Thread: WAV Compression?

After downloading some of stuz's excellent yet humungous lovely rips, I'm a bit perturbed at the size of one file alone - 160Mb

Although I'm not ungrateful and although the argument that digital storage is always getting cheaper, I do think 160Mb is excessive and was wondering if there's a way to compress wavs for a smaller file size without losing any quality/layers... or does that negate the whole point of it?

I download my films from a source where this dude compresses a 1Gb avi file to a nice 350Mb mkv file which gets me thinking - if that's possible with synced audio & visual at bluray spec, surely it's possible with wavs of our lovely oldskool?

Chuck it through a hot wash, best to go for 90 degrees as that shrinks most stuff...

Originally Posted by Thrash

Chuck it through a hot wash, best to go for 90 degrees as that shrinks most stuff...

Another constructive, helpful & knowledgeable answer from our resident launderer... can you try that for me by throwing your iPad69 into that white oblong thing in the kitchen (or utility room where you're from)??

Originally Posted by swipezster

Another constructive, helpful & knowledgeable answer from our resident launderer... can you try that for me by throwing your iPad69 into that white oblong thing in the kitchen (or utility room where you're from)??

Servants quarters...

What's the link and I'll grab it and examine it.

Isn't Apples Lossless format a good one to use? I'm sure the files are smaller but without the loss of quality. I could be wrong on this though.

Theres a few lossless formats about now, Apple Lossless, WMA Lossless and FLAC are worth a test drive from what I've heard.

It's been discussed once or twice in the past btw, search this section for "Lossless" for previous ramblings on the subject.

No, this is digressing from the point.
Stuz takes the time to rip and upload his wavs, was just wondering if there was a way for him to compress them before uploading saving his time (and the cheeky buggers' who download 'em )

in a word ... no

they are big files because they are lossless ... ya want smaller files, convert to mp3

Originally Posted by swipezster

No, this is digressing from the point.
Stuz takes the time to rip and upload his wavs, was just wondering if there was a way for him to compress them before uploading saving his time (and the cheeky buggers' who download 'em )

But what type of wav is it??
At that size it doesn't sound like the usual 44.1khz Stereo 16bit.
Sounds more like it's 48khz / 32 or 24bit which isn't needed for the final product. For processing when doing professional mixdowns, yes, but not for upload.

You could convert it to the usual 44.1khz Stereo 16bit & you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Then you could winrar them up to save a bit of space (good for archiving but not for playback).
Or use a prog to 'Flac' them up which can be played by things like the VLC player, but doesn't play in most hi-fi units.

Originally Posted by swipezster

After downloading some of stuz's excellent yet humungous lovely rips, I'm a bit perturbed at the size of one file alone - 160Mb

I find that most single tunes in wav format to be 40-60MBs (approx) in size so 160MB for a for a full release wav rar doesn't sound excessive at all Swipezster

Originally Posted by RenegadeGenius

But what type of wav is it??
At that size it doesn't sound like the usual 44.1khz Stereo 16bit.
Sounds more like it's 48khz / 32 or 24bit which isn't needed for the final product. For processing when doing professional mixdowns, yes, but not for upload.

You could convert it to the usual 44.1khz Stereo 16bit & you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Then you could winrar them up to save a bit of space (good for archiving but not for playback).
Or use a prog to 'Flac' them up which can be played by things like the VLC player, but doesn't play in most hi-fi units.

dbpoweramp is your friend

Originally Posted by msprim

I find that most single tunes in wav format to be 40-60MBs (approx) in size so 160MB for a for a full release wav rar doesn't sound excessive at all Swipezster

No, stuz's 'Pascal - Movin On' single is defo 160 Mb... I'll get stuz informed on this thread, see what he thinks

Ok, managed to find the file.

It's 96khz !!!!!!

Ok, here's basically what each part means :

khz - this is to do with the frequencies recorded.
So 44.1khz being the standard for cds & 48khz for dat recorders.

Humans can hear to approx 19-20khz & less when you get older, so you double that to get the max khz you need. (so 44.1khz easily covers that).

bits - this is to do with how accurate the recording is, so 8 bit is a number between 0 & 255, 16 bit 0-65535 etc - so gives better accuracy over the sound that's being recorded - hence why 8bit these days is a bit poo.

So as you can see, 96khz is over kill as it's trying to record frequencies that A, won't exist, and B if they did you wouldn't hear them anyway.

It's all fine for internal processing for effects, mixdowns etc to get better internal quality, but the end result doesn't need to be like that as we just won't notice it.
Generally speaking, most can't tell the difference between a good quality mp3 and a wav file!

I am just downloading this to see what you mean Swipezster -

The RAR file is 173MB

Once the RAR is unpacked the file size is 294MB

Most people rip WAVs at these settings

16 Bit
44.1KHz
Stereo
Bitrate 1411kbps (CD quality)

But Stuz has ripped this WAV 'Pascal - Movin' On' at these settings

16 Bit
96 KHz
Stereo
Bitrate 3072kbps (normally used for DVD quality)

This is why the file is so large

All you have to do is convert the file to the above settings that most people rip wavs to and the file size will be smaller but it in no way affects the quality of sound

Thanks for the info mate ^^^

Fair play to stuz for ripping at the highest quality poss, although I do seem to remember Nee made a track that was 32 bit & I had to find a converter for it. Still, be interesting to see what stuz says

Originally Posted by swipezster

Thanks for the info mate ^^^

Fair play to stuz for ripping at the highest quality poss, although I do seem to remember Nee made a track that was 32 bit & I had to find a converter for it. Still, be interesting to see what stuz says

When making tunes from what i have learnt - 32 bit is used for live instruments

Test :

Grab this & tell me which part is which (one is 96khz 16bit, one is 44.1khz 16 bit & one is 320kbs mp3).

All put in one long clip, but in 3 separate parts.

To me they all sound the same, so good luck

96khz-Test.rar

Originally Posted by RenegadeGenius

Test :

Grab this & tell me which part is which (one is 96khz 16bit, one is 44.1khz 16 bit & one is 320kbs mp3).

All put in one long clip, but in 3 separate parts.

To me they all sound the same, so good luck

96khz-Test.rar

I can't tell the difference either RG

There is a way you can tell within Abobe Audition (due to visual analysis) but if your ears can't tell, I do really think anything more than cd quality is overkill.

Will up the answers after Stu's had a listen

Originally Posted by RenegadeGenius

Ok, managed to find the file.

It's 96khz !!!!!!

Ok, here's basically what each part means :

khz - this is to do with the frequencies recorded.
So 44.1khz being the standard for cds & 48khz for dat recorders.

Humans can hear to approx 19-20khz & less when you get older, so you double that to get the max khz you need. (so 44.1khz easily covers that).

bits - this is to do with how accurate the recording is, so 8 bit is a number between 0 & 255, 16 bit 0-65535 etc - so gives better accuracy over the sound that's being recorded - hence why 8bit these days is a bit poo.

So as you can see, 96khz is over kill as it's trying to record frequencies that A, won't exist, and B if they did you wouldn't hear them anyway.

Nuff respect for clarifying the ideal WAV settings there RenegadeGenius. It's cool to have been able to get this discussed out in the open 'coz I'm still trying to perfect my rips (after all these years of doing them!!!), and am unsure if these settings have been posted on here previously. Though that's probably me not reading through the info on here. Will know what to adjust me WAV's to in future now.

I had mistakenly ripped my WAV's to the highest settings possible due to the fact that people's views on sound recording quality seems to have changed drastically over the years (192br-320br-WAV/FLAC), but didn't take into account the fact that these settings are way too much overkill. At least I can now downsize my WAV's now without having to re-rip the bloody things!

Glad the info was of use

If you look below, you can see a graphic of what the differences are (frequency wise) between each one.
There is quite a big difference between 44.1khz & an mp3 - more than I'd have imagined!
There is a touch more around the 22-24khz range looking at the 96khz one and some way up higher - probably 'dog' frequencies

But for our ears, 44.1khz is fine.
Always better to record at a better rate and downsize it than record it badly to begin with

96khz Test Image.jpg

heres the spec for one of stuz's

http://www.its-all-about-oldskool.co...tings-spec.jpg

looks very similar to the 96khz image RG posted above

Yup, looks like we're all cleared up now - big shout to RG, msprim & Phizzal for the technical stuff, Thrash for being my hero, and mostly stuz for his rips in the first place.

Think Leon, phil1210 & Curly should be people to discuss ripping and tweaking etc as it seems it's a fine art to get it right!

im mentioned above about being someone to ask how to get the best rips but thats far from the truth im afraid
i use ion lp2cd vinyl to cd converter,my system records to the hard drive first in wav then when its full i rip to cd in wav.
the only setting i have to watch is the recording volume to make sure it doesnt go over the recommended level
the deck cost me 300 quid so im hopeful it rips ok,its good enough for me