momohan
02-10-2010, 06:02 AM
Greetings, folks. Would anyone here happen to have the "Sonic X" singles? Basically, the single releases of "Hikaru Michi", "T.O.P.", and so on? I've been unable to find them, and the old torrent released by soniconthenet.org -- prior to their moving to that newer domain -- is no longer active.

Thank you in advance.

knuckleJoe
02-11-2010, 10:48 AM
buy the music it is worth buying
http://sonicstyle.org/music/albums.php

momohan
02-12-2010, 05:55 AM
I already have the music in MP3, and considering that I've not only spent hundreds of dollars on the Sonic franchise over the years -- including re-purchasing the same games across various collections -- I'm not worried about shorting SEGA nor the various creative parties involved the pennies which would come from a single's sale. Beyond that, I would be surprised if these albums aren't discontinued, and if they are, the creators wouldn't see a red cent from them anyway.

Thank you anyway, but if anyone could help with my original request, it would be greatly appreciated.

knuckleJoe
02-13-2010, 04:10 AM
what is so good about lossless anyway

momohan
02-14-2010, 02:44 AM
A simple Google search of "FLAC versus MP3" would give you an idea, but here's a particularly informative series of paragraphs:


Lossless vs Lossy
The file containing a typical three-minute song on a CD is 30–40 megabytes in size. A 4-gigabyte iPod could therefore contain just 130 or so songs—say, only nine CDs' worth. To pack a useful number of songs onto the player's drive or into its memory, some kind of data compression needs to be used to reduce the size of the files. This will also usefully reduce the time it takes to download the song.

Lossless compression is benign in its effect on the music. It is akin to LHA or WinZip computer data crunchers in packing the data more efficiently on the disk, but the data you read out are the same as went in. The primary difference between lossless compression for computer data and for audio is that the latter permits random access within the file. (If you had to wait to unZip the complete 400MB file of a CD's content before you could play it, you would rapidly abandon the whole idea.) You can get reduction in file size to 40–60% of the original with lossless compression—the performance of various lossless codecs is compared here and here—but that increases the capacity of a 4GB iPod to only 300 songs, or 20 CDs' worth of music. More compression is necessary.

The MP3 codec (for COder/DECoder) was developed at the end of the 1980s and adopted as a standard in 1991. As typically used, it reduces the file size for an audio song by a factor of 10; eg, a song that takes up 30MB on a CD takes up only 3MB as an MP3 file. Not only does the 4GB iPod now hold well over 1000 songs, each song takes less than 10 seconds to download on a typical home's high-speed Internet connection.

But you don't get something for nothing. The MP3 codec, and others that achieve similar reductions in file size, are "lossy"; ie, of necessity they eliminate some of the musical information. The degree of this degradation depends on the data rate. Less bits always equals less music.

As a CD plays, the two channels of audio data (not including overhead) are pulled off the disc at a rate of just over 1400 kilobits per second. A typical MP3 plays at less than a tenth that rate, at 128kbps. To achieve that massive reduction in data, the MP3 coder splits the continuous musical waveform into discrete time chunks and, using Transform analysis, examines the spectral content of each chunk. Assumptions are made by the codec's designers, on the basis of psychoacoustic theory, about what information can be safely discarded. Quiet sounds with a similar spectrum to loud sounds in the same time window are discarded, as are quiet sounds that are immediately followed or preceded by loud sounds. And, as I wrote in the February 2008 "As We See It," because the music must be broken into chunks for the codec to do its work, transient information can get smeared across chunk boundaries.

Source: http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/

In short, having lossless music -- especially lossless rips with the CUE and LOG -- is just as good as having the CD itself. Heavily compressed files are not the same.

knuckleJoe
02-14-2010, 05:59 AM
I dunno I like music a lot and I pay attention to it a lot, so it always bugged me when people get all uppity about lossless and FLAC and w/e. But I never really paid attention to it; I guess it makes sense to a degree. I would def like smaller file sizes, but to me as far as sound goes "CD quality" is just good enough. Plus I want to be able to burn it or put it on a mp3 player and edit file tags and stuff.

momohan
02-14-2010, 08:53 AM
I dunno I like music a lot and I pay attention to it a lot, so it always bugged me when people get all uppity about lossless and FLAC and w/e. But I never really paid attention to it; I guess it makes sense to a degree. I would def like smaller file sizes, but to me as far as sound goes "CD quality" is just good enough. Plus I want to be able to burn it or put it on a mp3 player and edit file tags and stuff.

MP3s are not CD quality, and the above paragraphs mention why. This particular excerpt explains it:

"As a CD plays, the two channels of audio data (not including overhead) are pulled off the disc at a rate of just over 1400 kilobits per second. A typical MP3 plays at less than a tenth that rate, at 128kbps."

Essentially, CD quality is 1400kbps, and an average internet MP3 is 128kbps. The difference is very large. However, V0 encoded MP3s are also extremely good. These variable bit rate, high quality MP3s are as close to lossless quality as one can get in MP3 form, and the difference between them and 320kbps encodes is unnoticeable.

Considering that many people play their MP3s over average computer speakers and therefore cannot appreciate everything lossless has to offer anyway, V0 is fine for the majority. I have rather nice headphones, car speakers, and so on -- therefore, I'm very particular about the quality of music I like. I can almost always tell the difference between a highly compressed (e.g., 128kbps/192kbps) MP3, and V0 or lossless.

Really, I'd even take genuine -- not transcoded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcode), that is -- V0 or 320kbps MP3s of the "Sonic X" singles. Just something better than the 128/192kbps MP3s I've found everywhere.

However, since lossless versions of all these singles were in the torrent that was formerly offered by soniconthenet.org ("Project Fidelity," it was called), I'm hoping someone who downloaded them can provide them again.

Vrantheo
02-14-2010, 05:14 PM
However, since lossless versions of all these singles were in the torrent that was formerly offered by soniconthenet.org ("Project Fidelity," it was called), I'm hoping someone who downloaded them can provide them again.


BUMP FOR REMINDER: Here (Thread 70841) again :)

momohan
02-15-2010, 03:25 AM
BUMP FOR REMINDER: Here (Thread 70841) again :)

The "Sonic X" singles do not appear to be available on that website.

Vrantheo
02-17-2010, 04:58 AM
The "Sonic X" singles do not appear to be available on that website.

I was not talking about the first post (aka TKA), but the latest one (http://forums.ffshrine.org/showpost.php?p=1426973&postcount=21).

momohan
02-17-2010, 05:19 AM
I was not talking about the first post (aka TKA), but the latest one (http://forums.ffshrine.org/showpost.php?p=1426973&postcount=21).

Thank you for clarifying. I've made a new post in that thread.