Is Anyone using Windows File-Folders compression ?

Discussion in 'Computer Hardware' started by 2poor2, Oct 13, 2014.

?

Is anyone using Windows Files-Folder compression ?

  1. I don't have/use Windows

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  2. With all my hard-drives-->almost 100TB, space isn't an issue

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. I didn't know such function existed

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. I've used it 15 years ago, but it was too slow, never used it again

    3 vote(s)
    25.0%
  5. It could be a cool feature to activate, specially for huge sample folders

    2 vote(s)
    16.7%
  6. I started using it not too long ago, and i'm still seeing what benefits i do get

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  7. I use it since day one, and it's the first thing i activate when i re-install my windows

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. It looks cool, one of these days i will give it a try

    2 vote(s)
    16.7%
  9. I should have used it since many years ago, if only i had known about it

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. I love it, and it makes me save tons of space

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  11. I wouldn't even want my enemies to use it: my 3000$ computer looks like my 486 dx 100, when i activa

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  12. I will definitely take a look at it

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  13. I'm a Mac user, but that feature looks so cool, i feel like trading my 3000$ macbookPro, and getting

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  14. I'm loving it, but i really mean a "true love"

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  15. I don't need it: i have a fantastic FIREDRIVE account, where i store all my xlsx and docx files with

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  16. Compression is for the loosers: when i need more space, i simply buy another 2 or 3 2TB SSD drives

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  17. I'm not interested. My computer works perfectly well, don't want to mess with compressions or stuff

    4 vote(s)
    33.3%
  18. I already get great gains, with my girlfriend's native compression

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  19. No and No. ah, i almost forgot: NO !

    3 vote(s)
    25.0%
  20. i don't need that, i already have Fabfilter Pro-C

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. 2poor2

    2poor2 Producer

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    88
    so,
    is anyone using windows default files compression ?
     
  2.  
  3. One Reason

    One Reason Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    794
    Location:
    Where I dont want to be
    I just buy more hard drives... of course compression will affect speed.

    Thats a weird poll dude.
     
  4. junh1024

    junh1024 Rock Star

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,396
    Likes Received:
    433
    No to WF compression, because if things go corrupt on your HD, you have less chance of recovery? Otoh, RARs with RR or 7z+PAR has corruption resilience, and saves space.

    Also LOL so many options.

    Compression ratio is affected by compressability of things. WAVs & XML/Text files should compress somewhat to very well. Otoh, already compressed formats like mp3 will probably not compress as well.
     
  5. SineWave

    SineWave Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,440
    Likes Received:
    3,585
    Location:
    Where the sun doesn't shine.
    No. It is slower. I just buy more HDs, too. I'm at 10, currently, of which 2 are SSDs. Using just 3 in my main computer and the laptop all the time. Main - SSD and HD, and laptop just SSD. All others are big HDs. I connect other HDs as necessary via eSATA, both on laptop and main computer. One of them is full of porn. :wink: But others are full of music projects and samples, of course. *yes* I also use one for experimenting with different Linux distributions or experimenting with other OSes in general. One has XBMC on it. :wink:
     
  6. Pipotron3000

    Pipotron3000 Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,228
    Likes Received:
    616
    Kontakt new format is already lossless compressed, like FLAC audio.

    If you get a lot of wave files you want to lossless reduce, try FLAC.
    Most serious DAWs, like Ableton and Studio One i use, support FLAC.
    You don't loose quality, it is free and an open source, so even if they close their doors, you will see a side project.

    About sending big projects with rendered audio, i advice RAR or 7-ZIP...or FLAC export :bleh:
    They all reduce WAV/AIFF by 50°%, lossless of course.
    ZIP format sucks for raw audio.

    If you are less picky, a simple MP3 320kBps convertion will save even more space. And most ppl, apart dogs and bats, will not hear any difference.

    With those methods, you will gain space and avoid troubles related to native Win compression (data recovery errors, ressources lost everytime you access data, unsupported softwares...and more).

    That's just my point of view :mates:
     
  7. 2poor2

    2poor2 Producer

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    88
    yeah i put many options, i thought "do you use windows native compression 1-yes 2-no was not really a poll. but i will still post my mini benchmark, if my thread and weird poll are useful for at least 1 member, i will already be satisfied and happy :wink:
     
  8. Andrew

    Andrew AudioSEX Maestro

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,003
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Between worlds
    Actually Windows Compression cannot handle uncompressed audio - the size will remain the same *yes*
    Already tried that.

    Perhaps better comparison to NCW would be WavPack, since both can handle floating-point, unlike FLAC :bleh:
     
  9. quadcore64

    quadcore64 Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,896
    Likes Received:
    1,050
    If Windows starts to malfunction slowly, you will have corrupted data by the time you discover what is going on.
    Have you tried wavepack compression? Still has the (.wav) and readable by most software.
     
  10. MrLyannMusic

    MrLyannMusic Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    672
    Location:
    Tunis, Tunisia
    Dude with all due my respect, this Post is shit,

    just one think don't use is this feature, it will kill your hard drive,
    and it will have less life-time,

    imagine compress decompress all the time, this will surly kill the hard drive in no time, mush more time to access file, just buy some hard drive.


    THIS IS NO SOLUTION!
     
  11. Kwissbeats

    Kwissbeats Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,566
    Likes Received:
    655
    stop exaggerating these problems, it does not kill your drive
     
  12. MrLyannMusic

    MrLyannMusic Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    672
    Location:
    Tunis, Tunisia
    Ohh you have no idea bdy you have no ideaa...
     
  13. ArticStorm

    ArticStorm Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Messages:
    7,896
    Likes Received:
    4,053
    Location:
    AudioSexPro
    use it for my sample folder and for presets folders, and for serum Wavetables.
     
  14. SineWave

    SineWave Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,440
    Likes Received:
    3,585
    Location:
    Where the sun doesn't shine.
    Exactly. I also use WavPack for music projects because WavPack supports 32-bit FP audio format and I keep the masters in that format so I can always easily re-master it if needed. :wink: But for normal 16-24bit music FLAC is great. I don't use anything else these days, just WavPack, FLAC and WAV. *yes*

    Well, MP3 and AAC are good for previewing audio files over the internet or sending them over e-mail, again just for a quick preview, or for playing the files from a space-restricted audio player. I tend to use AAC more as it sounds better at the same bandwidth rate. 256 kbps AAC sounds really good. OGG/Vorbis at the same rate is also really good. MP3 is the worst choice of all for lossy audio compression.
     
  15. Andrew

    Andrew AudioSEX Maestro

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,003
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Between worlds
    It's quite an irony really.
    WavPack vs FLAC

    WavPack:
    + better compression ratio
    + higher compression speed (reducing CPU utilisation during recording)
    + floating-point support
    + non-standard multichannel support (up to 64 channels I think)

    FLAC:
    - all of the above (channel configurations 1.0, 2.0 and 5.1, that's all)
    + compatibility
     
  16. Pipotron3000

    Pipotron3000 Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,228
    Likes Received:
    616
    "+compatibility" is enough for me :mates:

    I don't use 32bits (24 is more than enough for me)
    I mix only stereo
    I don't even know a single DAW supporting Wavepak natively. Whereas i can drag'n drop FLAC in Studio One and Ableton.

    So the answer is simple in my situation :wink:
     
  17. Andrew

    Andrew AudioSEX Maestro

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,003
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Between worlds
    REAPER :thumbsup: *yes*

    It's not that much about 32bit, but about floating-point vs LPCM. FP audio is boundless, e.g. no 0dB limit, which is great help in any audio chain, because even if one or more plugins overload the output, you can still render your track undistorted (for example at +8dB) and then normalize it and resave as 24bit LPCM
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - Anyone using Windows Forum Date
Anyone using latest Vital versions with windows 8? Software Sep 24, 2022
Anyone using IK Multimedia iLoud Micro Monitors? Soundgear Yesterday at 1:18 PM
Anyone using Plogue Bidule on OSX Software Nov 28, 2024
Anyone using Falcon with Crossgridder on MacOs Sequoia? Software Nov 6, 2024
Anyone using a Trackball instead of a Mouse ? PC Oct 12, 2024
Loading...