nonoitall

Contributors
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About nonoitall

  • Rank
    Slime (+5)
  1. I wish I had more time on my hands for something like that.
  2. Not necessarily. I believe LAME defaults to encoding 96kbps material at 32kHz, but that can be overridden, and some other encoders behave differently. I'm pretty sure the MP3 spec allows for 44kHz material to be as low as 32kbps, but of course, anything other than silence sounds horrible at that rate. So, are there any thoughts about accepting and retaining lossless submissions? (Not distributing or requiring them in that state, but just hanging onto them in case bandwidth is available in the future?)
  3. Just out of curiosity, how much bandwidth does the site go through per month?
  4. But like I said, it's not just a matter of quality and people who specifically want FLAC. Sure, 192kbps MP3 sounds great, but even so, a lot of information has been removed. This doesn't make much difference to someone who is content to listen to the 192kbps MP3. It does make a difference to someone who wants to convert the remix to a different format. (Compression artifacts are cumulative.) And not all the remixes on the site can even afford to be at 192kbps. So, if you want anything that is not exactly the format that's on the site, you're stuck with sub-par quality. Lossless files completely eliminate the problem. Audiophiles are a niche, true. But this is a remix site. It's bound to get a higher percentage of audiophiles than your average site. Not to mention, audiophiles aren't the only ones who would have use for such files. Anyone who wants something that's not exactly what the site offers could be accommodated. But let's say that's simply not possible. Even if there simply isn't a shred of bandwidth available for even one lossless download per month, I don't see what could possibly be hurt by allowing and retaining lossless submissions. Even if every single remix was resubmitted losslessly (which is undoubtedly impossible) they would only occupy around 30GB of space. If no one seriously has the hard drive space to store them, I'll donate a hard drive (or two for redundancy). I'll even write a script to automate the conversion from the retained FLACs to distributable MP3s, if you don't have one already. I can't see a single con to this approach - it gives remixers an additional option when submitting their songs, and someday, when bandwidth is cheaper (or sooner if someone else can host the files), those perfect copies can be distributed. Forcing the retained copies to be lossy is like forcing your 8 megapixel camera to take 0.3 megapixel pictures because they look okay on your current equipment. Sure, they look fine now, but then when you have the means to appreciate an 8 megapixel photo, you'll realize you weren't acting with much foresight when you took the pictures. Now, I'm not saying the site's policies are stupid or anything. But why settle for adequate when you can have perfect saved away, just in case it could be useful someday?
  5. Hey, I know it's been a couple months, (I was out of the country for a while and kind of forgot all about this topic). But I was reading an article about YouTube the other day and it brought up some fresh thoughts that seemed bump-worthy. (YouTube is experimenting with higher quality videos.) Besides, it's my topic and I'll bump if I want to. You would bump too if it happened to you! (Ahhh, is anyone old enough to get that? ) Anyway, I guess it just made me think about the argument that it would cause logistical problems. It's not like YouTubers who submitted clips in a low quality form are really upset over the upgrade - it's just a technology upgrade that was to be expected. The thing is, while MP3 is pretty much ubiquitous, more and more people want better quality or smaller size, even if they don't understand exactly how it works yet. (Honestly, do you think all the people who buy an HDTV realize that they're not taking advantage of it when they watch (unbeknownst to them) standard definition material like DVDs and regular satellite TV?) So, as far as it only being appreciated by a niche of people, I kind of have to disagree. I would agree that only a small (but growing) niche of people understand what lossless files are and know to take full advantage of them at this point, but there are many people who just "want better quality" or "want smaller files". I'm about to quote you a number of times, zircon. I consider all of your points to be valid and am not trying to argue with you at all - I'm just presenting my thoughts on the issues you remarked about. Aw, but Grandma just bought Bob that 2GB player, and Bob has enough trouble paying for college without having to worry about buying another (still rather expensive) MP3 player. (No, I'm not Bob - this is still just a hypothetical. ) And, like you said, people don't swap files/CDs around their players so often these days (it's inconvenient) so, all the more reason for Bob to want all of them on there at once.And really, when you add up the niche that specifically wants lossless, and the niche that specifically wants OGG, and the niche that specifically wants 320kbps MP3, etc, etc, etc, you end up with a fairly significant "niche". Many people want music in a variety of formats for a variety of reasons. Lossless files are a one-size-fits-all solution that could address all of them. Many players support formats other than MP3 (AAC and WMA are very common, both being superior to MP3) and often the software that comes with these players allows users to convert to those formats without even realizing it. Firmware updates can also make literally dozens of other formats available. (Anybody else a Rockbox user?) If, for nothing else, to preserve the original remix perfectly and retain it in the event that, someday, alternatives to MP3 are utilized. I'd agree with your estimate. But color TV was adopted, despite the fact that most of the material of the time was black and white. The same is gradually happening with high-definition television today. The quality lost in many past remixes may indeed be irretrievable, but why doom all future submissions to the same restrictions when the technology now exists to preserve them perfectly? This I definitely understand. I've been a victim of plenty uncomplete torrents myself. But don't forget the hidden distribution that goes on on P2P networks and the like. I think just about anyone who can use torrents can use Limewire, and speaking just for myself, if lossless downloads were available, I'd share them on those networks whenever I was on the 'net. If torrents just turn out to be out of the question, maybe a limited number of lossless downloads per day could be permitted by HTTP.Anyway, everything aside, would it hurt simply to allow (not require) lossless submissions? Even if they aren't used for now, at least more remixes would have the potential to be distributed this way if it becomes more plausible in the future.
  6. Yeah, my main rationale for the lossless idea isn't so much that I want perfect sound, but that lossless files can be converted to any format without cumulative compression artifacts from multiple lossy codecs. Let's say Bob wants to put all ~1,500 remixes on his 2GB player or flash drive. (He just can't choose any remixes that he can live without.) He'd probably have to squeeze them down to around 56kbps. 56kbps MP3 will sound pretty awful, and transcoding to any other codec won't produce optimal results. A 56kbps HE-AAC encode produced from a lossless source, on the other hand, wouldn't sound too bad for casual listening to most people. (Certainly a vast improvement over an MP3 of the same bitrate.) Anyway that's just one of innumerable examples I could come up with. Do artists currently have the option of submitting lossless files, and does OCReMix retain them if they are submitted that way? I can understand that some remixes might simply be unavailable in a lossless format, but perhaps lossless could be promoted (though not required) for future submissions, and for any past remixes that artists would be kind enough to resubmit in lossless form. Then, whatever remixes are available as lossless files could be distributed via a torrent or however is convenient.
  7. Well, most of the albums have lossless files, so why not the regular remixes? I know, bandwidth would be a concern, but maybe lossless files could be a torrent-only feature? This would have benefits, not only for audiophiles, but for anyone who wanted to have the songs in a format other than MP3. Transcoding from FLAC to OGG, is very preferable over transcoding from MP3 to OGG, for example.