Transefering Files Online for remote mixing

teainthesahara

teainthesahara

New member
Im collaborating with another musician across the country. We want to
transfer WAV files, back and forth with relative ease and convience online. Im interested to know - for those of you who work this way -what methods have you tried? Is there anyway to FTP files directly from one computer to another? Or to set something up with window's XP's network functions?
 
I use Yahoo messenger. It is as fast as your upload connection is.

Microsoft's messenger caps out at 40KBs upload, so that sort of sucks!

Anyway, I would suggest using either WinRAR to zip the files and do lossless compression, on them, or give Monkey Audio a try. But, WinRAR seems to do very good lossless compression.

Anyway, using the file share in Yahoo chat works very well.
 
Ford Van said:
I use Yahoo messenger. It is as fast as your upload connection is.

Microsoft's messenger caps out at 40KBs upload, so that sort of sucks!

Anyway, I would suggest using either WinRAR to zip the files and do lossless compression, on them, or give Monkey Audio a try. But, WinRAR seems to do very good lossless compression.

Anyway, using the file share in Yahoo chat works very well.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input...

File share we have done, and its awesome cause it's free and fast.
I may end up going with that. So lossless compression a la winrar is safe i take it.

It would be better if i could find something that didnt need us to be at both ends of the computer at the same time.
Has anyone tried kazza or utorrent for this type of thing? (www.utorrent.com)
 
You could also sign up for a gmail account. 2Gb of space, and just email the files back and forth.
 
I just use an FTP folder on my web server. Files are ZIP'd for convenience and organization. ZIP'ing audio files doesn't make them any smaller, unless you have files where there is a lot of "dead air". So on multi-track material, ZIP'in will actually reduce the filesize of the project.

My upload speed is on the slow side. My cable connection only allows me about a 30kb/s upload. So it can take a couple hours to upload a project. Downloads aren't near as bad.

This method also works great for sending mixes to the client for approval.
 
teainthesahara said:
Thanks for the input...
It would be better if i could find something that didnt need us to be at both ends of the computer at the same time.
Has anyone tried kazza or utorrent for this type of thing? (www.utorrent.com)
Click to expand...

Using a torrent for this application is overkill, and doesn't provide any advantages over a direct FTP or IM file transfer.

A torrent could be beneficial, given that you were transferring the files to multiple people, but just between two users, use something else.

I'd go the direct FTP route only if one of you has a server that is on all the time. The IM transfer route requires that you are both logged in to IM at the same time to transfer (which may not always be the case). The gmail suggestion is probably the easiest remaining option.

mike
 
Awesome advice guys! Im gonna test out the email type services as well!

Hey Ihsoy,
how does one go about settting up an FTP/server with the resources we have (2 PC's)? I tried the torrent thing last night, i dont think i got it to work.
Can you explain the concepts behind using torrents?
 
torrents are a way for people to download a file from multiple hosts, it would be useless to make one just to transfer from one computer to another
you can get programs that will turn your computer into an ftp server, check sourceforge or hotscripts or something like that
 
teainthesahara said:
Hey Ihsoy,
how does one go about settting up an FTP/server with the resources we have (2 PC's)? I tried the torrent thing last night, i dont think i got it to work.
Can you explain the concepts behind using torrents?
Click to expand...

To set up an FTP server:
1. download an FTP server (or use the one built-in to Windows XP Pro or OSX)
2. Configure the FTP server
3. Configure your local firewall/router (if you don't have one, get one!)

In your case, it doesn't really matter which PC runs the FTP server, because there are only 2 PCs involved in the transfer.

As trey said, there are plenty of ftp servers available, some free, some not. A search on download.com will turn up a bunch of them. I use one called Cerberus, but I really don't use it that often, as I have access to some actual servers if I need to host a file.

Torrents basically work on the principle that the file exists in more than one place, and it's not a specific file server:
1. Create a .torrent file (this specifies exactly what files you'll be sharing)
2. Send the .torrent file to a friend, or upload to a tracker.
3. As other people get the .torrent file, they start downloading parts of the actual shared files from you.
3b. As more people start to join, they will download the parts of the files from wherever it is available.

4. A torrent user who has a full copy of the files is a "seeder" meaning that they've got the whole thing.
4b. If there are no seeders available for a torrent, it's likely that you won't be able to get a complete copy of the files.

So a torrent would be a great way for you to share your latest "number 1" with the rest of the forumers, if you don't have access to an FTP server.

With an FTP server, everybody would hit your server for the complete set of files, whereas with torrent, it's more of a communist-type approach. :D

mike
 
Raw-Tracks said:
ZIP'ing audio files doesn't make them any smaller, unless you have files where there is a lot of "dead air".
Click to expand...

Errrrrrrr...Sorry man, that is wrong info!

Here is the same 19 second .wav file of a bass guitar "riding" 1/8th notes in a song. There is no "dead air" in this file at all. Compare the file sizes! QUITE a reduction!!!

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/rartest.wav

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/rartest.rar

The .rar version will come out sounding EXACTLY like the original .wav does.

.rar and .zip are both lossless compression scheme's. Indeed, it IS much easier to send a .zip or .rar of multiple tracks for the sake of convenience of not having a bunch of seperate files, but you also apply lossless compression to the data, which can significantly reduce the file size too!

I mention Monkey Audio mainly because it is capable of doing just a bit more compression than .rar and .zip can do. If you are sending LOT'S of data via the internet, ANY reduction in file size is helpful!
 
Actually Raw-Tracks, you should really consider teaming up with one of the lossless compression software companies for your stuff. I see you have .mp3 and .wav available. One is "lossy", and the other is pretty big.

I know that Monkey Audio is free, and as I recall, the guy that wrote it doesn't mind a free distribution of his software. But, you might want to check with him first, as you DO charge for some of your stuff.

But, I could see compressing your .wav file with Monkey Audio being a great way to send high quality .wavs via the internet!

Or, you could just use WinRAR. The "demo" is full functioning and works great. Either app will compress your files almost 45% with NO quality loss upon decoding. The biggest difference between the "heavy" and "light" compression is how long it takes to encode/decode.

I have tested these lossless compression schemes and truthfully could not tell ANY difference between the source files and the encoded/decoded files.
 
Ford Van said:
Errrrrrrr...Sorry man, that is wrong info!

Here is the same 19 second .wav file of a bass guitar "riding" 1/8th notes in a song. There is no "dead air" in this file at all. Compare the file sizes! QUITE a reduction!!!

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/rartest.wav

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/rartest.rar

The .rar version will come out sounding EXACTLY like the original .wav does.

.rar and .zip are both lossless compression scheme's. Indeed, it IS much easier to send a .zip or .rar of multiple tracks for the sake of convenience of not having a bunch of seperate files, but you also apply lossless compression to the data, which can significantly reduce the file size too!

I mention Monkey Audio mainly because it is capable of doing just a bit more compression than .rar and .zip can do. If you are sending LOT'S of data via the internet, ANY reduction in file size is helpful!
Click to expand...

Well, your examples are utilizing RAR, i was referring to ZIP files. I don't have any experience with RAR. At any rate, I should correct what I said in my quote above. I shouldn't have said ZIP'ing audio files doesn't make them ANY smaller. That was incorrect. I should maybe have said it doesn't make them MUCH smaller.

At any rate, my point was, if you ZIP a Stereo mix of a song, you aren't going to see very much a a reduction in file size with ZIP. But if you zip a stereo vocal track that is the same file size as that previous stereo mix, you will see that the ZIP'd vocal track is much smaller. My explanation, at least, is that is because there is a lot of "dead air" on the vocal track.

I would be interested to see in your example, instead of using the bass track, lets see a complete stereo mix with all the instruments. Compare that WAV file to a compressed version of that. My experience with ZIP's tells me you won't see as great a reduction in file size.
In my experiece, a set of zipped multi-track files can end being about 30% smaller than the original WAV files.
 
Ford Van said:
Actually Raw-Tracks, you should really consider teaming up with one of the lossless compression software companies for your stuff. I see you have .mp3 and .wav available. One is "lossy", and the other is pretty big.

I know that Monkey Audio is free, and as I recall, the guy that wrote it doesn't mind a free distribution of his software. But, you might want to check with him first, as you DO charge for some of your stuff.
Click to expand...

To be honest with you, I have never looked into Monkey Audio. I've been hearing about it for quite some time, but never investigate it. My main aversion to using that for www.Raw-Tracks.com is the fact that the end user will have to download and install an application in order to expand the files. Not only will that extra step complicate matters for some users, but many people are opposed to being required to install another application for something like this. I would wager that at least 95% of computer users out there can open a ZIP file.
 
What is really responsible for more compression is how much difference there is between the left and right channels of the stereo file, +/- a little file overhead so to speak.

For example:

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/rartest.wav

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/rartest.rar


http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/RAR/rartest.ape This is the Monkeys Audio file.

That is a mono file comparison.

WinRAR provided around 40%
APE did almost 50%
Cool.
Here is the same bass part, but the output was changed to a stereo file:


http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/RAR/bassstereo.wav

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/RAR/bassstereo.rar

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/RAR/bassstereo.ape

Okay, things get interesting here. This was a stereo output of a mono bass track.

WinRAR did over 60%!
APE did around 70%!!

Now, just for fun, I went ahead and compressed the fuck out of that bass just to make sure that even though all the source files are 24 bit, that the compression wasn't taking into account the RMS. Indeed, after almost doubling the RMS of the file via an L3 Ultramaximizer with the output set to 0dB, the new compressed file's reduction wasn't as good!


http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/RAR/bassstereocompressed.wav

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/RAR/bassstereocompressed.rar

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/RAR/bassstereocompressed.ape

So, we have seen that JUST making something stereo is not much of a reason for worse compression. In fact, the compression is even better when I mono file it turned into stereo. So, stereo itself is NOT the reason the comrpession isn't as good.

We have also seen how taking some dynamics out effects the audio FAR more than just stereo.

So, I had to move on to a true stereo mix. With two different guitars panned out, and drums slightly panned. Etc....


http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/RAR/stereomix.wav

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/RAR/stereomix.rar

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/RAR/stereomix.ape

Okay, we can see that indeed, in a stereo mix, there is not very good reduction with either .ape or .rar

What if we compress the heck out of that mix?


http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/RAR/stereomixcompressed.wav

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/RAR/stereomixcompressed.rar

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/RAR/stereomixcompressed.ape

Even LESS compression!

What WOULD stand to figure is if you split the stereo file into two mono files, that it should compress better, but it does not!


http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/RAR/stereomixcompressedtwomonofiles.rar

Weird stuff.

Anyway. In the end, unless you are sending stereo files, with little dynamic range, compression certain helps! In the case of mono files of individual instruments, you can reduce quite a bit!
 
Raw-Tracks said:
To be honest with you, I have never looked into Monkey Audio. I've been hearing about it for quite some time, but never investigate it. My main aversion to using that for www.Raw-Tracks.com is the fact that the end user will have to download and install an application in order to expand the files. Not only will that extra step complicate matters for some users, but many people are opposed to being required to install another application for something like this. I would wager that at least 95% of computer users out there can open a ZIP file.
Click to expand...

If you can figure out how to extract a bunch of files from a .zip, you can EASILY figure out how to decode a file with Monkey Audio.

As to whether people will like it or not, well, hard to say unless you asked around and had some people try it. Certainly, adding a .zip or.rar of .ape files for download, with a little tutorial on how to deal with it all isn't going to HURT you. Just add it as an "advance option". ;) I would be more apt to want to download ANY compressed files instead of either full sized .wav's of lossy mp3's! I am SURE that many people would be too.

Anyway, it is YOUR business. It is just a suggestion.
 
I just realized that .zip was even worse that I originally thought! I would stay away from that for bundling stuff together!

It is too bad more people don't know about WinRAR. It is a much better application, and the .rar compression is obviously MUCH better than .zip!
 
ihsoy said:
To set up an FTP server:
1. download an FTP server (or use the one built-in to Windows XP Pro or OSX)
2. Configure the FTP server
3. Configure your local firewall/router (if you don't have one, get one!)

In your case, it doesn't really matter which PC runs the FTP server, because there are only 2 PCs involved in the transfer.

As trey said, there are plenty of ftp servers available, some free, some not. A search on download.com will turn up a bunch of them. I use one called Cerberus, but I really don't use it that often, as I have access to some actual servers if I need to host a file.

Torrents basically work on the principle that the file exists in more than one place, and it's not a specific file server:
1. Create a .torrent file (this specifies exactly what files you'll be sharing)
2. Send the .torrent file to a friend, or upload to a tracker.
3. As other people get the .torrent file, they start downloading parts of the actual shared files from you.
3b. As more people start to join, they will download the parts of the files from wherever it is available.

4. A torrent user who has a full copy of the files is a "seeder" meaning that they've got the whole thing.
4b. If there are no seeders available for a torrent, it's likely that you won't be able to get a complete copy of the files.

So a torrent would be a great way for you to share your latest "number 1" with the rest of the forumers, if you don't have access to an FTP server.

With an FTP server, everybody would hit your server for the complete set of files, whereas with torrent, it's more of a communist-type approach. :D

mike
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks for the explanation man.

Im gonna try that monkey audio too....
 
Ford Van said:
If you can figure out how to extract a bunch of files from a .zip, you can EASILY figure out how to decode a file with Monkey Audio.
Click to expand...

But you still need to download another application to extract monkey audio, no? That is why I don't use it.

Ford Van said:
I would be more apt to want to download ANY compressed files instead of either full sized .wav's of lossy mp3's!
Click to expand...

Well, the downloads are all ZIP'd. That makes them compressed. Like I said, my experience has shown me that ZIP'ing the multi-track files reduces the project size by about 30%.

The only reason I have MP3's of the multi-tracks is for people who are on dial-up and don't want to wait for a CD to be mailed to them. You would be surprised how little the MP3 encoding affects the multi-track material. Yes, there is a difference, but it's rather minimal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top