbass OP probably tried to burn a WAV to a CD with some
ambiguous freeware program, saw the wavs have been turned into
tiny .cda files, realized the open source app is not patented and
thought he could steal the "technology" for himself.
Almost as much as a retard as the rest of you.
I'm going to throw this idea out as nicely as I can.
Some of us don't use defective by design software like Windows. I
thought he typo'ed cdda which is the standard extension for an
extracted track.
Stop thinking every one of us is running some junk OS like windows...
Tom
[/quote]
I thought Linux doesn't have extensions? Unless you're on
Crapintosh...
at (no spam) BGB / cr88192, I didn't see your post when I added mine, GG admin
must've been fapping so it was delayed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom St Denis... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 22, 2:42 am, Industrial One <industrial_... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 22, 1:26 am, Tom St Denis <t... at (no spam) iahu.ca> wrote:
On Oct 21, 3:20 pm, Industrial One <industrial_... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
You idiots... a .cda is a REFERENCE file, it's not the actual song.
The dumbass OP probably tried to burn a WAV to a CD with some
ambiguous freeware program, saw the wavs have been turned into
tiny .cda files, realized the open source app is not patented and
thought he could steal the "technology" for himself.
Almost as much as a retard as the rest of you.
I'm going to throw this idea out as nicely as I can.
Some of us don't use defective by design software like Windows. I
thought he typo'ed cdda which is the standard extension for an
extracted track.
Stop thinking every one of us is running some junk OS like windows...
Tom
I thought Linux doesn't have extensions? Unless you're on
Crapintosh...
at (no spam) BGB / cr88192, I didn't see your post when I added mine, GG admin
must've been fapping so it was delayed.
[/quote]
Linux uses extensions in that applications written for it can make
decisions based on a files extension. But assuming that all people
know what a CDA file is because it happens to be popular on Windows is
like saying everyone should know about StuffIt because it's popular on
macs, or .out format because it was popular in Linux... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Phil Carmody... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jim Leonard <mobygamer at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
[quote]On Oct 21, 4:07Â am, gJ <j... at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote:
so, Any advises on how to commerialize it?
I would fix your algorithm first, as it is clearly broken and/or you
are missing something obvious. 150 bytes to represent 300 seconds of
sound data means that, on average, one byte magically provides 2
seconds of CD-quality audio. You are clearly mistaken and should find
your errors before you waste money trying to commercialize your idea.
[/quote]
He's compressing it to a URL, I'm sure.
Phil
--
Any true emperor never needs to wear clothes. -- Devany on r.a.s.f1 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:57 pm
|
|