At 11:47 AM -0400 5/14/07, Walter Knapp wrote:
>Posted by: "Rob Danielson"
>
>> Using scripting, the web interface for the list/archive could take
>> any mp3, wav, aiff etc and generates a file and a link to it while
>> preserving the higher res file for the archive (when its better).
>> The interface could be designed to allow the person who is uploading
>> the file to choose the data rate, but I feel its would be easier to
>> make it default to something like mp3/256kbs. If one posted a
>> smaller mp3, that would be the format/size posted-- there's no point
>> in upsampling unless the programming proved to a lot easier with
>> standardization.
>
>What is the source of the higher res file?
Lets say someone has a 44.1K .wav generated on Hi-MD or Portadisc.
They load this recording into a free waveform editor like Audacity,
select the section they want to post and export it as a wave file.
They connect to the net interface and select that file. ~5mb file for
a 30 sec. segment. The site copies that file from their computer and
generates a 128, 192 or 256 mps mp3 (whatever list members agree on)
and insert the link to the uploaded mp3 in an pre addressed email to
naturerecordists. If they select a 128 kbs mp3 file on their
computer, that file is uploaded, no hi res file is made. Other
arrangements are possible too.
> Does the person have to
>upload a uncompressed file for this? That's a huge file for the time it
>plays. Kind of pointless to generate it from a uploaded mp3.
>
>And 256kbs may seem like a small file to those on high speed
>connections, but it's not a small file for any significant play length.
>
>> If your mpeg3 was over 256 kbs, (with settings I'm tossing out for
>> discussion), your file would be converted to 256kbs but members would
>> also have access to the larger file. If you thought 128 kbs sounded
>> fine or you didn't want to share a higher quality version, 128kbs is
>> what would be uploaded and posted.
>
>I design files to be put up with a compromise between download time for
>modems and sound quality. Requires time to listen to various options.
>It's rarely necessary to use even 128kbs.
>
>>> >Some of the files that have been put up in this group would take me m=
uch
>>> >more than overnight to download. And upload runs at a slower speed th=
an
>>> >download.
>>
>> Some, yes, but not that many.
>
>For many on modems even half a meg is large. Your perspective is clearly
>on of a person on a high speed connection who has little concept anymore
>of time to download files. A major portion of the files put up are tough
>to impossible for those on modems. You've got to really want to hear
>that file. I pass on a lot of files just because of their size, even
>some I'd like to listen to.
8 hours is a long time. I downloaded 75+mb upgrades, freeware and
student .wavs via modem scheduling them at night.
>
>> The default format could be changed pretty easily at any time.
>
>Reencoding compressed files without the approval of the results by the
>original recordist. Sounds like what you are saying.
If we went with mp3's now and changed to another format, both would
be in the archive, and others over time.
>
>> Better sights and exercise than my painting! Rob D.
>
>Still recovering from the surgery, I'm still not up to full speed.
>Trying to get in shape for BRAG in June in a few weeks. It's Columbus to
>Savannah this year so not the hardest of the ones I've done in the past.
>Longest day is 75 miles, and most climb in a day is 4000' (with 70 miles
>of riding). Worst is that BRAG assumes you make a certain minimum speed
>average that's relatively high, or you get no rest stops or sag support.
>Not sure if I can make that average, so may end up doing part of the
>days as virtually unsupported self contained touring. At least I won't
>have to be hunting campsites each night.
Congrats on those admirable goals!
>
>Walt
>
--
Rob Danielson
Peck School of the Arts
Department of Film
University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee
|