Topic: Matrix Time Drift -- How Much Is Too Much

[nic]

maybe i'm thinking of flacs, but i don't see why this should be much different. less information is still less information.

you're thinking of flacs (or any compression scheme...)
with audio 1 second of silence has the exact same amount of data as 1 second of noise, assuming same bit depth and sample rate.

[mattmiller]

I've got two sets from Friday night mixed and I'm happy with the results.  I can't hear any drift, which is good enough for me.  But I just noticed that the two sets are awkwardly DIFFERENT in file size.  The mixdown of set 1 is 65 minutes long and is 1.47 GB (48/24).  The mixdown of set 2 is 55 minutes long but is only 929 MB.  So set 1 is only 18% longer but is 58% bigger in file size.  Both still say "48000  32 bit  Stereo" in CEP.  Is this possible?  Is there some sort of diagnostic I can use in CEP to find difference between the files?

things like silence and solos will use less space than say 6 guys going to town at the same time.

NOT.

That's what I was thinking -- 48,000 samples per second, each described by 24 bits, should be the same no matter what they're capturing.

maybe i'm thinking of flacs, but i don't see why this should be much different. less information is still less information.

FLACs are compressed.  Same as a JPEG image which is smaller or bigger depending on how many different colors are in the image.  Uncompressed WAV should, I think, dedicate the same space to every sample no matter what the sample contains.

[admkrk]

i stand corrected then.

tbh tho i never payed much attention to file size except for when it came to fitting on a disc.

[Shadow_7]

Basically sox yields this:

sox -v 2 DSF_0102_001.wav -v 2 DSF_0102_002.wav -v 2 DSF_0102_003.wav -v 2 DSF_0102_004.wav -v 2 DSF_0102_005.wav -r 44100 extract.wav trim 00:50:00 00:10:00



From the DSF's via audiogate 5.6 DSD to 32/192.

And the script (sndfile-resample) yields this:

[runonce]

Basically sox yields this:

sox -v 2 DSF_0102_001.wav -v 2 DSF_0102_002.wav -v 2 DSF_0102_003.wav -v 2 DSF_0102_004.wav -v 2 DSF_0102_005.wav -r 44100 extract.wav trim 00:50:00 00:10:00



From the DSF's via audiogate 5.6 DSD to 32/192.

And the script (sndfile-resample) yields this:

I think most of us would just load into audacity, split the stereo track into two channels and use the TimeShift tool to adjust one channel...still looks like the end result is a little off...

[mattmiller]

I've got two sets from Friday night mixed and I'm happy with the results.  I can't hear any drift, which is good enough for me.  But I just noticed that the two sets are awkwardly DIFFERENT in file size.  The mixdown of set 1 is 65 minutes long and is 1.47 GB (48/24).  The mixdown of set 2 is 55 minutes long but is only 929 MB.  So set 1 is only 18% longer but is 58% bigger in file size.  Both still say "48000  32 bit  Stereo" in CEP.  Is this possible?  Is there some sort of diagnostic I can use in CEP to find difference between the files?

I opened this session back up and redid the mixdown and now the longer set is more appropriately sized (around 1100 MB).  The only thing I did differently on the two sets originally was using "File > Save Mixdown As" for the "problem" set originally, while for set 2 I discovered the "Right-Click > Mix Down to File" route.  So this time, I used this right-click context menu on set 1 and got the appropriate file size for the mixdown.

So what is the difference between the two methods that results in "File > Save Mixdown As" yielding a bloated file size?

[Shadow_7]

I think most of us would just load into audacity, split the stereo track into two channels and use the TimeShift tool to adjust one channel...still looks like the end result is a little off...

Yes it looks that way on that particular waveform.  But everything 59 minutes 8 seconds and some change or sooner is less off.  Plus at 1+ hours in length, just loading it up in audacity is a five minute commitment.  And each global edit an equal commitment, hence the lost comment.  aka hatch and 108 minutes.

[admkrk]

I opened this session back up and redid the mixdown and now the longer set is more appropriately sized (around 1100 MB).  The only thing I did differently on the two sets originally was using "File > Save Mixdown As" for the "problem" set originally, while for set 2 I discovered the "Right-Click > Mix Down to File" route.  So this time, I used this right-click context menu on set 1 and got the appropriate file size for the mixdown.

So what is the difference between the two methods that results in "File > Save Mixdown As" yielding a bloated file size?

i'll go out on a limb and probly get shot down again but, the larger one might be adding peak data and such similar to saving a montage in wavelab while the smaller is just saving the wave.

[nic]

I opened this session back up and redid the mixdown and now the longer set is more appropriately sized (around 1100 MB).  The only thing I did differently on the two sets originally was using "File > Save Mixdown As" for the "problem" set originally, while for set 2 I discovered the "Right-Click > Mix Down to File" route.  So this time, I used this right-click context menu on set 1 and got the appropriate file size for the mixdown.

So what is the difference between the two methods that results in "File > Save Mixdown As" yielding a bloated file size?

i'll go out on a limb and probly get shot down again but, the larger one might be adding peak data and such similar to saving a montage in wavelab while the smaller is just saving the wave.

every program I have ever used that saved peak data - win, os x, linux, etc - did so in a separate file.
is it even part of the spec to save it in the actual audio file?

[runonce]

I opened this session back up and redid the mixdown and now the longer set is more appropriately sized (around 1100 MB).  The only thing I did differently on the two sets originally was using "File > Save Mixdown As" for the "problem" set originally, while for set 2 I discovered the "Right-Click > Mix Down to File" route.  So this time, I used this right-click context menu on set 1 and got the appropriate file size for the mixdown.

So what is the difference between the two methods that results in "File > Save Mixdown As" yielding a bloated file size?

i'll go out on a limb and probly get shot down again but, the larger one might be adding peak data and such similar to saving a montage in wavelab while the smaller is just saving the wave.

every program I have ever used that saved peak data - win, os x, linux, etc - did so in a separate file.
is it even part of the spec to save it in the actual audio file?

And isnt this info just text type info...? Doubt it would account for such a different file size...?

[admkrk]

that's why i added the montage part after i though more about it. the peak data is saved in a separate file but i'm not sure how the montage is saved. i'm going by the wording. save to file sounds like a wave file is being saved, while save mixdown as, sounds like it's adding the mix info as well.

plus i'm only guessing.

<edit> because i was writing during the last post
it could be saving pointers, markers, and references to to original waves if i'm right about the wording deal.

[runonce]

that's why i added the montage part after i though more about it. the peak data is saved in a separate file but i'm not sure how the montage is saved. i'm going by the wording. save to file sounds like a wave file is being saved, while save mixdown as, sounds like it's adding the mix info as well.

plus i'm only guessing.

<edit> because i was writing during the last post
it could be saving pointers, markers, and references to to original waves if i'm right about the wording deal.

I like that explanation...sounds like the save mixdown route assumes a work in progress...and save to file is the final rendering?

[runonce]

I think most of us would just load into audacity, split the stereo track into two channels and use the TimeShift tool to adjust one channel...still looks like the end result is a little off...

Yes it looks that way on that particular waveform.  But everything 59 minutes 8 seconds and some change or sooner is less off.  Plus at 1+ hours in length, just loading it up in audacity is a five minute commitment.  And each global edit an equal commitment, hence the lost comment.  aka hatch and 108 minutes.

You might want to explore the File > Edit Chains feature in Audacity. Looks like it allows you to apply a sequence of operations in one action.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Too much time on my hands, it's ticking away with my sanity
I've got too much time on my hands, it's hard to believe such a calamity
I've got too much time on my hands and it's ticking away from me
Too much time on my hands, too much time on my hands
Too much time on my hands

[admkrk]

ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.