gnatnoop Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Why didn't you buy another disk drive? Disk is so cheap there is no reason to store music in a lossy compressed format. You can get a terabyte for about $120 now! and on sale, maybe as low as $70 - $75, best buy right now has one for $64.99, externals about $10 more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnatnoop Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 i put mine on an external 1tb drive. last week bought another 1tb drive and copied the music folder from one external to the other, took a long time, lol, but i didn't have to babysit it. i think it took over 4 hours, both drives were usb connections.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 The problem is Tagging. That is probably the reason I don't understand the fuss. I've never messed with tagging and I manage all my music on a home file server and have done so for over a decade. My CD track info and such all come from freedb and it always works well. Everything shows up fine on my VLC or whatever media players and so I just don't have a problem that needs solving. My two main systems both have direct PC access and my other systems are served via an FM transmitter I built. Much cheaper than the other solutions so far and my wife likes the simplicity of just tuning 102.5 rather than having to deal with the distribution device du jour. I appreciate the info, as I was truly puzzled. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cut-Throat Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 That is probably the reason I don't understand the fuss. I've never messed with tagging You will. Then you will end up re-ripping your entire library. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I started tagging all my FLACs with album cover pictures now that I have a Squeezebox Touch. It is nice for my wife when she is wondering "what the heck is that you are listening to?!" No problem with wav files... if you have or create a .m3u or a .cue file you can easily convert an album to .flac, .mp3 or whatever you want. No need to re-rip. I wouldn't get rid of any format you already have. I wind up with multiple copies of the same music in all kinds of formats because I never delete anything (hardly). I just saw some 2 TB external hard drives for sale at $85 somewhere... make as many backups as you want at that price! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I should add that there is an application called "Burrrn" that will read your .m3u file, decode your flac files, and burn a new CD all in one step. Pretty slick but you do have to wait just a little bit for it to convert the flac files before it burns the CD. I just don't have a reason to do this very often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrod Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Quick question: Is WAV the only lossless version available on itunes without getting some sort of addtional software? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cut-Throat Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Quick question: Is WAV the only lossless version available on itunes without getting some sort of addtional software? I don't use itunes, but I would guess that AIFF is supported. It is lossless and it is an Apple format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigCliff Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Here is some more info on this subject could be interesting for some. http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/22/24.bit.music/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironsave Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 In regards to quality; I would say 50% of my music is in 320 kbs format; and another 40% in FLAC. Anything less than 320 kbs and the sound quality difference is definitely noticable. 320 to me is still acceptable; depends on how the album was originally recorded. (Most older stuff I have in FLAC). I currently have 1 250 GB external that serves as my (music only) backup. I have a 1 TB external that is my active; and a 500GB internal on the main PC that can be used in case my 1 TB is not available. I have about 450 Gigs of music (The most important ones stored on the 250 GB backup; worst case scenario; etc).. The rest are Blu Ray rips and computer files/ programs; etc. It is crazy to think how many albums and songs I have; I remember my Dad's vinyl racks...... I probably have a hundred times more music...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cut-Throat Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 In regards to quality; I would say 50% of my music is in 320 kbs format; and another 40% in FLAC. Anything less than 320 kbs and the sound quality difference is definitely noticable. 320 to me is still acceptable; depends on how the album was originally recorded. Since this is an Audiophile forum and disk is cheap. Why would you want any music that has a lossy format? It has been compressed and is gone forever on your computer files. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 In regards to quality; I would say 50% of my music is in 320 kbs format; and another 40% in FLAC. Anything less than 320 kbs and the sound quality difference is definitely noticable. 320 to me is still acceptable; depends on how the album was originally recorded. Since this is an Audiophile forum and disk is cheap. Why would you want any music that has a lossy format? It has been compressed and is gone forever on your computer files. Wife's Ipod... just a little 2 GB version. She is happier the more I can fit on there. When she is happy, I am happy! [Y] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cut-Throat Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Wife's Ipod... just a little 2 GB version. She is happier the more I can fit on there. When she is happy, I am happy! Yes, that makes perfect sense. But not on your Archieved Server. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Wife's Ipod... just a little 2 GB version. She is happier the more I can fit on there. When she is happy, I am happy! Yes, that makes perfect sense. But not on your Archieved Server. Oh, OK... I see what you mean. It IS a good idea to keep my lossless stuff separate from the compressed junk. I don't care so much if my wife accidently deletes "her" .mp3 files. Yet another reason to maintain backups as well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironsave Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 In regards to quality; I would say 50% of my music is in 320 kbs format; and another 40% in FLAC. Anything less than 320 kbs and the sound quality difference is definitely noticable. 320 to me is still acceptable; depends on how the album was originally recorded. Since this is an Audiophile forum and disk is cheap. Why would you want any music that has a lossy format? It has been compressed and is gone forever on your computer files. No offense; But last I checked this is the Klipsch Forum, not the "Klipsch Audiophile Forum".... I do not claim to be an audiophile. I think that word itself opens a can of worms; and can easily be linked to double standards. As I stated; most of my music is 320 kbs or better. Most new items I add are FLAC. Most of the older stuff that can not be found is 320 kbs. Most of the older stuff that is still available is also FLAC. That is good enough for me.....[H] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 I do not claim to be an audiophile. I think that word itself opens a can of worms; and can easily be linked to double standards.No doubt! I used to consider myself an audiophile; not so much anymore. I actually fit the strict definition, but I've encountered so much non-sensical bs from the audiophile community that I'd rather be called an a/v enthusiast, or a Methodist...anything other than an audiophile!ps: no offense to any actual Methodists, practicing or otherwise. Some of my best friends are Methodists.[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.