View Full Version : Confusion about squeezebox and formats

Howard Darwen
2004-09-08, 11:38
i get compression ratios between 6x% and 7x% when i use FLAC using encoding
level 5. on average i recon it's about 35%. sometimes the compression ratio
gets into the low seventies, have never seen it go below 60% but it has got
close on a couple of occasions. the music is mainly house stuff with lots of
4/4 beats ...

on the ripping CDs stuff ... i rip them and store them in a cupboard
hopefully never to be seen again. i rip to multiple files (not a single
file) ... and use CUE sheets so that i can burn the CD exactly if i ever
need to (for archiving - i have had several old CDs go bad on me). it's then
a doddle to burn an exact copy just by opening the CUE sheet ... it's really
very, very easy to do ... and the CUE sheet is generated automatically ...
so why not??? it's easier than dragging / selecting the separate files into
the burning app. and it works particularly well on mix CDs which have no
inter-track gap - yet most burning apps will try to put in a default 2
second one.



-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com]On Behalf Of Daryle A.
Sent: 08 September 2004 19:00
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: [slim] Confusion about squeezebox and formats

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
> 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
> 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
> decode back to wav in order to burn the original CD, but i don't have to
> 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