You're correct that disc IDs are based upon the number and duration of the tracks on the disc. Ideally, CD->FLAC->CD should produce a binary-exact copy of the original CD that produces the same result from CDDB/freeDB.
However, due to slight variances in CD/DVD drives, it can be tough to produce an exact copy - most rippers will produce a copy that comes back as an "inexact match" in CDDB.
The only ripper I'm aware of that can produce binary-exact copies is Exact Audio Copy, and that's only using secure mode and after you determine your drive's offset value. There used to be an online tutorial on calculating the offset value; it's no longer there, but can still be found in the Internet Archive.
Sorry if I sound a little cynical, but 20+ years of failed copy protection schemes in the PC gaming world leads me to believe that content providers will never give up with these asinine DRM schemes...
This is somewhat off-topic, but I've found Audacity to be a reasonably good successor to CoolEdit - and since it's open source, you can't beat the price.
Perhaps they were talking about an mp3-compressed CD? At 128Kbps, audio is about a meg a minute, so we'd be talking about 60 megs, which would take about three minutes on your connection. I'd guess that most people's broadband rates are well less than 1Mbps, though, so 8 minutes sounds about right.
What I want to know is how they download a 90 minute DVD in fifteen minutes! Even ripped and compressed down to full-CD length, that's still a lot of data in a quarter-hour.
The Power Mac G5 is the world's fastest personal computer and the first with a 64-bit processor
Guess it depends how you define "personal computer" - personally, I'd consider the 64-bit DEC Alpha machines that were running Windows NT and Microsoft Office back in 1997 to be PCs.
Actually, there is a difference between music CDRs and data CDRs. The music CDRs have a special code on them that allows them to be used in standalone CD burners - i.e. devices that you connect directly to your stereo, without requiring a computer. Ordinary data CDRs won't work in such devices without a hack.
You're completely right about both types of CDRs working equally well in a computer-based burner, though.
I mostly use Shorten simply out of habit, but Flac and Ape are both good too. Since they're all lossless formats, quality isn't a comparison point, but compressed size and compression/decompression speed is, but I haven't done much in the way of comparison testing.
Like you say, lossless is the way to go for online storage since disk space is cheap - and you can always make mp3/aac/whatever copies when copying to a portable device.
I'm far from an advocate of aac (or any particular "next-generation" lossy compression technology - I think lossless is the true next step) but there are definitely two things you're missing here...
1) Converting mp3's to aac's won't save space, and may actually result in worse-sounding audio. The problem is that you've already thrown away a lot of information when you compressed to mp3, so when you uncompress and then recompress to aac, you may end up throwing away even more info. mp3 and aac are lossy compression technologies, which means that you cannot recover the original wav file. Your ears might not be able to tell the difference (which is the whole point) but information is lost, irrevocably.
2) The claim of "higher-quality results with smaller file sizes" only applies when comparing mp3 and aac files made from the same uncompressed source. That is, if you take a wav file and make a 128Kbps mp3 from it, and then take that same wav file and make a 128Kbps aac from it, the aac file should sound better. Alternately, you should be able to make a lower bitrate aac file (perhaps 96 or 112Kbps) that sounds similar to the 128Kbps mp3.
For the record, there were versions of at least MS Office and Word ported to the DEC Alpha workstation. The consulting company I was working for at the time was doing QE onsite at Microsoft.
This seems like an interesting product for car/mobile applications, but for home stereo systems I think something like this would be more useful. Basically it just bridges the gap between your fileserver and your stereo.
Sony and HP are coming out with similar products, but the Prismiq model doesn't have the wireless hardware built-in, so you should be able to easily upgrade to 802.11g in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
You're correct that disc IDs are based upon the number and duration of the tracks on the disc. Ideally, CD->FLAC->CD should produce a binary-exact copy of the original CD that produces the same result from CDDB/freeDB. However, due to slight variances in CD/DVD drives, it can be tough to produce an exact copy - most rippers will produce a copy that comes back as an "inexact match" in CDDB. The only ripper I'm aware of that can produce binary-exact copies is Exact Audio Copy, and that's only using secure mode and after you determine your drive's offset value. There used to be an online tutorial on calculating the offset value; it's no longer there, but can still be found in the Internet Archive.
Sorry if I sound a little cynical, but 20+ years of failed copy protection schemes in the PC gaming world leads me to believe that content providers will never give up with these asinine DRM schemes...
This is somewhat off-topic, but I've found Audacity to be a reasonably good successor to CoolEdit - and since it's open source, you can't beat the price.
Too bad "Money For Nothing" is by Dire Straits, not ZZ Top...
Third axiom: Don't shop at Fry's!
Searched the web for fry's sucks. Results 1 - 10 of about 6,790.
Perhaps they were talking about an mp3-compressed CD? At 128Kbps, audio is about a meg a minute, so we'd be talking about 60 megs, which would take about three minutes on your connection. I'd guess that most people's broadband rates are well less than 1Mbps, though, so 8 minutes sounds about right.
What I want to know is how they download a 90 minute DVD in fifteen minutes! Even ripped and compressed down to full-CD length, that's still a lot of data in a quarter-hour.
Umm, from http://www.apple.com/powermac/...
Guess it depends how you define "personal computer" - personally, I'd consider the 64-bit DEC Alpha machines that were running Windows NT and Microsoft Office back in 1997 to be PCs.
This threat is akin to Microsoft threatening to sue someone who discovers and publicizes a Windows OS security hole.
Oh, you mean like Dan Geer?
Actually, there is a difference between music CDRs and data CDRs. The music CDRs have a special code on them that allows them to be used in standalone CD burners - i.e. devices that you connect directly to your stereo, without requiring a computer. Ordinary data CDRs won't work in such devices without a hack.
You're completely right about both types of CDRs working equally well in a computer-based burner, though.
I mostly use Shorten simply out of habit, but Flac and Ape are both good too. Since they're all lossless formats, quality isn't a comparison point, but compressed size and compression/decompression speed is, but I haven't done much in the way of comparison testing.
Like you say, lossless is the way to go for online storage since disk space is cheap - and you can always make mp3/aac/whatever copies when copying to a portable device.
I'm far from an advocate of aac (or any particular "next-generation" lossy compression technology - I think lossless is the true next step) but there are definitely two things you're missing here...
1) Converting mp3's to aac's won't save space, and may actually result in worse-sounding audio. The problem is that you've already thrown away a lot of information when you compressed to mp3, so when you uncompress and then recompress to aac, you may end up throwing away even more info. mp3 and aac are lossy compression technologies, which means that you cannot recover the original wav file. Your ears might not be able to tell the difference (which is the whole point) but information is lost, irrevocably.
2) The claim of "higher-quality results with smaller file sizes" only applies when comparing mp3 and aac files made from the same uncompressed source. That is, if you take a wav file and make a 128Kbps mp3 from it, and then take that same wav file and make a 128Kbps aac from it, the aac file should sound better. Alternately, you should be able to make a lower bitrate aac file (perhaps 96 or 112Kbps) that sounds similar to the 128Kbps mp3.
For the record, there were versions of at least MS Office and Word ported to the DEC Alpha workstation. The consulting company I was working for at the time was doing QE onsite at Microsoft.
This seems like an interesting product for car/mobile applications, but for home stereo systems I think something like this would be more useful. Basically it just bridges the gap between your fileserver and your stereo.
Sony and HP are coming out with similar products, but the Prismiq model doesn't have the wireless hardware built-in, so you should be able to easily upgrade to 802.11g in the future.