Sign in to follow this  
nonoitall

Suggestion: FLAC remixes?

Recommended Posts

Well, if it were only a torrent, then the only drawbacks would be the collecting hard drive's storage space and the fact that the mixes would have to be listened to twice - once for the mp3 submission and a second time for the flac (or whathaveyou) after the mix is posted. So no, the submission policy wouldn't have to change; this would only be for posted mixes. The onus would be on the artist to forward the flac after his mix was posted, and you wouldn't want to allow it for mixes before the the policy addendum (if this gets the greenlight at say 2400, 2313 couldn't resend a flac).

It certainly wouldn't be a priority, and it would be a bit of work to QC the flacs, and yeah the flac torrent would never be pretty and complete, but it seems to me it would be feasible. And I'd put money down that you'd get a lot more mixers willing to forward a flac once for a torrent than responding to PM requests, so it would be a boon for audiophiles.

What I'm saying is that I think there's merit enough to at least consider tacking this onto the bottom of the gigantic list of things djp and co want to do with the site, since bandwidth really wouldn't be a "no override" here.

Fat chance now but maybe in n years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But inevitably NOT everyone will be able to provide lossless versions. We get subs and posted remixes now that were created years and years ago. So the torrent would necessarily incomplete, and why would we put something out to the public that is incomplete? We'd never hear the end of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such criticism would carry almost as much weight as 'vocals sux' or 'make your free music better'.

But yeah, you're probably right. The annoyance with having to ignore so many ungrateful posts could very well negate the joy of giving an easter egg of sorts.

But if there's a change of heart let me know. I'd dive in the trenches for this. I'd go on troll patrol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect there are several members of this community who, like me, are tortured by the heavy MP3 compression necessary for OCR to host so many remixes. I like my music to be FLAC, or some other lossless codec, whenever possible, and I'm sure many people here would agree. To that end, I've created a subdomain on my own webspace, OCRLossless.FlexstyleMusic.com, which has my one humble remix to start with. If any posted artists would like to send me their tracks in FLAC format, I'll stick 'em up on my server. Just email them to me at music at flex style music dot com, using Mediafire or Speedyshare or whatever you need to get a lossless file over to me. I'll see how this goes, since my current hosting plan includes unlimited disk space and unlimited bandwidth.

Please note: I'll happily terminate this operation if the OCR site staff objects to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not seeing "heavy", and I'm not believing "tortured".

Okay, maybe "tortured" is a bit of an overstatement (more like "annoyed"), but I stand by my usage of "heavy" in regards to MP3 compression. 192kbps literally strips 92% of the data out of the audio, and I can always tell the difference between a lossless file and nearly any MP3 that's 256kbps and under. I realize there aren't many people who would consider themselves audiophiles like me. However, I figured that there must be enough out there in a community of this size to make this venture worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

192kbps MP3 does not effectively remove 92% of data. There have been plenty of blind and double-blind tests done on the topic; even in lab settings, 192kbps MP3 is nearly indistinguishable from lossless. Almost any differences you hear can be attributed to pure psychological effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
192kbps MP3 does not effectively remove 92% of data. There have been plenty of blind and double-blind tests done on the topic; even in lab settings, 192kbps MP3 is nearly indistinguishable from lossless. Almost any differences you hear can be attributed to pure psychological effects.

^ this ^ .

but 192kbps is the absolute edge. i can clearly tell the difference. but im not everyone. i prefer 256 or higher.. but VBR is where i usually end up in my encodes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect there are several members of this community who, like me, are tortured by the heavy MP3 compression necessary for OCR to host so many remixes. I like my music to be FLAC, or some other lossless codec, whenever possible, and I'm sure many people here would agree. To that end, I've created a subdomain on my own webspace, OCRLossless.FlexstyleMusic.com, which has my one humble remix to start with. If any posted artists would like to send me their tracks in FLAC format, I'll stick 'em up on my server. Just email them to me at music at flex style music dot com, using Mediafire or Speedyshare or whatever you need to get a lossless file over to me. I'll see how this goes, since my current hosting plan includes unlimited disk space and unlimited bandwidth.

Please note: I'll happily terminate this operation if the OCR site staff objects to it.

From what I recall being told, the filesize limit is to encourage people to do more with what's there as opposed to ridiculously long medleys that are for better or worse mediocre when compared to a more interpretive work - FLAC also takes up a ridiculous amount of space still for regular hosting I'd think, making it impractical for a site the size of OCR when you consider bandwidth usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people haven't had their ears trained to the point where they can distinguish between a 192k MP3 and, say, a 320k MP3. I personally have, and isn't this a matter of preference anyways? I realize that it's impractical for OCR to host larger files, and I certainly see the wisdom of limiting file size in lieu of preventing massively mediocre medley melodies. The original offer I made--that is, to use my own personal site space to host lossless versions of songs that have already been posted to OCR--still stands.

On a personal note, there are several songs on OCR that I'd reeeeaaallly love to hear in a lossless codec, and I'll probably PM certain artists and ask if they'd be willing to send me some of their tracks. *looks at zircon*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody was working on a project along these lines and I sent them a bunch of my remixes in lossless format. You should get in touch with them, the thread is here: http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=25459

192kbps MP3 does not effectively remove 92% of data.

Of course it does. It just does so very selectively so that (hopefully) no one notices.

Most people haven't had their ears trained to the point where they can distinguish between a 192k MP3 and, say, a 320k MP3. I personally have, and isn't this a matter of preference anyways?

It's not a matter of preference if you're talking strictly audio quality; you're pretty much talking out your ass when you say you can perceive the difference between 256kbit mp3 and the original audio. But if you want lossless for hi-def interoperability between formats (e.g. burning to CD, cross-encoding, steaming audio, etc.) then that's fine and dandy.

cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course it does. It just does so very selectively so that (hopefully) no one notices.

That's why I qualified my statement with "effectively" - it doesn't SOUND like 92% of the track is missing. That's what I meant :<

By the way, I'm not anti-lossless or anything. All of the digital downloads on my own website are lossless, so I definitely think it's great to have the option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I recall being told, the filesize limit is to encourage people to do more with what's there as opposed to ridiculously long medleys that are for better or worse mediocre when compared to a more interpretive work - FLAC also takes up a ridiculous amount of space still for regular hosting I'd think, making it impractical for a site the size of OCR when you consider bandwidth usage.

The first part about the filesize limit is right. The second part about why we don't host FLACs for individual ReMixes is not.

We're down with hosting FLACs of ReMixes, though until bandwidth is cheaper, we'd probably just keep it torrent-based, not available individually, like we do with our album FLACs. But in 5 years, improvements in technology could make FLACs a drop in the hat.

That said, I'm totally fine with gathering FLACs of OC ReMixes, and we can make that official. Letter coming soon to all ReMixers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to keep all my music at 320kbps when possible, but I don't listen FLACs too often. I burn them into CDs and occasionally chose one to listen in full lenght, but lossless music is not a standard to me.

Anyway, having the option could be a really good thing :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...

That mass email caught my attention.

Someone should come forward with temporary hosting for people who don't have their own hosting, so that people like me can offer their shitty remixes in a quality such that said shittiness can be heard in all of its glorious detail.

Douggles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So...

That mass email caught my attention.

Someone should come forward with temporary hosting for people who don't have their own hosting, so that people like me can offer their shitty remixes in a quality such that said shittiness can be heard in all of its glorious detail.

Douggles?

Megaupload?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just stopping by to say that I support this effort. I've still got the original wav version of my one remix and access to at least a few of Random Hero's mixes. We've been without internet at chez Roberts for a few days now, so when we're connected again I'll be sure to send whatever I can along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Zircon said, for most people they probably won't be able to tell the difference. You have to have really nice equipment to really distinguish the difference between a decent quality mp3 and a flac.

I have excellent headphones both portables and cans for when I'm at my computer, and a decent (albeit old) sound card as well. So I support this effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You think you're so smart...

Where do we send links and such? Would you enjoy delicious PMs?

I can host files for people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where do we send links and such?

Larry mentioned in the email he sent out that you could just reply to the email with a link and it'd get taken care of. The address was admin at o c re mix dot org, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this