E-Mastering: .zip or not?

[El_Gato]

I´ve noticed some mastering studios require zip/rar files and I have some questions:

Have you ever noticed lost bits in non-zipped files sent via ftp?

I suppose it´s safer to zip the files.

Finally, is there any difference between the sound of .zip and .rar as some people say mp3´s that are .zip sound different/better than .rar?

Cheers

 

[Skaldir]

Haha, no there's no difference in sound between rar and zip. its both non destructive compression. I wonder who said that..
But it's really safer to zip or rar the files before uploading. I think I also read this in the Bob Katz book.

 

[tarnationsauce2]

RAR and ZIP are better than sending .wav files. For a couple reasons.

- RAR/ZIP have the ability to set passwords, that way only you and the other party have access to the wav file. Just in case the RAR or ZIP end up in the wrong hands.
- RAR/ZIP have checksum verification when uncompressing, just in case there is any missing data during up/download you will know for sure because you'll get a checksum error. Wav files have absolutely no form of data checking.
- Smaller file size, with positively no loss of audio information or artifacts/et. The file that goes in is exactly the same as the file that goes out.

 

[El_Gato]

Ok, nice to hear this.

I thought of the option of .zip with no compression but if there´s no loss or degradation, I´ll compress them a little so the uploading time is shorter.

Cheers!

I wonder who said that...

Don´t remember where the discussion was but if it wasn´t in this forum, it was at gearslutz.

 

[jwnc]

I use this for emailing and archieving wavs, its amazing and way better then zip.

http://www.monkeysaudio.com/

Jason

 

[Ihsahn1981]

Another benefit is that you can split the archive into many smaller packets.
So if a upload/download error occurs then you only need to re-download that particular small packet.

 

[006]

Don´t remember where the discussion was but if it wasn´t in this forum, it was at gearslutz.

That it explains it.... it's probably because there is no such thing as pure Class-A tube with Neve designed boards ZIP Compression yet...



~006

 

[AudioGeekZine]

Rar is better than zip.

Go to the advanced>compression options, and choose force audio compression (which is still data compression, lossless)
Way smaller file size. like 40% smaller.

 

[siegfried]

006: I heard somewhere that Chandler Limited is preparing new loseless zip format which will use germaniums. I´m sure it will sound great! Especially thru Forsell ADDA.

 

[006]

Oh definitely!

~006

 

[El_Gato]

Another benefit is that you can split the archive into many smaller packets.
So if a upload/download error occurs then you only need to re-download that particular small packet.

Nice one!

Cheers everybody! Rar downloading.

 

[Torniojaws]

Rar is better than zip.

Go to the advanced>compression options, and choose force audio compression (which is still data compression, lossless)
Way smaller file size. like 40% smaller.

Well, if you first compress them with RAR and split the files into about 60 files, and then zip up those files, you'll get the full benefit of each method:

- Data redundancy, ie. no need to upload the whole shebang again if one of the multiple .rar files is corrupt within the zip, you only need to re-upload that one part.
- The error correction of zip, so minor data corruptions can be fixed using the error correction of zip (automatic).
- Ever so slightly smaller filesize
- The easiness of just sending one file, instead of multiple files

And of course the natural abilities of each, such as password protection and so on.

If you really want redundancy, you might even split up the zip file.

 

[ArtGarceau]

I don't require rar or zip because I have 750GB of web space for the client to upload to. If they have a slow connection and insist on compressing the file I prefer rar because I've had issues with corrupted zip files in the past.

 

[Noumenon]

but can't the uncompressed audio file get corrupted when uploading?
that's oen reason to use rar-files, they have a checksum to compare to, in case some packets got lost.

 

[Ihsahn1981]

but can't the uncompressed audio file get corrupted when uploading?
that's oen reason to use rar-files, they have a checksum to compare to, in case some packets got lost.

Alternatively, if you for some reason dont want to compress your files you can use this app to create sfv files: http://www.plunder.com/Easy-SFV-Creator-2-7-0-download-178.htm

Very useful tool. And its free!!

 

[Timmmm]

sorry false post

 

[TheDarkProject]

Does anywhere use FLAC files? In theory they should be just as good as WAV as they are lossless, and should work out much smaller than a zipped WAV would.

 

[wishtheend]

Does anywhere use FLAC files? In theory they should be just as good as WAV as they are lossless, and should work out much smaller than a zipped WAV would.

Even though it's "lossless" - it's still compressing the file, so something, somewhere is getting lost. If the files are truely too big to be uploaded online in a resonable manner - I'd spend the few dollars to mail a DVD disc.

 

[Brett - K A L I S I A]

Even though it's "lossless" - it's still compressing the file, so something, somewhere is getting lost.

Wrong, it's not lost, just written in shorter more optimized terms, but the info is 100% intact.