Audio jukebox

[kidchino05]

Has anyone here bought a huge hard drive, and used lossless audio compression (I'm thinking FLAC, but perhaps something else) and made their entire CD collection available for random access? I've got about 250 CDs, and it seems like a conservative estimate would be 500 megs a CD, compressed. That means a 200 gig drive would hold about 500 CDs. So it's quite doable.

I'm just wondering if people have any experience with this: Software players, indexing software, etc etc etc (cuz ideally you'd have something that'd extract, compress, and download cover art/track info and stick it in a database someplace)

Thoughts? Feelings?

 

[DaveSimmons]

I've ripped most of my CDs (about 1,000) to a music server box in FLAC format, and space used is actually only around 300 MB per CD.

I used Exact Audio Copy + FLAC, my music server only has a tualatin celeron 1.3 so rip/encode time was around 10 minutes per CD.

With EAC the sequence was:
1. open tray
2. insert disc, close tray
3. EAC does freeDB lookup of CD and displays track listing (takes 2-5 seconds)
4. Fix author name if you want it in standard form like "Last, First" *
5. Click "MP3" button to trigger rip-in-encode
6. Save As dialog opens, you can now create the sub-folder to place tracks in, I organized mine as (genre) \ (artist ) \ (album ) e.g. pop > Mann Aimee > I'm With Stupid
7. Wait 8-9 minutes and drive tray pops open
8. Scan EAC log to see if any unrecoverable errors

* fix tagging: you can also use dbPowerAmp's mass tagging plugin and have that "refresh" your tags based on your folder tree once everything is done.

Also, be sure to buy a second hard drive to copy it all so you only do this once. I did a manual copy instead of RAID, and keep the copy drives boxed in the closet so they're safe even if my server power supply explodes.

PS - it's sweet being able to _find_ CDs (on my server) without hunting all over the apartment, and having them in FLAC format meant I could batch transcode to my choice of mp3 bitrate (192 kbps) when I later bought a Zen Xtra portable, with the exact same quality as if I'd ripped fresh from CDs.

 

[kidchino05]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
I've ripped most of my CDs (about 1,000) to a music server box in FLAC format, and space used is actually only around 300 MB per CD.

I used Exact Audio Copy + FLAC, my music server only has a tualatin celeron 1.3 so rip/encode time was around 10 minutes per CD.

With EAC the sequence was:
1. open tray
2. insert disc, close tray
3. EAC does freeDB lookup of CD and displays track listing (takes 2-5 seconds)
4. Fix author name if you want it in standard form like "Last, First" *
5. Click "MP3" button to trigger rip-in-encode
6. Save As dialog opens, you can now create the sub-folder to place tracks in, I organized mine as (genre) \ (artist ) \ (album ) e.g. pop > Mann Aimee > I'm With Stupid
7. Wait 8-9 minutes and drive tray pops open
8. Scan EAC log to see if any unrecoverable errors

* fix tagging: you can also use dbPowerAmp's mass tagging plugin and have that "refresh" your tags based on your folder tree once everything is done.

Also, be sure to buy a second hard drive to copy it all so you only do this once. I did a manual copy instead of RAID, and keep the copy drives boxed in the closet so they're safe even if my server power supply explodes.

PS - it's sweet being able to _find_ CDs (on my server) without hunting all over the apartment, and having them in FLAC format meant I could batch transcode to my choice of mp3 bitrate (192 kbps) when I later bought a Zen Xtra portable, with the exact same quality as if I'd ripped fresh from CDs.

Thank you SO much for this info. I may be in contact with you soon once I figure out what/how many sort of HDs I want to buy and how I want to get this all done. Here's another stupid question:

Have you looked at controlling this thing with a Palm Pilot?

 

[chuckywang]

I don't get it....what's wrong with mp3s, people?

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: chuckywang
I don't get it....what's wrong with mp3s, people?

Some people just want true cd-quality sound, I guess.

For my computer, FLAC is what I use..but for my DAP, I find that 320mp3 is just fine.

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: chuckywang
I don't get it....what's wrong with mp3s, people?

Some people just want true cd-quality sound, I guess.

For my computer, FLAC is what I use..but for my DAP, I find that 320mp3 is just fine.

Yeah, but nobody can tell the difference between 320kbps and 160kbps.

 

[kidchino05]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: chuckywang
I don't get it....what's wrong with mp3s, people?

Some people just want true cd-quality sound, I guess.

For my computer, FLAC is what I use..but for my DAP, I find that 320mp3 is just fine.

Yeah, but nobody can tell the difference between 320kbps and 160kbps.

Uh, I respectfully disagree. If you've got a nice stereo system, with nice speakers, and you've purchased CDs, why lose fidelity if hard drive space is so cheap? But if you think it doesn't make any sense, then don't do it! :-D

 

[imported_ArtVandalay]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: chuckywang
I don't get it....what's wrong with mp3s, people?

Some people just want true cd-quality sound, I guess.

For my computer, FLAC is what I use..but for my DAP, I find that 320mp3 is just fine.

Yeah, but nobody can tell the difference between 320kbps and 160kbps.

The difference is quite noticeable, actually much moreso than the differrence between 320kbps and flac. May I ask what speakers/headphones and source(s) you use, that you feel confident making such a statement?

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: ArtVandalay

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: chuckywang
I don't get it....what's wrong with mp3s, people?

Some people just want true cd-quality sound, I guess.

For my computer, FLAC is what I use..but for my DAP, I find that 320mp3 is just fine.

Yeah, but nobody can tell the difference between 320kbps and 160kbps.

The difference is quite noticeable, actually much moreso than the differrence between 320kbps and flac. May I ask what speakers/headphones and source(s) you use, that you feel confident making such a statement?

Yeah...even on my cheap sens the difference is quite noticable, not to mention on my stereo system.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: chuckywang
I don't get it....what's wrong with mp3s, people?

Some people just want true cd-quality sound, I guess.

For my computer, FLAC is what I use..but for my DAP, I find that 320mp3 is just fine.

Yeah, but nobody can tell the difference between 320kbps and 160kbps.

Thats a joke right? sarcasm?

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: ArtVandalay

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: chuckywang
I don't get it....what's wrong with mp3s, people?

Some people just want true cd-quality sound, I guess.

For my computer, FLAC is what I use..but for my DAP, I find that 320mp3 is just fine.

Yeah, but nobody can tell the difference between 320kbps and 160kbps.

The difference is quite noticeable, actually much moreso than the differrence between 320kbps and flac. May I ask what speakers/headphones and source(s) you use, that you feel confident making such a statement?

I haven't been testing this, but I have Logitech Z-5300's and Shure e2c's. I've heard that mp3s just cut off parts of the lossless that you can't hear. Can you provide links to actual scientific studies that shows that people can tell the difference? I mean, I've read tons of stuff where people say they could tell the difference, but I don't know if they are biased in their views.

 

[imported_ArtVandalay]

Originally posted by: chuckywang
Yeah, but nobody can tell the difference between 320kbps and 160kbps.

I have Creative Z-5300's and Shure e2c's.

Ahhh, and your source, Mr. Audiophile?

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: ArtVandalay

Originally posted by: chuckywang
Yeah, but nobody can tell the difference between 320kbps and 160kbps.

I have Creative Z-5300's and Shure e2c's.

Ahhh, and your source, Mr. Audiophile?

Audigy2 Platinum.

EDIT: Grr...I know they are Logitech's...I guess I was just merging my source and my speakers, or else I had Creatives on my mind since I was just reading about X-Fi.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: ArtVandalay

Originally posted by: chuckywang
Yeah, but nobody can tell the difference between 320kbps and 160kbps.

I have Creative Z-5300's and Shure e2c's.

Ahhh, and your source, Mr. Audiophile?

Audigy2 Platinum.

EDIT: Grr...I know they are Logitech's...I guess I was just merging my source and my speakers, or else I had Creatives on my mind since I was just reading about X-Fi.

lol

 

[imported_ArtVandalay]

Sorry to break it to you, but the only one of those which won't make a sound enthusiast laugh are the E2cs. Audigys resample everything going through them - the $25 Chaintech av710 sounds better for music (they do have their benefits for games, however), and Logitechs are renowned for their boomy subs. Their best satellites don't even have tweeters ffs. While the Shures sound great considering their price and their portability, $65 doesn't even remotely approach audiophile grade in the headphone world, which starts at about $200-$250 - and those are models which don't sacrifice sound quality for size and a closed design. Frankly, it's no wonder you can't hear the difference. You probably listen to badly recorded nu-metal as well, which just exacerbates the problem.

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: ArtVandalay
Sorry to break it to you, but the only one of those which won't make a sound enthusiast laugh are the E2cs. Audigys resample everything going through them - the $25 Chaintech av710 sounds better for music (they do have their benefits for games, however), and Logitechs are renowned for their boomy subs. Their best satellites don't even have tweeters ffs. While the Shures sound great considering their price and their portability, $65 doesn't even remotely approach audiophile grade in the headphone world, which starts at about $200-$250 - and those are models which don't sacrifice sound quality for size and a closed design. Frankly, it's no wonder you can't hear the difference. You probably listen to badly recorded nu-metal as well, which just exacerbates the problem.

So what are your components?

 

[imported_ArtVandalay]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: ArtVandalay
Sorry to break it to you, but the only one of those which won't make a sound enthusiast laugh are the E2cs. Audigys resample everything going through them - the $25 Chaintech av710 sounds better for music (they do have their benefits for games, however), and Logitechs are renowned for their boomy subs. Their best satellites don't even have tweeters ffs. While the Shures sound great considering their price and their portability, $65 doesn't even remotely approach audiophile grade in the headphone world, which starts at about $200-$250 - and those are models which don't sacrifice sound quality for size and a closed design. Frankly, it's no wonder you can't hear the difference. You probably listen to badly recorded nu-metal as well, which just exacerbates the problem.

So what are your components?

Just an av710 -> grado sr60s. I have mm speakers, 5.1 gigaworks, but don't use them for critical listening since the cans are so much better. Like you, I'm more focused on budget than sound quality. Like anyone, I'm always learning and sometimes make bad or unnecessary purchases. If I could go back, I'd have a decent set of 2/2.1s, probably Swans m200s or Klipsch PMUs, and possibly an M-Audio Revolution.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: kidchino05
Have you looked at controlling this thing with a Palm Pilot?

I use foobar2000 for playback, but I haven't gotten around to looking at remote control options (or writing my own, but that would be for WindowsCE PDAs since I have a Dell Axim).

Some other "cast" software can be controlled with a browser, but I haven't looked into that either.

The forums at www.hydrogenaudio.org should have good posts and links, but be sure to do your own homework (search, read) before posting, they aren't kind to n00b reposts.