Convert to SHN? [Archive] - The Traders' Den

showtaper

2010-12-26, 08:41 PM

I've been trying to make some of my masters into SHN. However, I can't seem to find anything that will let me do this. Can any of you guys point me in the right direction?

About 10 seconds with yahoo......

http://www.softlist.net/program/shorten__32-bit_-download.html
http://www.files32.com/Shorten--32-bit--i54893.asp
http://www.etree.org/shnutils/shntool/

Teembo

2010-12-26, 09:11 PM

Why would you want to? Go with FLAC instead. Much better choice, IMHO. Also, I'm not sure that SHNs allow tags but FLAC does.

rspencer

2010-12-26, 09:12 PM

Traders Little Helper will do it. But why would you want to?

FLAC compresses better, is now more widespread, no reason to use a dying compression scheme. It was great for its time, but FLAC is now more of the standard. Lots of people are even converting old SHN shows to FLAC.

tonebloke

2010-12-27, 12:14 AM

Go with Flac.

What would you rather drive: A 2010 Porsche Boxter OR a 1925 Ford Model T ?????

PG1Tapes

2010-12-27, 10:19 AM

rspencer

2010-12-27, 11:34 AM

Under encoding options, use the drop-down menu to choose the format.

PG1Tapes

2010-12-27, 11:57 AM

Under encoding options, use the drop-down menu to choose the format.

I don't see SHN there...

Igemo75

2010-12-27, 12:25 PM

Why would you want to? Go with FLAC instead. Much better choice, IMHO. Also, I'm not sure that SHNs allow tags but FLAC does.

Plus you'll make Mac users happy. SHN's are a pain with Mac computers... Imo it's a dead format...

Unidecker

2010-12-27, 12:26 PM

flac is best shn is old hat.... good luck

AAR.oner

2010-12-27, 12:31 PM

add yer wavs into the window you posted above for TLH, choose FLAC, choose the output directory, click Encode button

then go to the Checksum tab in TLH, add yer flac files you just created to the window,
select the st5 checksum option, and create the checksum

PG1Tapes

2010-12-27, 12:55 PM

flac is best shn is old hat.... good luck

That's what everyone's been saying. I just wanted to screw around with some different file formats is all.

rspencer

2010-12-27, 01:28 PM

I don't see SHN there...

You must have a different version. I have 2.6.0 (Build 168), and it includes SHN and APE as well as FLAC and MP3.

PG1Tapes

2010-12-27, 01:57 PM

You must have a different version. I have 2.6.0 (Build 168), and it includes SHN and APE as well as FLAC and MP3.

That's exactly the version I have!

JGH1

2010-12-27, 05:12 PM

Plus you'll make Mac users happy. SHN's are a pain with Mac computers... Imo it's a dead format...

I've never had problems with SHN files unless they were corrupted....I never owned a PC, only Mac.

cicada

2010-12-27, 07:25 PM

hmm - I just checked my TLH (2.4.1-build 160). When I load WAV's, it gives me a choice of APE, FLAC, SHN or MP3. So the option is always there. MKWACT is still up at Etree if you want something just for shn - here is the wiki page... http://www.etree.org/mkw.html.

Most of the stuff being produced these days is done via FLAC because the developer has ceased working on the software for shorten (if my memory is correct). But, there is no harm done, either way.

dcbullet

2010-12-28, 10:52 AM

Quit trying to use SHN and use flac like everyone is recommending.

PG1Tapes

2010-12-28, 11:16 AM

Quit trying to use SHN and use flac like everyone is recommending.

whatever.

dcbullet

2010-12-28, 01:40 PM

It's amazing how quickly you've established yourself as a fucking idiot.

PG1Tapes

2010-12-28, 02:13 PM

It's amazing how quickly you've established yourself as a fucking idiot.

Well, excuse me for wanting to try to make SHNs...and hell, maybe APEs. Yeah, FLAC is great. I was just curious for fuck sake!

Homebrew101

2010-12-28, 02:54 PM

Well, excuse me for wanting to try to make SHNs...and hell, maybe APEs. Yeah, FLAC is great. I was just curious for fuck sake!

I know Fuck and he prefers FLAC also! :wave:

PG1Tapes

2010-12-28, 03:09 PM

I know Fuck and he prefers FLAC also! :wave:

haha. Point taken....but why is FLAC so much better?

dcbullet

2010-12-28, 05:14 PM

There are several explanations in this very thread and you can research the others.

daddyray

2010-12-28, 05:17 PM

mp3 rules!

PG1Tapes

2010-12-28, 07:27 PM

mp3 rules!
lol...NO.

tonebloke

2010-12-28, 11:45 PM

It's amazing how quickly you've established yourself as a fucking idiot.

:lol4::lol4::lol4:

Scott

2010-12-29, 05:37 PM

With hard drives going for cheap - 3tb for under $150, I'll stick with wav files. I would guess that eventually bandwidth will increase so eventually FLAC will disappear? Storage is just to cheap these days to mess with converting files.

dcbullet

2010-12-29, 07:00 PM

Can you tag wav files in the same way you tag flac? I didn't thinks so. Maybe I'm wrong.

sysoverload

2010-12-29, 07:15 PM

today's computers are so fast that encoding to FLAC only takes a minute. space may be cheap, but it's not free, and on any given drive if one can get a 30-50% more space with no quality penalty and minimal encoding time, it'd be foolish not to imo. then there's bandwidth issues. not everyone has the top tier package. getting the show faster and using less b/w to do it is smarter.

Igemo75

2010-12-30, 09:24 AM

AAR.oner

2010-12-30, 09:37 AM

Well I play FLAC files with vlc player. I can re-EQ them any way I want.

When I stumble on a torrent made with SNH files I have to dig out Mac Amp Lite X, a software created around 2000. No EQ possibility, the interface is SO nightmarish it must hve been designed by a Microsoft guy. Aw, this blue bar stuck to the top of my monitor... uuuurggggh!

So PLEASE no more SHN files Wanna add pollution to an already polluted world? :D
you can use Cog to play pretty much any format ya run across:
http://cogx.org/

shn is an outdated compression format, no doubt about that...but i'm not really interested in spending days on end converting the shn sets i have to flac

PG1Tapes

2010-12-30, 03:16 PM

you can use Cog to play pretty much any format ya run across:
http://cogx.org/

shn is an outdated compression format, no doubt about that...but i'm not really interested in spending days on end converting the shn sets i have to flac

Theres a SHN plugin for WinAmp. Which has a nice little EQ at the bottom.

AAR.oner

2010-12-30, 06:50 PM

yes it does...however the guy i was answering is running a Mac, as do i...no winamp on the OSX platform ;)

Scott

2010-12-31, 12:07 AM

Can you tag wav files in the same way you tag flac? I didn't thinks so. Maybe I'm wrong.

Thats the drawback of .wav. But for me, not a big deal. I run the files using Pure Music (http://www.channld.com/puremusic/) as the player, which uses itunes as a database only. I can input what the info I need and utilize the data base to sort. Also, by using.wav, it's a work around itunes not being able to play FLAC. Although the upcoming update of Pure Music will support FLAC.

dcbullet

2010-12-31, 01:19 AM

Thats the drawback of .wav. But for me, not a big deal. I run the files using Pure Music (http://www.channld.com/puremusic/) as the player, which uses itunes as a database only. I can input what the info I need and utilize the data base to sort. Also, by using.wav, it's a work around itunes not being able to play FLAC. Although the upcoming update of Pure Music will support FLAC.

Is this like a Mac thing? Because I want to be able to play my music with whatever device I choose, and get the artist, album, song title, etc.

AAR.oner

2010-12-31, 09:46 AM

Thats the drawback of .wav. But for me, not a big deal. I run the files using Pure Music (http://www.channld.com/puremusic/) as the player, which uses itunes as a database only. I can input what the info I need and utilize the data base to sort. Also, by using.wav, it's a work around itunes not being able to play FLAC. Although the upcoming update of Pure Music will support FLAC.

whats the plus's to this Pure Music player, as opposed to just using Cog?

Scott

2010-12-31, 11:33 AM

Is this like a Mac thing? Because I want to be able to play my music with whatever device I choose, and get the artist, album, song title, etc.

Not really a "Mac" thing. Probably works on a PC - I don't know. Pure Music is the engine utilizing itunes as only a database. And yes, I can query on artist, album, etc utilizing the database.

dcbullet

2010-12-31, 11:39 AM

What about when I put the wavs on an mp3 player?

Scott

2010-12-31, 11:41 AM

whats the plus's to this Pure Music player, as opposed to just using Cog?

The plus for me is that I can play hi-res audio 16/44, 24/96. 32/192, and Pure Music will auto switch my DAC to the proper kHz. I no longer have to switch the Midi settings, shut down itunes, reopen itunes, in order for itunes to recognize the higher bit rates. COG is a basic engine that works, but I find it to be a bit kludgy and shuts down for no apparent reason. for me, Cog does not provide much in the way of sorting files. If I have 44kHz files mixed with 96kHz, with itunes, I can sort them out.

iTunes really is not the best music engine when playing higher resolution files. It works well, but with an engine like Pure Music or Amarra handling the jitter than is so normal with digital files, the sound upgrade is noticeable. Not in an EQ way, but with depth and a better sound stage.

IMO anyway.

Scott

2010-12-31, 11:47 AM

What about when I put the wavs on an mp3 player?

No idea. I know I can't play wav files on my iphone, BUT, there is a FLAC player app for the iphone that works well.

dcbullet

2010-12-31, 12:18 PM

What about when I put the wavs on an mp3 player?

No idea. I know I can't play wav files on my iphone, BUT, there is a FLAC player app for the iphone that works well.

Right, that's what I'm saying. This is why I don't think wav is a good choice.

Scott

2010-12-31, 01:05 PM

Ah, I see.

Well, if I want to listen to music on my iphone, chances are it's through ear buds or a headphone. Quality probably is not as important as if I'm listening to my home system.

dcbullet

2010-12-31, 01:43 PM

Well, you are right about that. However, we've already established in this discussion that file size isn't an issue. Therefore, I think it is more ideal to keep the music collection in one format that all devices can use rather than having the same music in multiple file formats.
Posted via Mobile Device

Scott

2010-12-31, 02:28 PM

Yep, based on that, FLAC is the better file.

AAR.oner

2010-12-31, 04:56 PM

The plus for me is that I can play hi-res audio 16/44, 24/96. 32/192, and Pure Music will auto switch my DAC to the proper kHz. I no longer have to switch the Midi settings, shut down itunes, reopen itunes, in order for itunes to recognize the higher bit rates. COG is a basic engine that works, but I find it to be a bit kludgy and shuts down for no apparent reason. for me, Cog does not provide much in the way of sorting files. If I have 44kHz files mixed with 96kHz, with itunes, I can sort them out.

iTunes really is not the best music engine when playing higher resolution files. It works well, but with an engine like Pure Music or Amarra handling the jitter than is so normal with digital files, the sound upgrade is noticeable. Not in an EQ way, but with depth and a better sound stage.

IMO anyway.

right on, i didn't really read about Pure Music when asking, was thinkin more along the lines of a basic flac player, not 24/96>up files...readin the site now, sounds like an interesting little engine :thumbsup

cooltheglobe

2010-12-31, 05:43 PM

YES, go with the FLAC, kids! Very much more actively-supported.. and the F stands for FREE as in freedom from proprietary madness, a la Linux and BSD which is where you'll find yourself after studying computers for decades.
An interesting sidenote-- I discovered, buried in the manual for one of my cheap-o Sylvania mp3players that I'd grabbed at BigLots, that it plays .ape files! Lossless compression support, completely unadvertised! So I went and got the required wares (pretty much only for Winbloze, but I dualboot anyways, and from Linux run the commandline version from scripts utilising "wine".)
... the most recent update to the sw is dated, but it works great and get this.... THE BEST compression of any lossless format! Maybe you dont think its a big deal, but it all adds up-- especially on a cheesy 4G player. Transcoded fast, too-- faster than flac I think. Doubt the support for scanning around in the file while playing on computer is there, though.. havent tested it much yet.

ps my impression was always that SHN originated from the Mac world. (Maybe back in the 680x0 days??) The main thing for me is.. .flac can get dragged directly into k3b (the top-notch linux burning program) and on-the-fly crank out your discs at top speed.. no creating wav files on your poor, overworked HD (which if its like mine is nearly full anyway!) No .shn plugin for k3b. There's one for Nero, but it's way, way slower than the .flac one!

Happy NYE

scb

2011-01-09, 11:05 AM

my impression was always that SHN originated from the Mac world.

Wrong. Shorten was initially UNIX and DOS.

paddington

2011-01-09, 11:12 AM

I know Fuck and he prefers FLAC also! :wave:

haha. Point taken....but why is FLAC so much better?

because it results in smaller files which will keep your pathetic ratio from getting quite as bad as it will if you keep downloading SHN files?

chinajoe

2011-01-10, 11:06 PM

please go with the shn format. insist on trading shows in the shn by using these reclics. only you can make it happen. bring back old school.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cvZRpnpzzaw/SIgPVBjW4pI/AAAAAAAACHM/1nt84v5WzF0/s200/Maxell_UR90-thumb.jpg

http://www.simplyeighties.com/resources/736px-Commodore-Datassette.jpg?timestamp=1283364804324