Original topic:
http://www.staredit.net/topic/5294/An alternate method of
"compressing
" WAV files(that I use), is manually halve the frequency using a hex editor, and "speeding up" the result through Sound Recorder.
He didn't say anything about replacing. It is the same WAV with a smaller amount of bits to represent it, which IS compression.
And you don't know why Heinermann put quotes around the word, you are just putting words in his mouth. I'm GUESSING he put them there because its such a small difference and doesn't use a compression algorithm, but it is still compression, but maybe he'll clear that up.
Look at the above bold characters. Didn't put any words in his mouth at all.
Did you even read what I said or can you just not comprehend? Read the bolded+underlined part...
How am I putting words in his mouth when he stated its a 'way of compression'??
None.
SDE, BWAPI owner, hacker.
You don't understand the mechanics of WAV files.
Original topic:
http://www.staredit.net/topic/5294/An alternate method of
"compressing
" WAV files(that I use), is manually halve the frequency using a hex editor, and "speeding up" the result through Sound Recorder.
He didn't say anything about replacing. It is the same WAV with a smaller amount of bits to represent it, which IS compression.
And you don't know why Heinermann put quotes around the word, you are just putting words in his mouth. I'm GUESSING he put them there because its such a small difference and doesn't use a compression algorithm, but it is still compression, but maybe he'll clear that up.
Look at the above bold characters. Didn't put any words in his mouth at all.
Did you even read what I said or can you just not comprehend? Read the bolded+underlined part...
Reducing the quality to lower the file size is still a compression, even if it is the same file format as the original. It's a lossy compression. Even if compression wasn't the right term, I'll use it anyway, and I don't care what anyone has to say about it.
Kellimus, you still troll here to pass time?
You don't have to go Hexedit to lower the quality of .WAVs, you just need to change the sampling rate and there you go. So you're just deleting information from the .WAV
You don't HAVE to, but guess what, you can! Which is compression because you are making the file size smaller! Interesting no?
Deleting information is not re-arranging it or altering its form for compression, its erasing the information from the file.
According to the definition Killer_Kow posted, its not compression.
None.
You don't understand the mechanics of WAV files.
I got a little experiment for you (oh you make me laugh)
Take your unaltered .WAV file, throw it into Sound Recorder.
Save a copy as the lowest bitrate/sample rate you can. Save another version of the same file with the highest bitrate/sample rate you can.
Then come back and tell me that I'm wrong again, I'll probably just laugh at you.
None.
SDE, BWAPI owner, hacker.
That's not what I meant.
Read up on the file format specs.
PyMS and ProTRG developer
Deleting information is not re-arranging it or altering its form for compression, its erasing the information from the file.
According to the definition Killer_Kow posted, its not compression.
Deleting isn't altering? now that doesn't sound correct.... Erasing data from the file is compression since the file is smaller. If the information is not needed then all it does is compress, if you are deleting information that has an effect on the sound, then it is lossy compression, but its still compression.
SDE, BWAPI owner, hacker.
Yeah that was kind of stated several times. Kellimus just gets off by arguing with people, pretending he knows everything.
Kellimus, the methods used by Sound Recorder leave unnecessary information in there, that can be removed when Hex Editing, it may get close, but Hex editing with get the
smallest possible size.
None.
That's not what I meant.
Read up on the file format specs.
Read below:
There is a distinct difference in quality when hex editing and "speeding up" and when just changing the sampling rate.
Also, can you reference the source for your definition?
How can you 'not' mean that? You claim that changing the sampling rate of .WAVs alters the speed and I simply provided proof of how it doesn't.
And no, I don't get off on arguing with people pretending I know everything, i just proved I knew what I was talking about when you made the false comment about Sample rates/bitrates.
I know people don't like it when they're proven wrong but damn. To say I don't know what I'm talking about because you showed us all you don't know anything about .WAVs and sample rates is funny.
None.
SDE, BWAPI owner, hacker.
Yes.
I never made one.
What's funny, is you misunderstood my post.
More detailed: You halve the frequency via hex editor, and the WAV file naturally plays at 1/2 its speed. You speed up the result by 100% to get the end result. The "speed up" is different from changing the sample rate.
Of course, I should probably just ignore your subtle insults that you make in an attempt to continue the argument. Admit it.
You troll these forums.
You don't contribute to this website.
You attempt to turn topics upside down because you think it's fun.
Yeah that was kind of stated several times. Kellimus just gets off by arguing with people, pretending he knows everything.
Exactly.
And no, I don't get off on arguing with people pretending I know everything, i just proved I knew what I was talking about when you made the false comment about Sample rates/bitrates.
You're either a troll, or a complete idiot. You go around the tech forum talking about coding, programming, and file formats, you know nothing about these things, and when people tell you you're wrong, you try to bait them into flaming you. When here you go,
you're a fucking idiot. I have never seen you post something insightful, relevant, or informative. Stop trolling, and shut the hell up.
Furthermore, .WAV can be compressed losslessly, and is not the highest quality audio files you can get. See .FLAC for details, and again, shut the hell up.
None.
Yeah that was kind of stated several times. Kellimus just gets off by arguing with people, pretending he knows everything.
Exactly.
And no, I don't get off on arguing with people pretending I know everything, i just proved I knew what I was talking about when you made the false comment about Sample rates/bitrates.
You're either a troll, or a complete idiot. You go around the tech forum talking about coding, programming, and file formats, you know nothing about these things, and when people tell you you're wrong, you try to bait them into flaming you. When here you go,
you're a fucking idiot. I have never seen you post something insightful, relevant, or informative. Stop trolling, and shut the hell up.
Heinermann, I'm wondering, is there any reason why a program wouldn't be able to do this to compress? Is it something that doesn't have a proper pattern, or were the programmers just stupid?
None.
There's just no program that exists to do it. I'm sure it can be done.
None.
Yeah that was kind of stated several times. Kellimus just gets off by arguing with people, pretending he knows everything.
Exactly.
And no, I don't get off on arguing with people pretending I know everything, i just proved I knew what I was talking about when you made the false comment about Sample rates/bitrates.
You're either a troll, or a complete idiot. You go around the tech forum talking about coding, programming, and file formats, you know nothing about these things, and when people tell you you're wrong, you try to bait them into flaming you. When here you go,
you're a fucking idiot. I have never seen you post something insightful, relevant, or informative. Stop trolling, and shut the hell up.
Furthermore, .WAV can be compressed losslessly, and is not the highest quality audio files you can get. See .FLAC for details, and again, shut the hell up.
Ahahahaha all you do is go around and talk shit on people you think are wrong and you always think you're right. You talk about logic and intelligence but you created one of the most basic and simple logical fallacies out there.
You've never seen me post anything insightful cause you always think you're correct about everything, even when you're not. I've posted things in the serious discussion forum that if anyone wasn't an arrogant 'know-it-all' it could be insightful.
I know about programming, I know about sound files, and I know more about life to know that when you get out into the real world (if you're not already), you're going to be hit hard with the reality that the real world doesn't give a flying hell about what you think you know or what you do know. Keep that attitude in real life and you'll be burned.
Awww whatdja do, go and google/wiki your information to try to 'prove' you're more intelligent than everyone else? I remember when you contributed NOTHING to this forum except spam.
Since we're 'attacking the man' why don't you go back to a nobody like you were when you first joined this site Syphon? You brown-nosed your way up to where you're at now anyways.
If anyone is trolling, its you. I've simply stated (from experience) my opinion and you're the one going off on me and calling me an idiot because it doesn't fit into your perspective.
Nice debate tactics
None.
You're aware that you're trying to argue that /I'm/ the one who never admits they're wrong, when you're in a thread where you argue that you can't compress .wav files?
None.
[quote name:Kellimus]Awww whatdja do, go and google/wiki your information to try to 'prove' you're more intelligent than everyone else? I remember when you contributed NOTHING to this forum except spam.[/quote]
Funny, it seems you're still in that stage
Kellimus, you cannot seriously deny that this compression is worse,
it has been tested and shown to be better, so obviously there is something that Heinermann knows that you don't about .WAV files.
None.
You're aware that you're trying to argue that /I'm/ the one who never admits they're wrong, when you're in a thread where you argue that you can't compress .wav files?
Uh, care to go through and point out where I said, "one cannot compress .WAV files"??
I've simply stated that Hexediting != Compression. That is not saying you cannot compress .WAV files.
Keep putting words in peoples' mouths, its what you do best
Kellimus, you cannot seriously deny that this compression is worse, it has been tested and shown to be better, so obviously there is something that Heinermann knows that you don't about .WAV files.
Well according to the 'definition of compression' that has been posted in this thread, its not a form of Compression, its just deleting un-needed headers and other information in the .WAV file to cut-down the file size.
None.
PyMS and ProTRG developer
I've simply stated that Hexediting != Compression. That is not saying you cannot compress .WAV files.
...
Well according to the 'definition of compression' that has been posted in this thread, its not a form of Compression, its just deleting un-needed headers and other information in the .WAV file to cut-down the file size.
says: "Computer Science. The process by which data is compressed into a form that minimizes the space required to store or transmit it."
Ok, so what is "compressed" then?
Compress Definition says: "Computer Science. To transform (data) to minimize the space required for storage or transmission"
Deleting part of the file makes it require less space, which means its compressed. Now do you see that you are wrong?
I've simply stated that Hexediting != Compression. That is not saying you cannot compress .WAV files.
...
Well according to the 'definition of compression' that has been posted in this thread, its not a form of Compression, its just deleting un-needed headers and other information in the .WAV file to cut-down the file size.
says: "Computer Science. The process by which data is compressed into a form that minimizes the space required to store or transmit it."
Ok, so what is "compressed" then?
Compress Definition says: "Computer Science. To transform (data) to minimize the space required for storage or transmission"
Deleting part of the file makes it require less space, which means its compressed. Now do you see that you are wrong?
Quote from Dictionary.com
com⋅press
/v. kəmˈprɛs; n. ˈkɒmprɛs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [v. kuhm-pres; n. kom-pres] Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to press together; force into less space.
2. to cause to become a solid mass: to compress cotton into bales.
3. to condense, shorten, or abbreviate: The book was compressed by 50 pages.
–noun
4. Medicine/Medical. a soft, cloth pad held in place by a bandage and used to provide pressure or to supply moisture, cold, heat, or medication.
5. an apparatus for compressing cotton bales.
6. a warehouse for storing cotton bales before shipment.
I don't see anything with ERASING data in there.
Erasing Data != Compressing Data
None.
PyMS and ProTRG developer
It doesn't have to put the exact word in the definition. It doesn't say anything in the definition about compression algorithms, so i guess then Compression Algorithms != Compressing Data? It doesn't say anything about Run-Length Encoding, so that must not be compression either!
Deleting data makes the file smaller, which IS in the definition.
poiuy_qwert
Heinermann
