Collaborations, a discussion on logistics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guernica
  • Start date Start date
I just picked up the new issue of Electronic Musician, and there is a great article in there on Internet collaboration. It features a couple of very interesting websites to check out.......... one that stuck out in particular was Rocket network rocketnetwork.com
Would a central location for collabs be cool?
Click to expand...
..........this is Rocketnetwork! Waldo, my man, Something like this would be exactly what the doctor ordered. It is pretty robust, maybe unnecessarily so for the home recording guy, but the idea is dead on! This is a platform that acts as the go-between between collaborators. ! person uploads and idea, then everytime a track is added by an approved contributer, the platform makes it available to the rest of the contributors. No going back and forth....... all of the tracks are there as well as updated mixes........ all ready to be downloaded. AWESOME!
What an exciting idea.
As I mentioned, its a pretty involved thing that theyve got going on...... and definitly geared for collaborators w/ a budget.
......cause its expensive. ........but I agree, some kind of collaboration, and networking structure would be great to have at NWR........ ........the article i mentioned speaks alot about how widespread and popular internet collaboration is becoming........ ......all i can say is ....... I'ld sign up!:D
 
yeah, that's the ticket. Could it be done like NWR is now, with your own space for storage of tracks, somehow making it only available to who you let in to retrieve or leave tracks. Did I say that right. You know, so if I had a little track or tracks of a tune, and wanted say, Lt. to play a horn, then he would be given a password or something, that would allow him access to my tracks. I would think something in this order must be done to protect your stuff. Now something like this would be worth paying a fee for. Waldo, where are you. $$$$$$$$

dtb
 
I'm still around but still suffering from a horrible flu or something, not sure what, but it's holding me back from nearly everything.

Brains sore, so not intelligent enough to process everything, but yes, it is written in the plans to have a collaboration service built, and I am very aware of rocketnetwork, used it first years ago.

When I get something together, I'll release it on the NWR forums so I don't get knocked for spamming. It may be a while however, I've put in a few bids for contracts in the last little bit to keep alive, and if I get one, I'll be working 12-14hrs a day on the contract for 6 mo....

Anywho, just letting you know there is a list, and this is on the list, has been for a while.

w.
 
:) cool. Get well soon dude. I'll wait. he he he he he he he

thanks for your hard work,

dtb
 
Interesting, I'm still reading and learning. I like the CD thing if the two or more are using the same software. But, wouldnt it need to be all wav files due to the differenc in setups of each ones rig?
 
Nah, CDA, mp3, asf, ape, wma, ra, etc. can be converted to WAV, and vice versa, with many different applications. If it's digital, it can be modified...

W.
 
The article doesn't mention lossless formats like LAME and SHORTEN. Those can be a nice alternative.

I have one doubt about mp3: I heard that mp3 adds some space before the actual material. That will translate into having a sound with more samples than the original, which can make it cumbersome to realign the tracks.
Is that so, and if it is is there a way to avoid it? I always wanted to know the real truth about that mp3 issue (if it actually exists). And that's why I always try to record a count at the beginning, just in case. Waldo?

Cheers, Andrés
 
Simply lining things up using a common waveform blip should do the trick. Most apps have copy and paste ability and the "blip" wave could be included with all transfered audio. Once you've recorded your track make sure it goes back to the blip and paste the blip in so it lines up before exporting the track.
If someone is just laying down a solo in the middle of the song it doesn't really matter. All the empty space at the start of the track will zip or rar up to next to nothing.
 
LAME is MP3, and very lossey. Shorten has a lossless option, such as Monkeys Audio (APE), erc.

heard that mp3 adds some space before the actual material.
Click to expand...
Some MP3's will be out of sync in all respects, because they use 'psycho acoustic modelling' where a sound 'sounds like' the original to a human, but isn't neccessarily the same in length, depth, or frequency. Some codecs will add extra 'frame padding', which ads a tiny moment of latency, plus the decode time, so yes, they can go out of sync right from the start, but they can also go slightly out of sync in the middle, or elsewhere. This makes even recording a 'blip' in the same spot in each track erroneous (but the majority of the time, is a good solution).

MP3 is the poor mans route, but can be used of course, simply because we do use it.

Lossless encoding, with an external 'file' (often called a project file) to sync up the tracks, is the best way to go about a 'high quality' collaboration, providing the collaborators can afford the bandwith to transfer the much larger files.

W.
 
LAME is MP3, and very lossey. Shorten has a lossless option, such as Monkeys Audio (APE), erc
Click to expand...

You're right, I said LAME but I was thinking about FLAC:

http://flac.sourceforge.net/

That's an alternative to SHORTEN. I still prefer shorten since it's the only one compatible with Windows, macOS 9 and macOS X. And both Shorten and Flac are not only free but their sourcecode is also available unlike some of the others.

Another q: if you turn a wav into mp3 then to wab again, do you think that the length will be very hard to tell (because of all the things you cited), or would it go back to the original number of samples (maybe a little more because of those extra silences)?

Cheers, Andrés
 
All of these methods work but the MP3s and lossy files and such.....they're for the purpose of being able to send the files over the net. But the very simple method of simply sending audio or wave files on a cd via snail-mail works great for everyone no matter what kind of recorder you use. And it doesn't cost much. Last week I sent some files to Dobro in Singapore and it cost $3.80. And within the US it's only a couple of bucks. So we all use MP3s to check and see if we like what the other guy is doing.....and then when it's satisfactory and we're ready to get some tracks for mixing....we pop a CD in the mail.
 
Lt Bob's exactly right - it works. The only time you'd want to do it differently would be if you were doing a whole album with somebody, where they were playing on all or a lot of the tracks. If you wanted to be mixing while other tracks were getting recorded, you'd have to burn, package and send a CD to your distant collaborator 12 times maybe. In a case like that, the way to go would be a broadband connection for you both. I don't have one, but I'd get one if I was planning a big project with someone (doubly true if I was planning a big project with MORE than one other person). I was visiting a buddy last night and exploring the broadband connection he's got - his mp3 downloads are 7-8 times faster than my dialup connection! With speeds like that, you could use an FTP program to transfer wav files direct instead of trotting down to the post office again and again.
 
When JMarcomb and I occasionally collaborate we transfer Cakewalk Bundle files. It's nice because I get the whole project, each track, all in one FTP download, and I just pick up where he left off so to speak...

But this isn't always possible for everyone, so I prefer the method Lt. Bob refers to for cross-platform projects. Ask Crawdad what happens when you load MP3 drum tracks into your DAW... ;)
 
PS, remember when I asked people to send me projects? The reason was to figure out a way to convert from one to another, with the least amount of lost data between them...

Of course, I'm refering to the project files, that keep sync, base volumes, plugins/effect settings, etc...

I haven't got enough data yet, but I'm hoping I can get the support of a few major DAW software manufacturers to give me file specs... Not many have responded, but I hope...

If anyone does have file specs on their DAW software, let me know!

W.
 
What kind of specs are you talking about? Project file sizes? I would guess the average Sonar Bundle file is about 400-600MB. I have a few that are over a GB, but those are about 40 tracks and 7 minutes long.

What other specs are you looking for and I'll try and help...
 
dobro said:
I was visiting a buddy last night and exploring the broadband connection he's got - his mp3 downloads are 7-8 times faster than my dialup connection! With speeds like that, you could use an FTP program to transfer wav files direct instead of trotting down to the post office again and again.
Click to expand...

Only problem is, most broadband connections have a cap on the up speed. So although the receiver of a collab file may be able to download at 768kbps-10mbps, mostly your provider will only give you 144-256kbps up. It's still doable but would require an overnight batch transfer at that speed.
 
144kbps up to 7mbps, about 640kbps up is the global average.

At 640kbps, 12 completely uncompressed tracks could take less than an hour.

W.
 
ok, maybe just me and everyone that i know is capped at 144 going up. the rest of you can have fun, but i'll have to stick with the post office for now :).
 
At that up speed, you should be able to send 12 compressed (lossles) tracks in under an hour yourself.

W.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top