The future of your music collection?

[Renfield]

I think there is no doubt when the non-physical form of musical albums equals the CD in terms of sound quality and additional information (liner notes, libretti), as well as the possibility to acquire this on-line, store and play back at our homes, that the CD or any other physical format will dissapear.

Before that moment, I won't make the switch.
I'm not going to compromise on any of these points, no matter what the difference in price is.

Q

I think Que fully covered my own view, as well.

(Though I am, of course, making a point of ripping my CDs into lossless; but I still wouldn't do away with them altogether, bar a case in which the above "criteria" are met.)

[Dancing Divertimentian]

The thread I refer to had lots of posts in it by DavidW.

Oh, yes, I think I've got it. From the old board (Diner). I remember David and I, err...couldn't find a middle ground.

Death of the CD.

[Mark]

Oh, yes, I think I've got it. From the old board (Diner). I remember David and I, err...couldn't find a middle ground.

Death of the CD.

Bingo!

That's the one. Thanks, Donwyn.

[Wanderer]

Will you fastidiously rip every disc you own to MP3, FLAC or WAV, put it all on one home 'super computer' and feed your favourite hifi separates through wired or wireless networking?

That's what I intend to do eventually. I have no intention to stop purchasing CDs/SACDs/DVDs/whatever HD disc format prevails in the future; this fact notwithstanding, having my collection (losslessly) digitized and organized and then streamed for reproduction to a hi-fi system or transfered to a portable media player is a very appealing thought.

[Daverz]

My plan is to rip all my CDs to FLAC.  I'm doing this for the convenience of accessing the recordings; I really, really like CDs, as I'm unlikely to erase them with a finger fumble or lose them to a HD crash, and I have 25-year old CDs that have held up well to my considerable abuse.

I've been testing software for this for a couple weeks.  My observations:

• It's really hard to navigate the rips using the CD database info one gets over the net.
• This is because ID3 tags are for pop music and work very poorly for Classical music, combined with thousands of different people trying to work around this in their own way.
• Trying to retag all those rips would be a pain in the ass.
• Trying to rip over 2000 CDs is going to take a looooong time at this rate
• AFAIK, the most reliable software for ripping CDs, Exact Audio Copy, runs only on  Microsoft OSen.
• Since ripping is partly hand labor, that means sitting in front of a MS OS all day long to use EAC.  I'd rather gouge my eyes out, so I'll have to find a substitute for EAC.
  

[marvinbrown]

My plan is to rip all my CDs to FLAC.  I'm doing this for the convenience of accessing the recordings; I really, really like CDs, as I'm unlikely to erase them with a finger fumble or lose them to a HD crash, and I have 25-year old CDs that have held up well to my considerable abuse.

I've been testing software for this for a couple weeks.  My observations:

• It's really hard to navigate the rips using the CD database info one gets over the net.
• This is because ID3 tags are for pop music and work very poorly for Classical music, combined with thousands of different people trying to work around this in their own way.
• Trying to retag all those rips would be a pain in the ass.
• Trying to rip over 2000 CDs is going to take a looooong time at this rate
• AFAIK, the most reliable software for ripping CDs, Exact Audio Copy, runs only on  Microsoft OSen.
• Since ripping is partly hand labor, that means sitting in front of a MS OS all day long to use EAC.  I'd rather gouge my eyes out, so I'll have to find a substitute for EAC.
  

  As someone who is new to this digital technology I keep hearing as you mention Daverz that ripping CDs or importing them takes a very long time.  I have heard of ripping estimates of up to 10 minutes per CD  .  Is this true? 

  marvin

[Mark]

Marvin, many things determine ripping speed, but in short, the more 'perfectly' you intend to make your rips, the longer it can take. Doesn't mean this has to be the case, but I think if you're planning on doing what Daverz is looking at doing, you'd better buy a comfortable chair for your computer desk.

[tjguitar]

What would happen if we lost all power?  If we use external hard drives...no power, no music. If you have a laptop....Is it practical to have a ton of laptop backup batteries?  I mostly listen on my computer....but I think I'd always have some CDs around (at the very least CDR's), if I wanted to listen to music and there was no power!

[Mark]

What would happen if we lost all power?  If we use external hard drives...no power, no music. If you have a laptop....Is it practical to have a ton of laptop backup batteries?  I mostly listen on my computer....but I think I'd always have some CDs around (at the very least CDR's), if I wanted to listen to music and there was no power!

Listen to CDs without power? You mean on battery-powered portables, obviously?

[marvinbrown]

Marvin, many things determine ripping speed, but in short, the more 'perfectly' you intend to make your rips, the longer it can take. Doesn't mean this has to be the case, but I think if you're planning on doing what Daverz is looking at doing, you'd better buy a comfortable chair for your computer desk.

  I think with my limited knowledge I am beginning to see where you are going with this Mark.  The closer you want to get digitally to the audio quality of the CD the more time it would take to rip.  From what I have read so far I am inclined to go equivalent to AAC of itunes I guess that would be 192kbps mp3 (did I get this right?)  If this is the minimum sound quality I am willing to accept would you know Mark if this still takes 10 min. or over to acheive?

  marvin   

[Mark]

  I think with my limited knowledge I am beginning to see where you are going with this Mark.  The closer you want to get digitally to the audio quality of the CD the more time it would take to rip.  From what I have read so far I am inclined to go equivalent to AAC of itunes I guess that would be 192kps mp3 (did I get this right?)  If this is the minimum sound quality I am willing to accept would you know Mark if this still takes 10 min. or over to acheive?

  marvin  

Marvin, do this test:

1) Select a CD with a running time of 79 mins (or thereabouts)
2) Rip it to 192kbps MP3 using your program of choice
3) Time how long the process takes (excluding the inevitable track retagging you'll have to do afterwards)

I'm not being flippant here - there really is no better way to get an idea of how long these things will take than by actually having a go. I suggest 192kbps MP3 because:

a) It's an acceptable compromise between filesize and sound quality for most uses outside that of playback with high-end equipment

and

b) The MP3 format will consume less power if you intend to use a portable device (WMA, AAC, FLAC, OGG, WAV and others all seem to suck up battery life a lot quicker than MP3, in my experience).

The only downside to MP3 is that for opera, it sucks. It'll put gaps between tracks where gaps don't belong - a limitation of the technology, I'm afraid. Only way around it is to use a program (like Exact Audio Copy - not recommended for absolute beginners, mind you) to rip and encode 'joined' tracks as single files. But then that makes tagging harder ... it's never-ending, this compressed music lark!

Others will doubtless recommend FLAC or OGG, but I think you'd be getting into territory for which you're unprepared, judging by what you've told us so far of your knowledge of this field. So try MP3 first, and if that doesn't suit you, start looking at other options.

[tjguitar]

Listen to CDs without power? You mean on battery-powered portables, obviously? Wink

Exactly.  Double A's/ Triple A's have got to be much cheaper than a portable computer battery.

[marvinbrown]

Marvin, do this test:

1) Select a CD with a running time of 79 mins (or thereabouts)
2) Rip it to 192kbps MP3 using your program of choice
3) Time how long the process takes (excluding the inevitable track retagging you'll have to do afterwards)

I'm not being flippant here - there really is no better way to get an idea of how long these things will take than by actually having a go. I suggest 192kbps MP3 because:

a) It's an acceptable compromise between filesize and sound quality for most uses outside that of playback with high-end equipment

and

b) The MP3 format will consume less power if you intend to use a portable device (WMA, AAC, FLAC, OGG, WAV and others all seem to suck up battery life a lot quicker than MP3, in my experience).

The only downside to MP3 is that for opera, it sucks. It'll put gaps between tracks where gaps don't belong - a limitation of the technology, I'm afraid. Only way around it is to use a program (like Exact Audio Copy - not recommended for absolute beginners, mind you) to rip and encode 'joined' tracks as single files. But then that makes tagging harder ... it's never-ending, this compressed music lark!

Others will doubtless recommend FLAC or OGG, but I think you'd be getting into territory for which you're unprepared, judging by what you've told us so far of your knowledge of this field. So try MP3 first, and if that doesn't suit you, start looking at other options.

  Thank you Mark.  I shall leave my opera collection 'till last and worry about gapless playback later. I have already decided to start by experimenting with the other CDs I have (Brahms' Hungarian Dances comes to mind as an ideal candidate).  Seems like I have a learning curve to go through (I hope its steep)....but as they say practice makes perfect!

  marvin 

[Daverz]

Marvin, many things determine ripping speed, but in short, the more 'perfectly' you intend to make your rips, the longer it can take. Doesn't mean this has to be the case, but I think if you're planning on doing what Daverz is looking at doing, you'd better buy a comfortable chair for your computer desk.

Ripping a track is much slower than encoding it to FLAC on my system, and since ripping is I/O bound (the encoding queue mostly  sits and waits for the ripping queue), it won't be any faster to rip a CD if I use lossy compression.

[Wanderer]

The only downside to MP3 is that for opera, it sucks. It'll put gaps between tracks where gaps don't belong - a limitation of the technology, I'm afraid. Only way around it is to use a program (like Exact Audio Copy - not recommended for absolute beginners, mind you) to rip and encode 'joined' tracks as single files. But then that makes tagging harder ... it's never-ending, this compressed music lark!

Gapless playback was a major issue for me when in search for a portable media player; many previous generation players didn't offer this "convenience" at all.

[Bogey]

As posted before, somewhere, I am going to try to stay with cd collecting until the Big Guy collects me.  I want to be known as "that old guy down the street that still collects cds".  Will I use other formats in the future...maybe, but will continue to buy discs.  I am also beginning to get that "vinyl itch" again and have been able to avoid it in the past, but my "dark analogue shadow" of the past keeps beckoning me.

[George]

As posted before, somewhere, I am going to try to stay with cd collecting until the Big Guy collects me.  I want to be known as "that old guy down the street that still collects cds".  Will I use other formats in the future...maybe, but will continue to buy discs.  I am also beginning to get that "vinyl itch" again and have been able to avoid it in the past, but my "dark analogue shadow" of the past keeps beckoning me.

Is Bill a super hero? 

[Que]

  I think with my limited knowledge I am beginning to see where you are going with this Mark.  The closer you want to get digitally to the audio quality of the CD the more time it would take to rip.  From what I have read so far I am inclined to go equivalent to AAC of itunes I guess that would be 192kbps mp3 (did I get this right?)  If this is the minimum sound quality I am willing to accept would you know Mark if this still takes 10 min. or over to acheive?

  marvin   

Marvin, on iTunes ripping to Lossless is actually the fastest way to rip because it involves the least modification/processing of the digital information!   So, NO reason to go for lower bitrates on that account. The actual ripping to Lossles takes only a few minutes.
Yet, I actually do spend ten minutes per CD, because I always want to improve the tagging, add the artwork, etc. 
I also rip the separate mvts of many works (concertos, string quartets, etc.) as one track - much easier to file and to find.

Btw I find a bitrate of 192 kbps totally unacceptable. As long as you don't mind (much) bigger files: go for Lossless. A good alternative is one of the higher bitrates, but you can always go to that by transforming a Lossless file (of course the other way around is impossible).

Q

[Great Gable]

As posted before, somewhere, I am going to try to stay with cd collecting until the Big Guy collects me.  I want to be known as "that old guy down the street that still collects cds".  Will I use other formats in the future...maybe, but will continue to buy discs. 

Ditto

But I'll only copromise with new formats for in-car listening

[71 dB]

I suggest 192kbps MP3 because:

a) It's an acceptable compromise between filesize and sound quality for most uses outside that of playback with high-end equipment

and

b) The MP3 format will consume less power if you intend to use a portable device (WMA, AAC, FLAC, OGG, WAV and others all seem to suck up battery life a lot quicker than MP3, in my experience).

Mark is right, 192 kbps is a good compromise between sound quality and filesize. People should be less paranoid about sound quality with portable devices. The listening conditions are usually compromised in many ways (less than perfect phones, environmental noise, concentration,...)

I have never studied differences between power consumption for different formats or bitrates. MP3 is a rather old format and it's not a surprise it's power consumption is low. I know Mark hates iPods. It's possible they are optimized for AAC format.