File Hosting / Sharing.
So my broadband provider has archived my webspace, because its over its bandwidth. I've only got a few images and a few WAV files up. In anycase you folkes downloading the files in the Jam thread and my showing of my cover of Unfinished Sympathy has put it over the limit.
So I am now looking for solutions so host files that people can download with ease, at speed without having form fill or me having to register. The system must allow me to embed my images directly within WOS as I do from time to time in threads.
What would you reccomend?
So I am now looking for solutions so host files that people can download with ease, at speed without having form fill or me having to register. The system must allow me to embed my images directly within WOS as I do from time to time in threads.
What would you reccomend?
Post edited by Scottie_uk on
Calling all ASCII Art Architects Visit the WOS Wall of Text and contribute: https://www.yourworldoftext.com/wos
Comments
you will have to register more than probable I guess. why ? say you lose your password etc :wink:
Yeah but it has a habit of popping up livejasmin as well :evil:
.....and various other shifty crap, from time to time.
Not limited to sharing JPGs; it's also fine for sharing WAVs, MP3s, TZXs, etc. I think FrankT pretty much has an entire website hanging off it from what I recall!
I think I've discovered the problem ;)
Yes Wav files. I could have put it as an MP3.
Gets expensive huh?
not sure about filesizes
I notice a difference in quality with tracks I've made myself, but not with anything else as when I rip a CD it's ripped straight to MP3. FLAC is apparently lossless, but I don't see how something can be compressed and not lose any quality, personally...
I can hear the difference (MP3 vs WAV) if it's high-quality music ... and by that I mean classical music.
But it also depends on the bit-rate of the MP3 ... the higher the bit-rate the harder it gets to tell which format it is.
The key word is "lossless". When you uncompress it you get exactly what you compressed, exactly the same bytes - in other words, no loss in quality. Lossless compression MUST work without loss of quality, otherwise lossless compression wouldn't be usable for things like storing software (ZIP is lossless). That's how you can compress something with no loss in quality, you compress it in such a way you can make a 100% identical copy when you decompress. You can compress without loss of quality because pretty much all data has redundancy in it which can be compressed in such a way that you can recreate this redundancy absolutely faithfully.
To contrast MP3, MP4 and other "lossy" compressions (for example JPEG) do not faithfully store the bytes that you want to compress, they drop out the bits that are least audible (or in the case of JPEG, least visible) and apply other techniques to make the stored result much, much smaller than a losslessly compressed file but at the cost of irretrievably and permanently losing some of the data.
192 or 256kbps MP3s don't usually have any noticeable (to me...) compression artifacts. I think people in their teens or early 20s generally have more acute hearing and might be able to pick something out at higher bitrates, but MP3s didn't exist when I was that young :)
Never zipped a WAV file? Faster CPUs mean better realtime decompression rates. Personally I find 128-bit AAC perfectly acceptable for audio. Sure there's a difference, but vinyl is better than CD and yet most people preferred the convenience of CD ... until MP3 came along.
In what way?
(sound quality, the physical space they take up, the way they look,etc ?)
Which pops a question out of the deepest, darkest recesses of my cranium ... vinyl obviously isn't a digital medium but has the "quality" of the sound on a vinyl been established? (i.e. bitrate or some similar comparable equivalent?)
The frequency response starts off comparable to CD audio but rapidly degrades when you actually play the record
Sort of an answer; but having just got back into vinyl collecting there IS a quality difference based on the weight of the vinyl. Standard is 120grams, better 180grams, and better still 200g and 220g (might be more that I am unaware of).
The heavier the material the deeper the groove can be cut and so the more information you can fit in the groove..apparently.
From what I understand most older 80s etc vinyl is in 120g and the newer re-issues are usually 180g.
EDIT: Cut/paste from another forum
120-140 g is a "normal" vinyl LP, like most new releases in the 20th century. 180 g is considered audiophile grade and most new releases and re-releases available today come out in this format. The record is thicker and heavier so it may be less prone to warping over time. Some claim sonic benefits on 180 g's like better stereo imaging, less noise, wider bandwidth, etc. Another factor is "virgin" vinyl (often a feature hand in hand with 180 g and heavier LPs) which uses no recycled plastic which can contain impurities leading to a noisier record.
Another factor is playback speed. 45 rpm records inherently sound better than 33.3 rpm's. I own Radiohead's "Hail to the Thief" on 12", 45 rpm, 180 g LPs. I think this is the highest quality though you get less time per side. Plus I've only listened to it a few times as I have to take apart my turntable to switch the belt to 45 rpm mode. It sounds great.
I don't think you can say that all 180 g sound better than 120 g as the quality is largely dependent on the recording, mastering and pressing.
For example, you could have the original UK pressing of an early Black Sabbath album that will sound better than any US release because they were initially mastered differently.
If it's available and I can afford it I always opt for a 180 g pressing, I just assume it must sound better, though this may be a sonic placebo. When I'm shopping I take the 180 g sticker a stamp of quality though I'm probably just falling for marketing. On the other hand it is much more expensive to press 180 g virgin vinyl so you must assume the band or label cared enough about the record to do it.
most people who go on about records like them cos the crackle, thats not how the artists intended it to be. ;)
I was just thinking about that ... each time you play, the needle touching the vinyl "erodes" the quality.
Didn't know about the quality of the sound, interesting to hear.
Hmmm, never thought about the weight/quality of plastic used but that sure is interesting to hear (imo). I guess it's somewhat comparable to the plastic/aluminium used in CDs, or at least when it comes to how long they last I guess. EDIT: Oh, and interesting to read Beanzie's cut/paste edit.
Cool stuff, thanks you guys :-)
Analogue vs digital?
Analogue sounds 'warmer' so I keep being told by my friend who uses vintage amplifiers and pays a fortune for vacuum tubes for it.
Would vinyl be classed as analogue sound?
yes, because of the distortion and loss of quality at every stage of the process.
You may prefer the sound, but it is most definitely NOT better quality.
You know, come to think of it I like(d) the crackle (way back when) ... depending on the album, some had scratches that were always in the same spot, or you had the random dust giving it that "extra special" added quality.
But I never had that many albums, I was too picky and never really into mainstream music (classical = yes, regular run'o'yemill = not really)
no you're thinking of temprature not sound. things can't sound warm.
you might as well say records are more salty or have more viscosity.
your 'friend' is prolly just trying to justify his purchases, when a 20 quid mp3 player would do the job a million times better. ;)
Personally I don't, I prefer CD sound but still like Vinyl as a 'collectable' etc.
There are many parameters in playing vinyl too...turntable quality (speed etc), needle quality, needle cartridge quality....amplifier quality etc...
I think A CD is pretty much sounds the same regardless of the player except for the speaker quality.
Well he is one of those that pays 30 quid for a foot of speaker cable too...sooo...you might be right.
and it will sound the same every time you play it too.
I replaced all my speaker cable with high performance oxygen free cable, but then discovered I couldn't listen to my Jean Michelle Jarre collection :-o
badum tsh :)