Music Compression - advise needed
gJ
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.
Tom St Denis
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
Jim Leonard
> 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.
Thomas Richter
> 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
gJ
news:hbn57k$lb1$1...@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de comp.compression: On Wed
21 Oct 2009 07:48:28p,
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?
gJ
bcedd4...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com comp.compression: On Wed 21 Oct
2009 06:40:08p,
no man, it is working very nicely.
I'm even compressing an Hour of music some where between 250-400 Bytes.
Thank you.
Tom St Denis
> 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.
I'm sure you do *rolls eyes*
>
> Any comments/doubts?
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
BGB / cr88192
"Tom St Denis" <t...@iahu.ca> wrote in message
news:239cc385-3e43-415f...@l33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 11:58 am, gJ <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
> 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.
<--
I'm sure you do *rolls eyes*
-->
>
> Any comments/doubts?
<--
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...
Industrial One
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.
BGB / cr88192
"Industrial One" <industr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd9c4853-9547-42e4...@l33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
this was the comment I was making here, had my comment been read...
Tom St Denis
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
Industrial One
I thought Linux doesn't have extensions? Unless you're on
Crapintosh...
@BGB / cr88192, I didn't see your post when I added mine, GG admin
must've been fapping so it was delayed.
Tom St Denis
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...
Phil Carmody
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