1  |   Order by index

Jul 10, 2002, 7:29pm

I was just poking around with a compression format that im doing that
reduces any repeated strings in binary strings to tags. I just removed about
200kb from a MP3 with no loss of quallity or data, no jumps or skips or any
differnt whatsoever. Strange little Mp3s... anyone know why if you remove
the repear chr(0) strings from EXEs it screwes em up beyond repear (Without
the unpacker) but mp3s are fine?

- Mark

Jul 10, 2002, 7:59pm

One's an executable and the other is just data would be my guess.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 10, 2002, 8:27pm

Mp3's are sound....you can remove certain notes and the human ear wont tell
the difference...A lot of people automaticly make them very high quality
when they sound just as good if they were lower but they think it will sound
better. Lower quality removes certain notes so the lower it is the more you
will notice. I personally wouldn't go any higher then CD quality though.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
A message from Zeo Toxion
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[View Quote]

Jul 10, 2002, 9:39pm

:) Sell that little compression scheme to Fraunhoffer or whoever owns the
rights to the mp3 codec. After you copyright it of course.

SW Chris

[View Quote]

Jul 10, 2002, 10:44pm

Uhh... removing an entire note would change the sound significantly... :)

-Agent1

[View Quote]

Jul 10, 2002, 10:45pm

How big was the original file?

-Agent1

[View Quote]

Jul 11, 2002, 1:39am

You know what i meant....

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
A message from Zeo Toxion
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[View Quote]

Jul 11, 2002, 11:05am

"strike rapier" <strike at rapiercom.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
news:3d2ca72d at server1.Activeworlds.com:

> I was just poking around with a compression format that im doing that
> reduces any repeated strings in binary strings to tags. I just removed
> about 200kb from a MP3 with no loss of quallity or data, no jumps or
> skips or any differnt whatsoever. Strange little Mp3s... anyone know
> why if you remove the repear chr(0) strings from EXEs it screwes em up
> beyond repear (Without the unpacker) but mp3s are fine?

It's because NULL has a meaning in executeables and if you remove it you
corrupt the executeable.

KAH

Jul 11, 2002, 9:45pm

If you want to compact executable files, I recommend "The Ultimate
Packer for eXecutables" at http://upx.sourceforge.net (real example: I
managed to squeeze that silly 2MB xelagot to a whopping 703KB).

You should note EXE compacters don't work on any of AW's stuff because
they are protected.

On 10 Jul 2002 17:29:17 -0400, "strike rapier"
[View Quote] >I was just poking around with a compression format that im doing that
>reduces any repeated strings in binary strings to tags. I just removed about
>200kb from a MP3 with no loss of quallity or data, no jumps or skips or any
>differnt whatsoever. Strange little Mp3s... anyone know why if you remove
>the repear chr(0) strings from EXEs it screwes em up beyond repear (Without
>the unpacker) but mp3s are fine?
>
>- Mark
>
>

- TonyM.
"The only time Microsoft will ever make something that doesn't suck is when Microsoft makes a vacuum cleaner."

Jul 12, 2002, 10:27pm

I hope XeLaG didnt hear that :)

Jul 12, 2002, 11:14pm

i hope he does :) xelagots run just fine compacted, so why waste the
2MB of space when it can be only ~700KB. not to mention it'd decrease
the download size

On 12 Jul 2002 20:27:12 -0400, "strike rapier"
[View Quote] >I hope XeLaG didnt hear that :)
>
>

- TonyM.
"The only time Microsoft will ever make something that doesn't suck is when Microsoft makes a vacuum cleaner."

Jul 13, 2002, 8:17am

"silly 2MB xelagot" heh, tis far from silly

Jul 13, 2002, 10:43am

Well...... Tony HAS a point..... though I'm amazed that any program could compress something THAT
much..... Pretty cool..... sure would save the poor dial-up folks a LOT of download time for bots
and other big files.....

JB

Jul 13, 2002, 12:46pm

Its ZIPed anyway, maybe compressing the EXE as well would be effective

Jul 13, 2002, 9:22pm

Usually ZIPping files that already (lossless) compressed
will result in larger instead of smaller ZIP archives, as
they contain less repeating character sequences.

In the compressed EXE files there is not only the original
EXE file part, but also some decompression code in the
stub, that is executed to decompress the file in memory.
As the original EXE part (that is actually data for the
decompress stub in this case) cannot be compressed as much
as before, and there is some more information ("tree")
needed for the LZ algorithm plus the stub itself, an
archive containing this might even bloat the ZIP file
quite much.

[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index