Slashdot Mirror
Best Practices for a Lossless Music Archive?
Sparagmei asks: "I'm a big music fan, and I like listening to the music I own on various pieces of digital gear. Right now, my library's at about 20,000 tracks, ripped from CDs to MP3 at 256kbps (enough that I can't tell the difference on my low-end playback gear). However, with the MP3 judgement rippling through the world, I'm interested in perhaps moving to a different compression standard. Before I do that, I'd like to ask a question: what lossless format would you recommend for making a digital 'master library' that could be (relatively) easily down-sampled to a compressed format?"
Important factors would be true losslessness, filesize (smaller than PCM WAV would be nice), embedded metadata (ID3v2-like), existence of automated ripper software, and (to a lesser extent) an open-source implementation of such software. Widespread playback implementation of the lossless codec is not an issue for me; the lossless library would likely be burned to archival DVD media and stored after being down-sampling with the chosen compressor. The reason I ask is this: I've got a 20,000-track re-ripping job ahead of me. I'd like to do that just once, lossless, so that years from now, when I decide to jump from Vorbis to 'komprezzor_2039_1337' or whatever, I don't need to drag out the old plastic discs. Thanks!"
The Free Lossless Audio Codec sounds perfect for you.
:-) Both hardware and software support.
(all answers below are quoted from wikipedia's FLAC page).
Important factors would be true losslessness,
A digital recording (such as a CD) encoded to FLAC maintains the quality of the audio perfectly.
filesize (smaller than PCM WAV would be nice),
Audio sources encoded to FLAC are typically reduced in size 40 to 50 percent.
embedded metadata (ID3v2-like),
with support for tagging, cover art and fast seeking.
existence of automated ripper software,
Yup, lots.
and (to a lesser extent) an open-source implementation of such software.
See above.
Widespread playback implementation of the lossless codec is not an issue for me
Well, bad luck, you're going to get it anyway
Also, consider SHN, (although it seems superceded). I'll also mentiuon wave pack - because it uses an interesting approach (splitting the file into a small lossy standalone & a lost bits diff). don't bother with Apple's lossless format - it's going nowhere.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I made the mistake of ripping my small collection to MP3 (some to MP3pro...please stop laughing) the first time. I made it about 1/2 way though the 300 or so CDs I have before I realized that I wan't happy with the format (could hear artifacts) and knew I wanted a lossless that I could transcode to the format du jour.
I went with FLAC, and ripped 'em all. I'm using media monkey as a filing system, and am transcoding as necessary for portable apps. I'm without media server at the moment, so I can't help with streaming and such, though I'm going to be interested to see what others are doing.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Bearing in mind that you're not going to save that much file size using lossless storage, and that you already have an "archive" of CDs in a box in your basement (or wherever), is it really worth the hassle of creating another lossless copy that'll take up even more space?
If you're planning on re-converting from these lossless copies, it sounds like you're going to be doing a *lot* of work based on some second-guessing of where you'll be in 5 years time; and things may have changed then.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Since FLAC was already mentioned, I'll just suggest you try Monkey's Audio. It's lossless, usually compresses better than FLAC, the source is available (not sure what license though), supports tags, and basically does everything you want. It's probably not as widespread as FLAC, but that shouldn't be a problem in your case.
FLAC doesn't compress the absolute best of the alternatives, but it's 'good enough' and is widely supported, even directly on some portable devices. You won't wake up one day to find out that FLAC support has all but disappeared because the original developer lost interest (since the source is out there, unlike many alternatives). You will also be able to trivially transcode FLAC to Vorbis with meta-data intact, and do it FAST. (not a unique property, but well supported with FLAC/oggenc2).
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Don't use FLAK or some other monkey sound formats. Go with a real standard, like Windows Lossless, or
Apple Lossless, they just sound sooo much better. But you do need high end Bose equipment and gold
plated Monster cables to really bring out the warmer and fuller mid-range and the increased bass response.
Forgot to mention that you'll probably want to go to hydrogenaudio instead of /. for these sorts of questions.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Oh, and see the comparison.
He couldn't see the sarcasm because his monitor isn't using monster cables.
Yes, I agree with the parent. Use those most excellent formats for storing your music or else use PKZIP for MS-DOS and then copy the ZIP file to a IOMEGA ZIP drive for safekeeping
Everybody sit down. Did you see the line about Monster cables and Bose?
Parent was trying to be funny. He wasn't, but don't go off the deep end.
Overrated is more appropriate, though Troll probably will be the choice of the Mac fanbois for the Apple Lossless dig he included.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Use of the term "best practices" indicates that you've already assumed that whatever you're doing is wrong, and that whatever someone else tells you to do is right.
"Best practices" is to IT what the "zero tolerance" concept is to schools - no questioning, no thought required, simply doing whatever the current meme dictates.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Anyone know of any other great sounding devices that rip, convert, and burn?
Dozens of manufacturers have a device that can do that. I believe they're called 'computers'.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Seriously. What's the point? What are you trying to accomplish? You can't hear the difference at 256kps lossy versus lossless, so why waste you're life converting your already lossess music archive from CD form to harddrive form? It's not like you're going to be transcoding all that often, if at all. I encoded my entire CD collect 7 years ago as 320kbps constant MP3. I'm thinking about re-encoding it, because there's no point in having the files that big. 256kbps variable mp3 is would probably still be more than enough. And if you think that someday you can transcode to something higher than 320kbps, I doubt you'll be able to tell the difference if that ever happens, because your hearing naturally gets worse over time.
Futhermore, if you think Alcatel-Lucent v Microsoft is going to change anything, you're delusional. MP3 is going to stay. Just like how LZW patent did nothing to GIF. No one is going to abandon MP3, because the public isn't going to buy a device that can't play their MP3 collection. Nothing will change, and FLAC and Ogg will remain forever an asterisk.
I have an old 400 disc CD changer from Sony, and as cool as the thing was at the time, I haven't used it to listen to music in years. When you can store that much music completely uncompressed on a $150 hard drive, it just doesn't really make sense anymore.
Not to mention how you can't take it with you, like you can with an MP3 player, etc.
Oggify was designed to handle flac to mp3 or ogg conversion in bulk, while preserving the tags. I've been happy with it (not that I'm biased or anything), and so have a number of other people. It's open source, free, and in Perl.
You should try it.
I believe it is only possible to have the same rip twice under windows using EAC.
Please read the documentation for EAC. You may be surprised to find that EAC was written because the author wanted a Windows port for the Linux program 'cdparanoia'. EAC's entire goal is to mimic the pre-existing Linux program 'cdparanoia' in its bit-for-bit redundant checking and matching.
There are decent frontends for cdparanoia if you don't want to run it via command line. GRip happens to be excellent. But please check what you are saying before you say it; few things are more annoying than having someone announce "Oh you can't do X in Linux, you can only use Windows program Y" when, in fact, Windows program Y was developed to give Windows users the chance to use a superior program that was already established in Linux.