How much space do MP3s take up on your hard disk?

[StattlichPassat]

Ok, size-wise, how many do you have? I've got 20.5GB.

 

[GhettoFob]

I'm approaching 90 cdrs worth, I currently have about 20 gigs on my harddrive.

 

[SWScorch]

10.1GB

 

[mk]

~ 35 GB of music on the HD's (including ~ 5GB mp3's).

 

[SWirth86]

3.72 GB, but still transferring MP3's from my CD collection.

 

[ElFenix]

theres no 15 to 20 space

 

[aphex]

bout 21 gigs on my laptop...

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
theres no 15 to 20 space

u obviously dont exist then

 

[MichaelD]

Wow. You guys must have really compressed MP3's. I have almost a gigabyte taken up and only have about 9 CDs worth on there. 256kbps. Sounds as good as a CD. On my FTP.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Wow. You guys must have really compressed MP3's. I have almost a gigabyte taken up and only have about 9 CDs worth on there. 256kbps. Sounds as good as a CD. On my FTP.

whachoo talkin about?

--r3mix baby

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Wow. You guys must have really compressed MP3's. I have almost a gigabyte taken up and only have about 9 CDs worth on there. 256kbps. Sounds as good as a CD. On my FTP.

whachoo talkin about?

--r3mix baby

I'm new to the MP3 scene (I know, I know "where have you been for the past 5 years?" Under a rock, actually. Isn't that r3mix thing like, recommended settings or something? Or is that the "variable compression thing" where LAME picks the best rate for that frame of music and adjusts it accordingly?

 

[Nefrodite]

another self incrimination thread!!

NightflyerGTI better known as AgentX from the RIAA. soon you'll hear the sound of black copters and jackboots

 

[Thegonagle]

I recently deleted everything encoded in 128, so now I'm only "worth" about 1.5 G's in this thread.

 

[luv2chill]

<gulp> 200GB and counting--all full albums... USENET just makes it way too easy.

l2c

 

[Danman]

I have only 8 gigs...

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Wow. You guys must have really compressed MP3's. I have almost a gigabyte taken up and only have about 9 CDs worth on there. 256kbps. Sounds as good as a CD. On my FTP.

whachoo talkin about?

--r3mix baby

I'm new to the MP3 scene (I know, I know "where have you been for the past 5 years?" Under a rock, actually. Isn't that r3mix thing like, recommended settings or something? Or is that the "variable compression thing" where LAME picks the best rate for that frame of music and adjusts it accordingly?

--alt-preset standard

is the new well.. standard hehe. it chooses the best VBR setting, so no need to use r3mix setting. the new setting seems to make files a little bit larger on average. probably averages out to 192kbs or so

 

[StattlichPassat]

Originally posted by: Nefrodite
another self incrimination thread!!

NightflyerGTI better known as AgentX from the RIAA. soon you'll hear the sound of black copters and jackboots

Bah! You blew my cover! Alright all you thieving bastards! Hands behind your backs!
<Roscoe P. Coltrane>Goooood goood goood! 'Cuff 'em an stuff 'em, Cletus!</Roscoe P. Coltrane>

 

[mk]

Slightly OT:

--r3mix baby

--r3mix is not a recommended LAME setting. It hasn't been for ~8 months. The "current recommended settings" have been fixed for that time and there's not likely to be any major changes anymore.
LAME was still in heavy development late last year but after the stable version was released the pace has been much slower as there isn't much left to be done (mostly some minor tweaks only).

The "--alt-presets" cover pretty much all normal needs; in addition to being a collection of adaptive presets (instead of just commandlines) they incorporate some beneficial code level modifications that can't be duplicated with any command line.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Mk4
Slightly OT:

--r3mix baby

--r3mix is not a recommended LAME setting. It hasn't been for ~8 months. The "current recommended settings" have been fixed for that time and there's not likely to be any major changes anymore.
LAME was still in heavy development late last year but after the stable version was released the pace has been much slower as there isn't much left to be done (mostly some minor tweaks only).

The "--alt-presets" cover pretty much all normal needs; in addition to being a collection of adaptive presets (instead of just commandlines) they incorporate some beneficial code level modifications that can't be duplicated with any command line.

1)does it sound better?
2)is it smaller?

the problem with --r3mix is that it allows encoding higher than 256... which is completely pointless. i know, i know, i could probably do that myself when passing the line... bleh

 

[Darein]

13.5 gigs here.

 

[Dedpuhl]

83 gigs

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Mk4
Slightly OT:

--r3mix baby

--r3mix is not a recommended LAME setting. It hasn't been for ~8 months. The "current recommended settings" have been fixed for that time and there's not likely to be any major changes anymore.
LAME was still in heavy development late last year but after the stable version was released the pace has been much slower as there isn't much left to be done (mostly some minor tweaks only).

The "--alt-presets" cover pretty much all normal needs; in addition to being a collection of adaptive presets (instead of just commandlines) they incorporate some beneficial code level modifications that can't be duplicated with any command line.

1)does it sound better?
2)is it smaller?

the problem with --r3mix is that it allows encoding higher than 256... which is completely pointless. i know, i know, i could probably do that myself when passing the line... bleh

i would assume so, it uses new settings not in r3mix. at standard mode, that alt preset thing he said it generally comes out with slightly larger files even though it changes settings based on input file. no reason to use r3mix anymore.

i'm too lazy to find a link to tests

 

[mk]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
1)does it sound better?
2)is it smaller?

the problem with --r3mix is that it allows encoding higher than 256... which is completely pointless. i know, i know, i could probably do that myself when passing the line... bleh

1) Yes.
2) Yes and no. "--r3mix" bloats on some (mostly bosy rock/metal/electronic stuff) and goes too low on some acoustic/symphonic (?) material. "--alt-preset standard" is more stable regarding bitrate and sound quality but is a little bigger on average (190-200 kbps) over a wide range of music.

The best way (and the only one recommended by it's creator) to reduce the bitrate of "--a-p s" is by using the "-Y" switch (as in "--alt-preset standard -Y" ). See discussion about the subject in r3mix.net and Hydrogen Audio.


Using higher bitrates than 256 (i.e. 320) is sometimes (=very often) necessary because of the limitations of the mp3 format.
Some other formats are capable of producing the same or higher quality with lower bit rates.

 

[ElFenix]

a german mag lined up some audiophiles with $10,000 headphone sets and did double blind CD and 256bit CBR mp3s, and the couldn't tell the difference. but i'll give these a go anyway.

 

[notfred]

4.86 GB (5,224,923,643 bytes)