7 more CDs to go! Only 7 more!

[Grasshopper27]

You should be able to get 500 CDs to fit on a 120GB hard drive without too much trouble, what does he need a bunch of computers for?

Hopper

 

[WileCoyote]

Originally posted by: kuk

Originally posted by: Eli
Why does everyone use LAME?

The Fraunhoffer codec is the best.

You're just asking for a cyberwedgie, aren't you?

i would stop there... there are hundreds and hundreds of pages of research done on this. i doubt anything said on this board will settle the debate once and for all.

MichaelD - i like the settings you used. i would have done 192kb CBR with fraunhoffer... but thats just me. i thought you made a good choice since audio quality was an issue, not size, and since you personally felt that 256 sounded better. kudos to going with what you personally felt and not what everyone else tells you is "best".

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: kuk

Originally posted by: Eli
Why does everyone use LAME?

The Fraunhoffer codec is the best.

You're just asking for a cyberwedgie, aren't you?

Ok? lol.. Maybe I'm a little out of date, but last time I cared.. the Fraunhoffer codec was considered the best.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: Eli
Why does everyone use LAME?

The Fraunhoffer codec is the best.

booo

although to me they are pretty much neck and neck, just used to lame

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: WileCoyote

Originally posted by: kuk

Originally posted by: Eli
Why does everyone use LAME?

The Fraunhoffer codec is the best.

You're just asking for a cyberwedgie, aren't you?

i would stop there... there are hundreds and hundreds of pages of research done on this. i doubt anything said on this board will settle the debate once and for all.

MichaelD - i like the settings you used. i would have done 192kb CBR with fraunhoffer... but thats just me. i thought you made a good choice since audio quality was an issue, not size, and since you personally felt that 256 sounded better. kudos to going with what you personally felt and not what everyone else tells you is "best".

Thanks. Space wasn't a concern. I wanted quality.

 

[tcsenter]

What is wrong w/CBR? That VBR stuff is dicey...

There is nothing wrong with CBR at higher bitrates like 256Kb, there is everything right about it, except for file size. That is the only trade-off, and its a small price to pay now-a-days with HDD storage going for about $1.25 per GB, and removable storage (CD-R) going for less than 50 CENTS per GB.

Many .MP3 ready CD/DVD decks and MP3 players choke on .VBR encoded files.

Why does everyone use LAME? The Fraunhoffer codec is the best.

If you can get your hands on a recent Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (FHG) codec without coughing up a few thousand dollars, the FHG is excellent. There were problems with earlier FHG codecs.

 

[HendrixFan]

CBR 256 MP3s with LAME should be good enough. There are VERY few songs that will reveal the limitations of such an encode. I do most music with VBR highest quality setting, and a few select cuts get Monkeys Audio lossless compression.

So, do you have all those MP3s backed up yet? If not, you better do it quick, you never know when a HD will munch your data. It took me 6 blank DVD-Rs to back up all my music!

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
CBR 256 MP3s with LAME should be good enough. There are VERY few songs that will reveal the limitations of such an encode. I do most music with VBR highest quality setting, and a few select cuts get Monkeys Audio lossless compression.

So, do you have all those MP3s backed up yet? If not, you better do it quick, you never know when a HD will munch your data. It took me 6 blank DVD-Rs to back up all my music!

Affirmative. I have them on two separate HDs. I JUST FINISHED the very last CD about 30 minutes ago. It's been a 5-month process; a little at a time. I guess I'll get them on CDR soon. Damn...that's a LOT of CDRs!!! Here we go again.

*edit*
Well, lesse here; 23GB on the nose....that's roughly 30 or so CDs. Still a lot. DVD-R is out of my reach right now.

 

[illusion88]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
So you say: "7 more until what, dumbass?"

And I say: "Only 7 more CDs to rip/encode and I will have ripped my entire CD collection to 256kbps stereo MP3's! Ahem, that would be approximately 280 CDs, give or take about 5. :Q

It has taken MONTHS...literally. EAC rips some CDs in five minutes flat, others take 30 minutes...you know how it goes. I'm not done yet (7 more!) but I'm figuring the total space will be right about 25GB.

*whew* What a project this has been. You know what comes next though; HT PC!!!!!

Start up an FTP! You can even put an upload quota on it... come on. For the team!

 

[Sid59]

nice job ..

150 cds in my collection .. EAC Secure + LAME 3.91 or 3.93 --alt-preset standard

- --r3mix is outdated .. Definitive Guide to HIGH QUALITY MUSIC

- Grasshopper27

"If quality is REALLY that imporant to you, why not consider the lossless compression that WMP9 offers?" ..

Since i don't plan on installing WiMP9, can ya tell me what LOSSLESS compression it uses?


I value my music collection and expect a high quality playback. So, why don't i have every copy of my cds in LOSSESS format? I don't have the BUCKS to pay for hard drive space, nor it's it very popular to share LOSSLESS Albums. The point of compressing music and especially high quality music is to have an INAUDIBLE difference to the ear when played back. For each person it is different.

If a person can't hear the difference between 192 and 256, think having a lossless files is hard drive efficient.


FhG vs LAME

one's free and opensource, the other isn't.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Good job -- and 256 CBR is a good quality setting, I wasn't happy with the 192 kbps I did during my first attempt at a jukebox.

This time I'm going a bit on the insane side, I just ripped my first CDs using EAC + FLAC lossless. 1.27 GB just for the 3-disc ZZ Top Sixpack, but the quality is sweet through my Sennheiser HD-490s. It will take about 1 GB per 3 CDs (the sixpack was 6 albums), but disk space does keep getting cheaper.

HTPC: if you want to do it reasonably cheap and quiet, Compgeeks has a $43 intel i815e mATX with AGP motherboard you could pair with a tualatin celeron (1.0A = $39 at mwave) and PC 100/ PC133 RAM.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Sid59
"If quality is REALLY that imporant to you, why not consider the lossless compression that WMP9 offers?" ..

Since i don't plan on installing WiMP9, can ya tell me what LOSSLESS compression it uses?

It uses its own format, Windows Media Audio. Since Windows is likely to be around for awhile...

In any case, because it is lossless you can always downconvert to MP3 or whatever without any generation loss...

I value my music collection and expect a high quality playback. So, why don't i have every copy of my cds in LOSSESS format? I don't have the BUCKS to pay for hard drive space

Fair enough, that was just a suggestion to MichaelD who wanted quality.

nor it's it very popular to share LOSSLESS Albums

Err, share with whom? One or three songs over the net to Aunt Elda is fine, but if you're swaping songs on-line, shame on you. I'll leave it at that however...

(yes, my 100 or so CDs are all legal)

The point of compressing music and especially high quality music is to have an INAUDIBLE difference to the ear when played back. For each person it is different.

Yep, that is why I went with the 128bp VBR setting in Windows Media Player 9, it is good enough and uses very little overall space.

FhG vs LAME

one's free and opensource, the other isn't.

In my experience, opensource is overrated. I have some older videos recorded back in my Windows 95 days in "open source" formats that didn't get updated CODECs for Windows XP and can no longer be played.

Of course that being said, MP3 isn't going anywhere.

Hopper

 

[notfred]

I ripped a couple CDs the other day with LAME and the -alt-preset extreme setting. They sound about the same as most of my other MP3s... I guess I don't have the speakers or the ear.

 

[tcsenter]

I ripped a couple CDs the other day with LAME and the -alt-preset extreme setting. They sound about the same as most of my other MP3s... I guess I don't have the speakers or the ear.

Pssst...have a little secret to tell you. Neither can 95% of self-proclaimed audiophiles, and of course everyone belongs to the other 5% with super-human auditory acuity that would make the blind envious.

Don't tell anyone.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

I ripped a couple CDs the other day with LAME and the -alt-preset extreme setting. They sound about the same as most of my other MP3s... I guess I don't have the speakers or the ear.

Pssst...have a little secret to tell you. Neither can 95% of self-proclaimed audiophiles, and of course everyone belongs to the other 5% with super-human auditory acuity that would make the blind envious.

Don't tell anyone.

I have often thought that people "hear" a difference because they want to hear a difference, because all that work is such that it would be silly to go to that much trouble otherwise.

Truth is, 95% is good enough for most people and odds are the speakers lack the quality anyway to let you hear the last 5%.

Hopper

 

[ElFenix]

does WMP9 read the CD multiple times to 1) see if it copied an error and 2) try to fix the error? only EAC does that, afaik. and EAC doesn't force you to agree to them doing whatever they want to your computer.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
does WMP9 read the CD multiple times to 1) see if it copied an error and 2) try to fix the error? only EAC does that, afaik. and EAC doesn't force you to agree to them doing whatever they want to your computer.

Bahh, Windows XP already has all that crap in their EULA. *shrug*

It can verify the CD if you ask it too, I personally turn that option off.

Since it simply digitally reads the data stream off the CD, it is either accurate or it isn't. *shrug*

Hopper

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

It uses its own format, Windows Media Audio. Since Windows is likely to be around for awhile...

In any case, because it is lossless you can always downconvert to MP3 or whatever without any generation loss...

Thanks, should read up on that. No wonder i didn't find much info on WMA lossless.

Err, share with whom? One or three songs over the net to Aunt Elda is fine, but if you're swaping songs on-line, shame on you. I'll leave it at that however...

(yes, my 100 or so CDs are all legal)

My 150 CDS are all legal as well. Thanks for condecending but that wasn't what we were talking about. But since you dropped it, we can look at stats on why people get broadband, why CD burners spiked, and so forth.

In my experience, opensource is overrated. I have some older videos recorded back in my Windows 95 days in "open source" formats that didn't get updated CODECs for Windows XP and can no longer be played.

Of course that being said, MP3 isn't going anywhere.

Hopper

True. But FhG cost money to license. LAME doesn't. LAME adheres to mp3 decoder STANDARDS. So, when windows XP + 7 years down the road. All you need is a mp3 player. I agree, MP3 is like a roach.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Sid59
Thanks, should read up on that. No wonder i didn't find much info on WMA lossless.

At the least, it is better than storing it in WAV format uncompressed.

My 150 CDS are all legal as well. Thanks for condecending but that wasn't what we were talking about.

Hey, I didn't bring up sharing.

*shrug*

But since you dropped it, we can look at stats on why people get broadband, why CD burners spiked, and so forth.
P0rn?

I have it mostly because web pages come up a lot faster, no dialing up, and so I can download updates and patches quickly.

True. But FhG cost money to license. LAME doesn't. LAME adheres to mp3 decoder STANDARDS. So, when windows XP + 7 years down the road. All you need is a mp3 player. I agree, MP3 is like a roach.

Yes, 10 years from now I'm sure MP3 will be one of those formats still useable.

Hopper

 

[0roo0roo]

fraunhoffer(sp) was the best.. in like 1997~ haha

not anymore


but yea, space isn't all that big anymore. we have 200GB drives now. imagine what we'll have in a year or two.

remember how much u used to think was a HUGE amount of space just a few years ago.

i still have some 4gb drives lying around, and even a 815mb that still works! 50+GB for mp3 alone now is nothing.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
That isn't K++ I see hiding in your tray there, is it?

Let's hope the RIAA doesn't decide to knock on your door anytime soon.

- M4H

Ahahahahahahah!!!!!! That's funny. There's a reason why I don't use IM. There's a reason why I don't use Kazza, Morpheus or any of that crap. It leaves you wide open for a lot of baaad things.

I own the CD for 99% of every MP3 I have.

280 CDs, let's say 10 songs per CD, makes 2800 songs, all turned into mp3.

2800 = 99% of your total number of mp3s, so you still have 28 illegal songs on your PC, almost 3 CDs!

Mr. RIAA, someone stole 3 CDs of music here!

 

[BurnItDwn]

In the old days DAC would rip at 1x or 2x if you had a fast drive (this is back in the days of 8x cdrom drives). Than it would take 12 hours to encode a CD with l3enc at 128kbit. woo Fun

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
In the old days DAC would rip at 1x or 2x if you had a fast drive (this is back in the days of 8x cdrom drives). Than it would take 12 hours to encode a CD with l3enc at 128kbit. woo Fun

ugh, sounds painful

 

[neomits]

yea I did that over the summer. Took me like2 months.


Now you gotta start and do this (yes thats done one by one individually)