What's the difference between
- Thread starter U2girl
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
bono_man2002
Blue Crack Addict
i'm not an expert on this, someone else is bound to know allot about it...
all i know is SHN are "Loseless" or something....as to mp3s which are "lossy"...or something like that anyway...
all i know is SHN are "Loseless" or something....as to mp3s which are "lossy"...or something like that anyway...
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
Hello,
I'll try to explain this as short and to the point as possible, hoping I don't fall too quickly into the trap of technobabble.
Anyway, first I want to state the thing both formats have in common: Both MP3 as SHN are audio compression formats. A regular audio track (shown on a computer as a WAV file) is about 10 Megabyte per minute. Both formats can compress this audio into smaller files.
The difference is that MP3 compresses the audio by leaving out certain data/sounds. This is done mostly in the upper and lower range of the sound spectrum (the very high treble and very low bass). By doing this it can have a compression rate of about 1/10th of the original track. As a consequence, it isn't possible to get back to the original through decompressing the MP3 file, it cannot restore the data it left out. This is why MP3 is called a 'lossy' format; it loses information.
In contrast, SHN compresses the audio track without leaving out any data. It may replace certain oft-repeating patterns with a shorter substitute string and use some other tricks, but it will not delete anything. As a consequence the compression rate for SHN isn't as high as the compression rate for MP3; it'll reduce the original audio track to roughly 2/3 of its original size. But the advantage is that by decompressing the SHN file you get an exact replica of the original track. This is why it's called 'lossless'; there is no loss of data.
Is this clear? Let me give a short example...
Say you have a page full of text and you want to compress it. By replacing oft-repeated strings (example: the words 'the' and 'you') with a shorter string (for simplicity, here with '1' and '2', although in reality those strings will be unique). This will reduce your page of text. In addition, the MP3 method will leave out rarely-used characters (like an 'x' and an '#'), shortening the page even further. However, you never get these characters back, leaving you with an incomplete (but still readable) page once you decompress.
OK, that's my attempt to explaining it.
Hope it helps...
C ya!
Marty
I'll try to explain this as short and to the point as possible, hoping I don't fall too quickly into the trap of technobabble.
Anyway, first I want to state the thing both formats have in common: Both MP3 as SHN are audio compression formats. A regular audio track (shown on a computer as a WAV file) is about 10 Megabyte per minute. Both formats can compress this audio into smaller files.
The difference is that MP3 compresses the audio by leaving out certain data/sounds. This is done mostly in the upper and lower range of the sound spectrum (the very high treble and very low bass). By doing this it can have a compression rate of about 1/10th of the original track. As a consequence, it isn't possible to get back to the original through decompressing the MP3 file, it cannot restore the data it left out. This is why MP3 is called a 'lossy' format; it loses information.
In contrast, SHN compresses the audio track without leaving out any data. It may replace certain oft-repeating patterns with a shorter substitute string and use some other tricks, but it will not delete anything. As a consequence the compression rate for SHN isn't as high as the compression rate for MP3; it'll reduce the original audio track to roughly 2/3 of its original size. But the advantage is that by decompressing the SHN file you get an exact replica of the original track. This is why it's called 'lossless'; there is no loss of data.
Is this clear?
Let me give a short example...Say you have a page full of text and you want to compress it. By replacing oft-repeated strings (example: the words 'the' and 'you') with a shorter string (for simplicity, here with '1' and '2', although in reality those strings will be unique). This will reduce your page of text. In addition, the MP3 method will leave out rarely-used characters (like an 'x' and an '#'), shortening the page even further. However, you never get these characters back, leaving you with an incomplete (but still readable) page once you decompress.
OK, that's my attempt to explaining it.
Hope it helps...
C ya!
Marty
EPandAmerica
New Yorker
I liked that explanation Marty! 
Do you think you could describe to me in those terms how I can tell if cds that I have obtained are mp3 or not? Is there a way I can tell other than by ear?
If a concert has spaces between songs, does that mean it is mp3 format or did someone just not burn it correctly so that it wouldn't have the space/click ?
Do you think you could describe to me in those terms how I can tell if cds that I have obtained are mp3 or not? Is there a way I can tell other than by ear?
If a concert has spaces between songs, does that mean it is mp3 format or did someone just not burn it correctly so that it wouldn't have the space/click ?
I have a show with sounds like a compilation in that every song fades out normally and the next song starts from 0. You know, "breaks" in between as opposed to other shows where there is no that fading out, all songs flow normally. Is that an MP3 recording?
Thanks Marty! I think I get it.
Thanks Marty! I think I get it.
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
EPandAmerica said:I liked that explanation Marty!
Do you think you could describe to me in those terms how I can tell if cds that I have obtained are mp3 or not? Is there a way I can tell other than by ear?
You're welcome EP. And your buddy America too.
There are programs that can show if a song is MP3 sourced or not. Those wave analysers show the waveform of a song (how much the frequencies are populated). An MP3 track would show a certain cutoff point (IIRC, around the 18,000 Herz mark) beyond which there is no data. However, a track recorded by MiniDisk also has a cutoff point (although at a higher frequency, around 23,000 Herz I think). I don't know which programs are suitable though, as I don't have them. Personally, I think you can hear it mostly by ear. A MP3-track sounds flatter, has less body. However, a MP3-track decoded at a high bitrate (=bigger file, but also with less information left out) is very hard to distinguish from the original.
Unfortunately, you cannot tell just by having this information. Both can be possible. A 2-second gap is an indication that the person did not burn it correctly, but that can happen with both types of files (WAV and MP3). Likewise, a small click between the songs can also occur in both cases. It can be an indication of a MP3-track, but it can also mean that the person has burned with EasyCDCreator or an early version of Nero (older than version 6).
C ya!
Marty
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
U2girl said:I have a show with sounds like a compilation in that every song fades out normally and the next song starts from 0. You know, "breaks" in between as opposed to other shows where there is no that fading out, all songs flow normally. Is that an MP3 recording?
Thanks Marty! I think I get it.
U2girl,
As I said in my reply to EP and his/her friend America this information alone is not enough to determine whether or not a recording is from MP3 or not. Having a normal fadeout and fadein leads me to believe that a person individually edited the songs so they won't end abruptly. But you can do this with both types of tracks. So I can't help you with this one.
Sorry.
Marty
EPandAmerica
New Yorker
Thanks Marty!
