PDA

View Full Version : Ripping CD collection flac - no way!



Jim Willsher
2004-04-28, 03:37
Hi All,

A few days ago I posted questions here about re-ripping my CD collection. Well, I did a trial last night. Even on maximum compression, most CDs dropped from (average) 550 Mb to (average) 370 Mb. Yes it was fast, and yes the quality is obviously perfect, but I just don't have that space! I have a RAID-protected capacity of 160Gb, so I'd struggle to get more than a couple of hundred albums on there.

Shame. I was all excited about flac, but I just don't have the space to store all my files in that format. Instead I'm re-ripping to MP3 as stereo, 44.1, 320kbps, high quality. CDs are taking nearer to 100Mb to store, which is much more manageable. I can't tell the difference between the mp3 and the original, and it's all being played on good kit (Arcam, with QED Silver anniversary cable and MS-901 speakers).

Just thought I'd post this, in case somebody else was in the same dilemma as me. Yes it's great to be able to rip to flac, but the compression just isn't quite good enough for my own needs, not without investing heavily in new storage.



Jim

Jeffrey Gordon
2004-04-28, 03:53
Well the big thing that FLAC give you is not so much quality but knowing
you will NEVER have to re-rip again. Since there is no loss in quality
you suffer no loss for transcoding beyond what you have with whatever
format you transcode to. This is a pretty neat thing. With harddrives
so cheap I would look to try and find the space. I saw 160GB drives for
$109 without any rebates.

Jim Willsher wrote:

>Hi All,
>
>A few days ago I posted questions here about re-ripping my CD collection. Well, I did a trial last night. Even on maximum compression, most CDs dropped from (average) 550 Mb to (average) 370 Mb. Yes it was fast, and yes the quality is obviously perfect, but I just don't have that space! I have a RAID-protected capacity of 160Gb, so I'd struggle to get more than a couple of hundred albums on there.
>
>Shame. I was all excited about flac, but I just don't have the space to store all my files in that format. Instead I'm re-ripping to MP3 as stereo, 44.1, 320kbps, high quality. CDs are taking nearer to 100Mb to store, which is much more manageable. I can't tell the difference between the mp3 and the original, and it's all being played on good kit (Arcam, with QED Silver anniversary cable and MS-901 speakers).
>
>Just thought I'd post this, in case somebody else was in the same dilemma as me. Yes it's great to be able to rip to flac, but the compression just isn't quite good enough for my own needs, not without investing heavily in new storage.
>
>
>
>Jim
>

Mark Bennett
2004-04-28, 11:05
I've got to agree with Jeffrey. The outlay of $100 compared to
several weeks of evenings spent ripping is a false economy.
Soon hard disks will get even cheaper.

In fact I'm likely to buy a spare disk just to mirror my music
in case I get a disk crash. I don't think I can face doing it
all again.

Jeffrey Gordon wrote:

> Well the big thing that FLAC give you is not so much quality but knowing
> you will NEVER have to re-rip again. Since there is no loss in quality
> you suffer no loss for transcoding beyond what you have with whatever
> format you transcode to. This is a pretty neat thing. With harddrives
> so cheap I would look to try and find the space. I saw 160GB drives for
> $109 without any rebates.
>
> Jim Willsher wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> A few days ago I posted questions here about re-ripping my CD
>> collection. Well, I did a trial last night. Even on maximum
>> compression, most CDs dropped from (average) 550 Mb to (average) 370
>> Mb. Yes it was fast, and yes the quality is obviously perfect, but I
>> just don't have that space! I have a RAID-protected capacity of 160Gb,
>> so I'd struggle to get more than a couple of hundred albums on there.
>>
>> Shame. I was all excited about flac, but I just don't have the space
>> to store all my files in that format. Instead I'm re-ripping to MP3 as
>> stereo, 44.1, 320kbps, high quality. CDs are taking nearer to 100Mb to
>> store, which is much more manageable. I can't tell the difference
>> between the mp3 and the original, and it's all being played on good
>> kit (Arcam, with QED Silver anniversary cable and MS-901 speakers).
>>
>> Just thought I'd post this, in case somebody else was in the same
>> dilemma as me. Yes it's great to be able to rip to flac, but the
>> compression just isn't quite good enough for my own needs, not without
>> investing heavily in new storage.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim
>>

Daryle A. Tilroe
2004-04-28, 12:28
Jim Willsher wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> A few days ago I posted questions here about re-ripping
> my CD collection. Well, I did a trial last night. Even on
> maximum compression, most CDs dropped from (average) 550 Mb
> to (average) 370 Mb. Yes it was fast, and yes the quality
> is obviously perfect, but I just don't have that space! I
> have a RAID-protected capacity of 160Gb, so I'd struggle to
> get more than a couple of hundred albums on there.

You should get a lot closer to 55% compression than the 67%
you reported. Of course if your music is largely noise it
will be worse ;-). My average is around 3 CD/GB.

http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html

> Shame. I was all excited about flac, but I just don't have
> the space to store all my files in that format. Instead I'm
> re-ripping to MP3 as stereo, 44.1, 320kbps, high quality. CDs
> are taking nearer to 100Mb to store, which is much more
> manageable. I can't tell the difference between the mp3 and
> the original, and it's all being played on good kit (Arcam,
> with QED Silver anniversary cable and MS-901 speakers).
>
> Just thought I'd post this, in case somebody else was in the
> same dilemma as me. Yes it's great to be able to rip to flac,
> but the compression just isn't quite good enough for my own
> needs, not without investing heavily in new storage.

Well if you are ripping you entire CD collection the time
invested far outweighs the storage cost (~$.75/GB), which
is also dropping all the time. I think it would be a waste
of your time to rip in anything other than FLAC or WAV.
Transcoding is also a big concern. With FLAC you can
transcode to any size MP3 without generational loss. In
other words FLAC -> 128 MP3 will give you a better sound
than 320 MP3 -> 128 MP3. Basically I think lossy for
anything other than transmission bandwidth or portable
storage limitations is ill advised.

--
Daryle A. Tilroe

Daryle A. Tilroe
2004-04-28, 12:31
Mark Bennett wrote:

> In fact I'm likely to buy a spare disk just to mirror my music
> in case I get a disk crash. I don't think I can face doing it
> all again.

Did that right off the bat. Bought two 200GB HDD for $300
and use http://www.techsoftpl.com/backup/index.htm to sync them
up once a night.

--
Daryle A. Tilroe

Jeff Blasius
2004-04-28, 13:10
I have a few pointers along these lines...

1. Everyone should know about http://www.pricewatch.com if they're
purchasing hardware.

2. $0.5/GB
Seagate 200GB / 7200 / 8MB
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?sourceid=qDToQI6eH8qcAcHW9n8H&siteid=0029480694&sku=THD-200A2%20P&afsrc=1

3. If you're running linux, backing up remotely or locally is great with
this
http://rdiff-backup.stanford.edu
Incremental rsync/ssh backups (and of course it's free!)

-jeff




Daryle A. Tilroe wrote:

> Mark Bennett wrote:
>
>> In fact I'm likely to buy a spare disk just to mirror my music
>> in case I get a disk crash. I don't think I can face doing it
>> all again.
>
>
> Did that right off the bat. Bought two 200GB HDD for $300
> and use http://www.techsoftpl.com/backup/index.htm to sync them
> up once a night.
>

Jason Holtzapple
2004-04-28, 13:42
You don't need any of this fancy schmancy stuff to do cold
backups. Just run a script like this from cron every night
(modified for your setup, of course)

#!/bin/sh
/sbin/mount /dev/wd1e /backup && \
/usr/pkg/bin/rsync -avx --delete /export/ /backup && \
/sbin/umount /backup

root crontab:

0 3 * * * /home/slimp3/tools/backup.sh 2>&1 | mailx -s "`/bin/hostname` rsync output" email (AT) domain (DOT) com

--Jason

Jeff Blasius wrote:
> 3. If you're running linux, backing up remotely or locally is great with
> this
> http://rdiff-backup.stanford.edu
> Incremental rsync/ssh backups (and of course it's free!)
>
> -jeff
>
>
>
>
> Daryle A. Tilroe wrote:
>
>> Mark Bennett wrote:
>>
>>> In fact I'm likely to buy a spare disk just to mirror my music
>>> in case I get a disk crash. I don't think I can face doing it
>>> all again.
>>
>>
>>
>> Did that right off the bat. Bought two 200GB HDD for $300
>> and use http://www.techsoftpl.com/backup/index.htm to sync them
>> up once a night.

Daryle A. Tilroe
2004-04-28, 13:47
Jeff Blasius wrote:

> 2. $0.5/GB

Yeah, I should mention that the $0.75/GB was months ago and
included shipping and tax.

--
Daryle A. Tilroe