PDA

View Full Version : Confusion about squeezebox and formats



Howard Darwen
2004-09-08, 09:35
the space saving would be a bonus but personally i only get about 35% with
FLAC ... i am considering FLAC just for the tags.

i rip as separate files with gaps and the only way i have seen CUE sheets
work with this is the EAC proprietary format which needs WAVs. benefits are
that i can then burn tracks individually or create an exact copy of the
original CD ... and EAC does it all automagically. downside is no tags so i
encode the info in the file path ...

it actually would be very simple for me to convert to FLAC and import all
the tags from the path name ... only downside then would be that i'd have to
decode back to wav in order to burn the original CD, but i don't have to do
it so often to be honest ...

if squeeze had a native FLAC decoder i'd do it, right now i'm still
undecided ...

thx.

h.

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com]On Behalf Of Jeffrey
Gordon
Sent: 08 September 2004 00:17
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: [slim] Confusion about squeezebox and formats


Well besides saving 35% which can add up with large collections, you get
a nice tag format too. The WAV tagging that I did not even know was
possible, I am sure is more of a hack on and probably does not play well
with many players.

Also you can create CUE sheets with FLAC and encode as a single file per
ablum but then you run into tagging issues and rely on the CUE sheet
again. So if you are doing single file per album you do not gain too
much with FLAC.

Howard Darwen wrote:

>I know you didn't ask me, but I use the guess tags settings to extract tag
>info from the folder / filename structure. This can cause some problems
>(e.g. I just ran over the max. windows filepath length with 4 files because
>of all the tag info ... oooops). I was trying to stick to wavs because I
>didn't see the point of all the extra encoding to save about 35% of disc
>space (you can get a 500GB Lacie external disc for about ?300). Also, when
I
>rip a CD I save an EAC CUE sheet so that I can burn the CD again if I ever
>need to - and that only works with wavs.
>
>I also seem to recall that slim supports CUE sheets (but not the
proprietary
>EAC one), which would be another way of getting at least some of the
>metadata.
>
>Having said all that, I am considering moving to FLAC ...
>
>thx.
>
>H.
>
>

Jeffrey Gordon
2004-09-08, 09:58
I actually burn original CDs back from individual FLACs. All the CDs I
have done this way I have not noticed a difference, there may be some
gap issues but I am not too concerned about that. Honestly since going
to SB and having a portable mp3 player the only place I use CDs now is
in my car. And boy do I hate changing CDs in my car now, and I am not
keen on the mess of portable mp3 player through car stereo. Might have
to get a Phatbox one day.

Howard Darwen wrote:

> the space saving would be a bonus but personally i only get about 35% with
> FLAC ... i am considering FLAC just for the tags.
>
> i rip as separate files with gaps and the only way i have seen CUE sheets
> work with this is the EAC proprietary format which needs WAVs. benefits are
> that i can then burn tracks individually or create an exact copy of the
> original CD ... and EAC does it all automagically. downside is no tags so i
> encode the info in the file path ...
>
> it actually would be very simple for me to convert to FLAC and import all
> the tags from the path name ... only downside then would be that i'd have to
> decode back to wav in order to burn the original CD, but i don't have to do
> it so often to be honest ...
>
> if squeeze had a native FLAC decoder i'd do it, right now i'm still
> undecided ...
>
> thx.
>
> h.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
> [mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com]On Behalf Of Jeffrey
> Gordon
> Sent: 08 September 2004 00:17
> To: Slim Devices Discussion
> Subject: [slim] Confusion about squeezebox and formats
>
>
> Well besides saving 35% which can add up with large collections, you get
> a nice tag format too. The WAV tagging that I did not even know was
> possible, I am sure is more of a hack on and probably does not play well
> with many players.
>
> Also you can create CUE sheets with FLAC and encode as a single file per
> ablum but then you run into tagging issues and rely on the CUE sheet
> again. So if you are doing single file per album you do not gain too
> much with FLAC.
>
> Howard Darwen wrote:
>
>
>>I know you didn't ask me, but I use the guess tags settings to extract tag
>>info from the folder / filename structure. This can cause some problems
>>(e.g. I just ran over the max. windows filepath length with 4 files because
>>of all the tag info ... oooops). I was trying to stick to wavs because I
>>didn't see the point of all the extra encoding to save about 35% of disc
>>space (you can get a 500GB Lacie external disc for about ?300). Also, when
>
> I
>
>>rip a CD I save an EAC CUE sheet so that I can burn the CD again if I ever
>>need to - and that only works with wavs.
>>
>>I also seem to recall that slim supports CUE sheets (but not the
>
> proprietary
>
>>EAC one), which would be another way of getting at least some of the
>>metadata.
>>
>>Having said all that, I am considering moving to FLAC ...
>>
>>thx.
>>
>>H.
>>
>>
>
>
>

Daryle A. Tilroe
2004-09-08, 10:59
Howard Darwen wrote:

> the space saving would be a bonus but personally i only get about 35% with
> FLAC ... i am considering FLAC just for the tags.

You would probably do better than 35% with a large sample unless it is
all industrial 'noise' (in the technical not pejorative sense) music.

> i rip as separate files with gaps and the only way i have seen CUE sheets
> work with this is the EAC proprietary format which needs WAVs. benefits are
> that i can then burn tracks individually or create an exact copy of the
> original CD ... and EAC does it all automagically. downside is no tags so i
> encode the info in the file path ...
>
> it actually would be very simple for me to convert to FLAC and import all
> the tags from the path name ... only downside then would be that i'd have to
> decode back to wav in order to burn the original CD, but i don't have to do
> it so often to be honest ...

You know I hear people saying this is why they rip to 1 file/CD and have
cue sheets, etc. Can anyone really see themselves needing to duplicate
the original CD? I know there may be some gap issues on classical
music where the inter track gap needs to be imperceptible; but generally
I don't really understand why 1 file/song and putting the CDs away for
good is not standard operating procedure. Sure you may want a copy
for the road on CD or something but does it really need to be a bitwise
accurate copy of the original with all the exact gaps etc.?

--
Daryle A. Tilroe

alexd
2004-09-08, 11:06
On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 12:58 -0400, Jeffrey Gordon wrote:

> Honestly since going
> to SB and having a portable mp3 player the only place I use CDs now is
> in my car. And boy do I hate changing CDs in my car now, and I am not
> keen on the mess of portable mp3 player through car stereo. Might have
> to get a Phatbox one day.

Save your money, and get a head unit that can play MP3 CDs. I've got
one, and it rocks. Or alternatively, wait until a manufacturer releases
a head unit that can read a DVD full of MP3 files.

alexd
--
ale.cx