Zipping wav files causes loss in quality?

[JHA]

^ Jeff point is valid, you began talking about things no one cares.

You and the others seem to care anyway since you're commenting. I don't know why Jeff & the Crew wants to make this about some Zip vs Flac fight which is totally something no one should care... People who know better use BOTH of them. Actually I take that back. You should use 7z as it's better than zip.

 

[JHA]

What?

Are you joking? "Zipping" or "Raring" files has ZERO to do with audio quality... wtf are you guys talking about?! Do you know how computers work?

And to address this ranting post nowhere I mentioned zip has something to do with audio quality maybe you need new glasses pedro.

 

[JeffTD]

You and the others seem to care anyway since you're commenting. I don't know why Jeff & the Crew wants to make this about some Zip vs Flac fight which is totally something no one should care... People who know better use BOTH of them. Actually I take that back. You should use 7z as it's better than zip.

I got into it with you because you were an asshole to Pedro, who is a friend of mine and a damn good engineer. You're the one talking out your ass about FLAC which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH FILE COMPRESSION.

 

[mva801]

Well just to piss everyone off I'm going to start converting to FLAC and THEN zipping the FLACs! Ha!




I've always just uploaded raw wav files for mixes and zipped them for stems. If the Wav file is full of info Zip doesn't compress that much. Never bothered with FLAC for anything. Just zip it, you'll be fine.

 

[JHA]

I got into it with you because you were an asshole to Pedro, who is a friend of mine and a damn good engineer. You're the one talking out your ass about FLAC which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH FILE COMPRESSION.

I was an ass? He quoted me with this:

What?

Are you joking? "Zipping" or "Raring" files has ZERO to do with audio quality... wtf are you guys talking about?! Do you know how computers work?

You want to defend your friend but he's the arsehole here. Flac was mentioned two times before me by drew drummer and Jind. My post was an answer to the original question. No one was saying zipping affects audio quality. Which is why I suggested he read the thread and its title again.

 

[Pedro Teixeira]

Right, let's not bump heads with this.

JHA, you said this: "Zip is not good for wav compressing but it is lossless. Use FLAC."

Although you said that "it is lossless" you did mention that "Zip is not good for wav compressing", so the theme of this thread is whether file compression affects audio quality or not, which is absolutely false and anyone that uses a computer on a daily basis should know that, mainly if you work with audio.

So, I apologize if I seemed a bit of a "cunt" I was just astounded by how can this even be a debate?

Either way, why would anyone use FLAC in a professional manner? Just because it reduces the size a little bit, don't really see the benefit of converting a file for that sole purpose.

@Jeff: luve u long time bru <3

 

[drew_drummer]

You're all arseholes.

Better?

 

[indecizo]

Right, let's not bump heads with this.

JHA, you said this: "Zip is not good for wav compressing but it is lossless. Use FLAC."

Although you said that "it is lossless" you did mention that "Zip is not good for wav compressing", so the theme of this thread is whether file compression affects audio quality or not, which is absolutely false and anyone that uses a computer on a daily basis should know that, mainly if you work with audio.

So, I apologize if I seemed a bit of a "cunt" I was just astounded by how can this even be a debate?

Either way, why would anyone use FLAC in a professional manner? Just because it reduces the size a little bit, don't really see the benefit of converting a file for that sole purpose.

@Jeff: luve u long time bru <3

Seriously, what the fuck dude. By saying "Zip is not good for wav compressing" he was clearly talking about the file size when compressed, and FLAC happens to be very good at compressing audio. That was very helpful, FLAC indeed compressed better, not sure why people here are being such asshats?

 

[JeffTD]

Seriously, what the fuck dude. By saying "Zip is not good for wav compressing" he was clearly talking about the file size when compressed, and FLAC happens to be very good at compressing audio. That was very helpful, FLAC indeed compressed better, not sure why people here are being such asshats?

Why don't you tell me? You FLAC dudes are the ones who can't read threat titles or initial posts.

Thread title: posits audio degradation via zip compression.

First post: explains that file size shrinks when compressing wavs via zip, guy wonders if it degrades audio quality.


The answer is that zipping has zero effect on the quality of an audio file, but that it doesn't compress the size by that much. This is known as DATA COMPRESSION.

Someone suggested FLAC, which is not data compression. Yes, it is lossless, but it performs an entirely different function to zipping.

Most DAWs don't support FLAC, and most people don't use Reaper. Sorry if that hurts to hear, but it's true. The fact that Reaper supports it does not in any way, shape, or form qualify it as an alternative to WAV files. Not in this case or in any other case.

The statement "zip is not good for compressing wav" is patently false. It's great for compressing wav files. It's great for compressing files in general. It's not great at compressing audio, but that's not the point of zipping in the first place.

 

[indecizo]

Why don't you tell me? You FLAC dudes are the ones who can't read threat titles or initial posts.

Thread title: posits audio degradation via zip compression.

First post: explains that file size shrinks when compressing wavs via zip, guy wonders if it degrades audio quality.


The answer is that zipping has zero effect on the quality of an audio file, but that it doesn't compress the size by that much. This is known as DATA COMPRESSION.

Someone suggested FLAC, which is not data compression. Yes, it is lossless, but it performs an entirely different function to zipping.

Most DAWs don't support FLAC, and most people don't use Reaper. Sorry if that hurts to hear, but it's true. The fact that Reaper supports it does not in any way, shape, or form qualify it as an alternative to WAV files. Not in this case or in any other case.

The statement "zip is not good for compressing wav" is patently false. It's great for compressing wav files. It's great for compressing files in general. It's not great at compressing audio, but that's not the point of zipping in the first place.

Reaper is very popular in here, and no one is claiming that FLAC is data compression. This flac thing could be helpful when I need to store it on a usb memory and don't have much space left in there, or when my internet is being an asshole and screws up because my file is too heavy so I need that compressed. It could've been useful for me in the past.

Maybe the thread is derailed, but the OP has been correctly answered already with the first responses, so some dude started talking about file size compression which is somewhat related, don't see what the fuck is wrong with that. It's just a suggestion, not the ultimate answer.

 

[aramism]

how did flac get in this??

very confusing thread. feel bad for op.


to op: zipping wavs doesn't affect quality.

 

[JHA]

Right, let's not bump heads with this.

JHA, you said this: "Zip is not good for wav compressing but it is lossless. Use FLAC."

Although you said that "it is lossless" you did mention that "Zip is not good for wav compressing", so the theme of this thread is whether file compression affects audio quality or not, which is absolutely false and anyone that uses a computer on a daily basis should know that, mainly if you work with audio.

So, I apologize if I seemed a bit of a "cunt" I was just astounded by how can this even be a debate?

Either way, why would anyone use FLAC in a professional manner? Just because it reduces the size a little bit, don't really see the benefit of converting a file for that sole purpose.

@Jeff: luve u long time bru <3

"Zip is not good for wav compressing" has nothing to do with audio quality. It simply means flac is more efficient when compressing audio because it's designed to compress audio. And it's way faster than zip. The "good" refers to file size/compression ratio only (and speed).

I think you have some misunderstanding about flac. It's not like zip that must first be decompressed. Flac is an audio format just like wav or aiff. You can play, edit or apply mastering fx to flac just like you would to wav as the program does decompressing on the fly, if it can read flac files. This is exactly the same how many software samplers like Kontakt work. I'm not debating anything as far as I know. I'm not telling you to use flac either.

 

[JHA]

You FLAC dudes

It's a conspiracy.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/361906-flac-mastering-flac.html

 

[Jind]

Three pages to discuss the merits and methods of archiving audio files to make sending them over the internet a tad bit faster.

 

[kev]

yep, fucking zip has been ruining my tone for years!