Importing Re-Compression Question

[Stefan]

Hi,

Does Hoster 4.08 compress files each time they are imported? For example, if you re-import an already compressed mp3+G file will it compress it again? If so, I guess you will be loosing audio quality each time. So if you re-import backup MP3+G you are compromising quality. This could be a very scary thing for the hifi buf.

[ddouglass]

No Hoster does not re-compress MP3+G. All it does with them is to wrap a header around it with the information needed by Hoster. A hifi buf wouldn't use MP3 any way because you already have audio quality loss with it.
For CDG imported directly from CDs Hoster uses WMA format to compress the file and there is negligible loss from that format which is why they chose it for their primary format.

[Stefan]

Thanks Dale. Thats a relief to hear.

Also from behalf of the MTU community, thanks for all your great imput and answers to so many questions on the forums. I would love to buy you a drink or two. If ever you are in Australia, Melbourne, please let me know. You are much appreciated!

[madjim- with the Lord]

Originally Posted by Stefan

if you re-import an already compressed mp3+G file will it compress it again? If so, I guess you will be loosing audio quality each time.

Stefan,
You are correct, over compression is a bad thing. This is why Hoster does not compress or re-compress any files.

Now a user has the choice of bitrate at which they import their discs into Hoster. The higher the bitrate, the better quaility the sound. I recommend that everybody use the 192 bitrate when importing discs into Hoater to achive the best quality sound.

I see Dale slipped in on me again. That's what I get for typing a post and not submiting it before I go out to dinner.

Jim

[Stefan]

Hey Madjim,

Same goes to you. You are a legend also. Come downunder and it's my shout.

[madjim- with the Lord]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Hey Madjim,

Same goes to you. You are a legend also. Come downunder and it's my shout.

Thanks Stefan,
If I ever get to Melbourne I'll look you up.

Jim

[slsides]

Originally Posted by ddouglass

No Hoster does not re-compress MP3+G. All it does with them is to wrap a header around it with the information needed by Hoster. A hifi buf wouldn't use MP3 any way because you already have audio quality loss with it.
For CDG imported directly from CDs Hoster uses WMA format to compress the file and there is negligible loss from that format which is why they chose it for their primary format.

mm, well, just to be clear, .wma is a lossy audio format. perhaps not quite as much as mp3. for quality, ogg vorbis would seem to me to be the best lossy format, so i am kind of surprised that it wasn't the one selected by the good folks at mtu. flac would be a great choice for a lossless codec, but the file sizes would be around 3-4x what they are with the aforementioned lossy ones.

[ddouglass]

Originally Posted by slsides

mm, well, just to be clear, .wma is a lossy audio format. perhaps not quite as much as mp3. for quality, ogg vorbis would seem to me to be the best lossy format, so i am kind of surprised that it wasn't the one selected by the good folks at mtu. flac would be a great choice for a lossless codec, but the file sizes would be around 3-4x what they are with the aforementioned lossy ones.

For one when Hoster was first developed OGG didn't exist or at least was not known well. Saying they use WMA was the better choice between MP3 (which they would have to pay royalties for) and WMA which they don't, as well as being much better quality (less loss) than MP3. I think they will have to look at including OGG as one of the formats they play at some point, but it would take a massive restructuring to change to it as their importing format for CDG disks.
As to FLAC as you say the file sizes would be too large and their objective was to be able to create smaller files with the least amount of loss. Remember hard drive sizes were very limited not that long ago.

[slsides]

Originally Posted by ddouglass

For one when Hoster was first developed OGG didn't exist or at least was not known well. Saying they use WMA was the better choice between MP3 (which they would have to pay royalties for) and WMA which they don't, as well as being much better quality (less loss) than MP3. I think they will have to look at including OGG as one of the formats they play at some point, but it would take a massive restructuring to change to it as their importing format for CDG disks.
As to FLAC as you say the file sizes would be too large and their objective was to be able to create smaller files with the least amount of loss. Remember hard drive sizes were very limited not that long ago.

yeh, . . . ogg vorbis has been around long enough, but was relegated to the serious geeks among us until fairly recently.

as to the mp3/wma decision, i can easily see why royalty-free was attractive.