Re: MP3 question
- From: jrsnfld <jrsnfld@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 27, 8:45 pm, TareeDawg <rayto...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
jrsnfld wrote:
On Mar 27, 1:44 pm, TareeDawg <rayto...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
jrsnfld wrote:
On Mar 27, 1:16 pm, O <ow...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:For the sake of a few extra dollars, owing the relative inexpensiveness
In articleI consider the highest mp3 rate (320kb/s) to be perfectly adequate for
<1a323e0f-4867-41f9-9635-3f8658860...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
jrsnfld <jrsn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:11 am, Jerry Bank <bankce...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:There are several ways to rip at the highest bitrate possible, which
I have about 2000 cds, which are housed in 10 JVC 200 disc changers. IQuite feasible.
fear that the changers are showing their age and beginning to act
erratically.
I am thinking of doing the following. I would rip all the cds and store
them on an external hard drive. An inexpensive laptop would be in my
bedroom, where the cds are listened to, and the hard drive would be
attached to the laptop. I imagine that with proper cabling I could
attach the laptop to my receiver and listen that way.
Does that sound feasible, or am I missing something?
With 2000 cds, you're looking at a project that'll take you the better
part of a year if you rip 10 cds a day (which is a tedious chore).
Better to do it now than to wait until you have even more cds.
If you do rip to mp3, do it at the highest bitrate possible.
would be any lossless format. It is best to have some (lossless)
compression, just to halve the size of the collection. Either FLAC or
Apple Lossless would be fine.
-Owen
listening on a decent stereo system, and of course that yields smaller
files than FLACs. For the size collection we're talking about,
however, the hard disc space saved by using mp3s is trivial, so it
seems sensible to just go ahead and use lossless compression. If the
original poster had 20 or 30,000 discs, one might give pause...on the
other hand, nobody with a private collection that big is insane enough
to try to rip everything!
--Jeff
of HD storage, I'd archive (if I was mad enough to try) using .flac
files and be done with it. And reassured into the bargain.
Ray (Dawg) Hall, Taree
With flacs, you get around 3 hours of music per gigabyte, or around
3,000 hours in a Terrabyte drive. With mp3s at 320, you get 7 hours of
the same basic sound quality per gig, or 7,000 hours in a Terrabyte
drive. So for a collection of 20,000 hours of music, for instance, you
need to spend at least $1,400 on 14 drives. With mp3s, you only need
to spend $600 for 6 drives (one always has to buy enough drives to
back up at least once). So, one might argue that the $800 difference
is nothing, or something....
--Jeff
OK, $800 is certainly a nice tidy sum, but if worked out, the maths
reckons about *4 cents extra per hour of music*, which if able to be
decided upon at the beginning wouldn't deter most people. Depends on how
one is prepared to look at it, or is situated.
Ray (Dawg) Hall, Taree
Unfortunately many of us are situated at the wrong end...or at least
midstream, in my case--or at least, so I hope!
--Jeff
.
- References:
- MP3 question
- From: Jerry Bank
- Re: MP3 question
- From: jrsnfld
- Re: MP3 question
- From: O
- Re: MP3 question
- From: jrsnfld
- Re: MP3 question
- From: TareeDawg
- Re: MP3 question
- From: jrsnfld
- Re: MP3 question
- From: TareeDawg
- MP3 question
- Prev by Date: Re: MP3 question
- Next by Date: Re: First Haydn, then Schubert?
- Previous by thread: Re: MP3 question
- Next by thread: Re: MP3 question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|