Reducing final Mastered file size.

OK, I've run out of ideas. When exporting a mastered file into .wav, (44.1 kHz 16 bit two channel), my output file is huge. Roughly 50 meg. I'm sure the export captures the entire shootin' match (plugins, channel strip, et al) but i know the all purchased media, per song, is around 5-6 meg. Can anyone share with me how this is accomplished without loss to overall sound quality and mix-master settings? Thanks for checking this out...

A 16 bit stereo audio recording at 44.1 should be about 10.1 MB per minute.  Your plugins etc aren't going to have anything to do with size of the wav file and I'm not sure what you mean when you say that all your purchased media is only around 5 to 6 MB.

Gz, thanks for your response. Do you have any thoughts or knowledge of how to get it to the 5.6 meg size? I guess i'm most curious because all songs on a purchased CD (within reason) are much smaller, so i'm wondering if i'm doing something wrong, or even missing out on a more proper file export/save procedure....

thanks Flip. So, in an effort to continue learning and improving my skills with mixing/mastering, since I am a musician first, hack producer/tech 9th (and that's being generous)...should I be converting my final .wav file out to mp3? and if so, can producer 8.5 do that for me? Also, you mentioned a new terminology to me, "Perceptual Encoding". Is this possibly something way out of my league? or should I be practicing it when "polishing" my finished songs as a standard? thanks again for your time.....

chrisdan


Do you have any thoughts or knowledge of how to get it to the 5.6 meg size? I guess i'm most curious because all songs on a purchased CD (within reason) are much smaller, s

No way.  That would be only about 30 seconds per song.  Are you looking at the cda file on a commercial CD?   That isn't the recorded material.  Just an indexing pointer for a red book compliant playback machine to be able to find the actual audio recording's stop and start points.  If you rip the CD to wav files you will find that they are much larger than you are suggesting.

OK. Dave, Keith, I appreciate the knowledge. I never knew that face value (size) was not the actual full file size on a CD bought from the local store. With that in mind, I guess I'm not doing anything wrong. My file output is beginning to sound much better as a result of practice, reading and you guys here.. oh, and a bit of help (more than a bit) from T-Racks 3, Ozone and Waves SSL... thanks all for your responses....

Simple math a 3 min WAVE file is around 30 MB
the same song rendered to a 128 kbps = 3 MB.
at 320 Kbps would be about 8 kbps.

The mistake of ripping CD's and thinking they are the same quality is common. I had a friend who was copying his collection by converting them then burning them and couldn't figure out why they sounded bad. I showed him that you could simplify "copy" the CD to attain the same quality as the original.

Can anyone share with me how this is accomplished without loss to overall sound quality and mix-master settings?
FLAC is what you want. It stands for free lossless audio codec.
FLAC is similar to MP3 format, but the the audio is compressed without losing any sound quality. Its similar to how a zip file works, but FLAC will compress is better because FLAC was designed for audio.
 
No one can tell you how to mix or master, so your 2nd part of your question is unanswerable. Each song will need different techniques/processes done to it. Your ears will tell you what settings you need.
Cj
 

should I be converting my final .wav file out to mp3? and if so, can producer 8.5 do that for me? 

Big subject, but I'll try to capsulize it.

If your music is destined for a CD, it must be 44.1/16 uncompressed waves. That's just the standard for CDs (the "Red Book" standard, as it's called).

If your music is going to be distributed over the internet, you will want to create MP3 files. It's not the only option, but it's the most widely used and can therefore be considered a de facto "standard".

Wave files represent the native format for Windows. If you are going to load your exported song into some other program (such as an audio editor, for example), or load it back into another SONAR project, then you'll want to keep it in the wave format. Only convert to MP3 when it's going to be distributed over the internet.

You have to use some program to convert wave files into MP3s. The most popular one is called LAME. It's popular for three reasons: 1) it's free, 2) it's pretty good, and 3) it's free.

You can use LAME by itself to convert an existing wave, or you can configure SONAR so that it runs LAME from within your DAW. That's mostly just a convenience, and isn't necessary. In fact, you lose some of LAME's functionality when you do it that way.

There is an MP3 encoder that ships with SONAR, but after 30 days it refuses to run and you have to pay extra to unlock it.  That's why most folks use LAME, which, as I may have mentioned previously, is free.

Also, you mentioned a new terminology to me, "Perceptual Encoding". Is this possibly something way out of my league? or should I be practicing it when "polishing" my finished songs as a standard?

Perceptual encoding is what LAME and other lossy encoders do. It's a very complex topic that'll make your head spin if you dig into it deeply. (I'd recommend Ken Pohlmann's book "Principles of Digital Audio" for anyone who is enough of a masochist to dive in.) For most recordists, they're content with the basic block diagram: a) start the encoder --> b) magic happens --> c) out pops a much smaller file.

From the standpoint of the audio engineer, the only real concern when creating music for MP3 distribution is leaving plenty of headroom in your master - at least 1db, preferably 2 or 3db. There are a few other esoteric things, but that's the main consideration.

 I've never seen the point of Flac

Johnny, you never seeing the point in sometihng doesnt mean the poster has the same opinion. Flac doesnt reduce soudn quality and MP3 do!
He said he doesnt want loss of soudn quality. Have you read that?
Cj

Year, I know, but hes asking for something that doesn't degrade sound quality. The poster can google it and find out more about it.

Yea, MP3 at 320 bitrate rock!! but most host wont use a 320 bitrate mp3, unless you pay
 
The poster asked for something specific and I gave it to him (no sound quality loss)

still to big for fast downloads on the net.

I deal with downloads every day of audio files. A 16/44 bit wave files downloads just as fast as an MP3. Maybe a 5 second difference.
If you cant get a fast download of a wave file, you wont get one in an MP3. Time for a new PC
Cj

A 16/44 bit wave files downloads just as fast as an MP3.

Man, I want your internet connection!

I also believe that a 320 MP3 is more than good enough for 90% of listeners

90% is too conservative. In a blind ABX, I'd be surprised if 1% could reliably identify which file was the 320kb/s MP3 and which was the 44.1/16 wave. When I did this test myself, not only could I not hear any difference, I could not objectively measure any difference either.

I know, it seems counterintuitive. I was reluctant to believe it myself. How is it even possible to remove 88% of the data and not tell the difference? Turns out we don't hear as much as we'd like to think.

Bit - did you do a null test on it? Would be interesting. How about a 256K?