16 Nov
2007
16 Nov
'07
1:20 p.m.
plutek-infinity wrote:
Paul,
I felt that even a session-file was unnecessary.
Assuming a reasonable submission flux, as small as one per user over the
course of the entire project, all that's required is, for example:
frank_lead-guitar_11-20-2007.ogg.
Folks will see that next time they FTP in, and grab it - both to have a
more complete collection of tracks against which they will play, as well
as a guitar track to play against or to "beat" if they also are
interested in submitting their own concept of a lead part.
Others will submit fills, and if Dickie Betts climbs onboard - a
parallel harmony guitar track, etc. Of course, others will upload
keyboard parts, MIDI parts they outputted as an audio .ogg.
Again, everything everyone uploads will have been developed "against"
the tune as it stands at that point, so alignment/registration is not an
issue. Folks will open Audacity, for example, and import each track
they downloaded, and will have a "complete" tune to enhance or extend.
Heck, embrace even...
Low overhead, low maintenance, low complication, low bandwidth.
What say?
Frank
Date: Thu, 15
Nov 2007 20:44:02 -0500
From: Frank Pirrone <frankpirrone(a)gmail.com>
plutek-infinity wrote:
frank -- i take your point, absolutely. initially, i was unclear on how the substitution
of uncompressed tracks for compressed ones would be made, but i guess if there is a
standard naming convention or session file with timestamps, that will not be a problem.
when the suggestion of CcHost came up, i simply jumped on it as a way of getting the ball
rolling, and began to imagine worst case scenarios, not wanting to jump into something i
couldn't handle. upon sober reflection, a dead-simple repository of compressed tracks
with a clear file-naming and/or session-file protocol is killer -- lean and mean. i like
it.
let's continue the discussion tomorrow...
<snip>
i did some quick "back-of-an-envelope" figuring while riding around on the bus
today, and came up with this worst-case scenario (well... BEST-case, really.... he-he..):
assume 44.1kHz/32-bit - that's around 11MB/track/min
assume we want to produce a complete record (~60min) - that's about 2/3 GB per track
assume we're going 24 tracks deep - that's about 16GB
assume we need some headroom (text files, presets, screenshots, whatever) - call it 20GB
instead
assume we have 20 users, who ALL upload AND download EVERYTHING twice every week -
that's somewhat less than 4TB/mo
SO........
20GB storage
4TB/mo. bandwidth
<snip>
This is absolutely NOT the way to construct a song through on-line
collaboration. See my postings for an alternative detailed proposal.
They generated little comment, so I assume little interest, but this
magnitude of traffic and bandwidth is both whacked and needless.