Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Captain Ned
Acidicheartburn wrote:I am very impressed you had the patience to burn so many DVDs, even if it was basically the only option at the time.
Acidicheartburn wrote:700 GB of data is still not an inconsiderable volume of data, though I imagine around here the users and readers are accustomed to lots of hard drive space.
Acidicheartburn wrote:What program are you using for your conversions? I typically use JRiver Media Center as it is multithreaded and supports a wide and customizable variety of formats, and allows you the option of choosing how many files to convert at once.
the wrote:Considering you have the WAV files still and can put them all online (not that 700 GB is small), why are you actually re-encoding them? Why not use the raw WAV files going forward?
the wrote:Sure, FLAC saves some disk space but it isn't that much of a savings compared to WAV.
bthylafh wrote:the wrote:Sure, FLAC saves some disk space but it isn't that much of a savings compared to WAV.
FLACs are something like half the size of a WAV, or were the last time I did something like this.
yogibbear wrote:I am oddly enough ripping and re-encoding about 500 Blu-rays and DVDs at the moment putting them on the NAS for a HTPC at my folks place. Done 200 so far.
Waco wrote:yogibbear wrote:I am oddly enough ripping and re-encoding about 500 Blu-rays and DVDs at the moment putting them on the NAS for a HTPC at my folks place. Done 200 so far.
but dammit, it's annoying to redo something.
Advanced Audio Coding is an audio coding standard for lossy digital audio compression. Designed to be the successor of the MP3 format, AAC generally achieves better sound quality than MP3 at similar bit rates.
biffzinker wrote:Is there a reason why no one encodes their music to AAC (Advance Audio Coding) format?
Refresher for anyone who's forgotten what AAC means.Advanced Audio Coding is an audio coding standard for lossy digital audio compression. Designed to be the successor of the MP3 format, AAC generally achieves better sound quality than MP3 at similar bit rates.
Acidicheartburn wrote:Funny, I'm currently waiting for 76 files to re-encode to 44khz 24 bit FLAC. It's taking ages right now because I seem to be limited by my external HDD...
the wrote:Considering you have the WAV files still and can put them all online (not that 700 GB is small), why are you actually re-encoding them? Why not use the raw WAV files going forward? Sure, FLAC saves some disk space but it isn't that much of a savings compared to WAV.
biffzinker wrote:Is there a reason why no one encodes their music to AAC (Advance Audio Coding) format?
Refresher for anyone who's forgotten what AAC means.Advanced Audio Coding is an audio coding standard for lossy digital audio compression. Designed to be the successor of the MP3 format, AAC generally achieves better sound quality than MP3 at similar bit rates.
travbrad wrote:The encoding part of it will go waaaaaay faster than reading all of those DVDs, which are absurdly slow by today's standards. A lot of people have internet connections that are faster than you can read data off of DVDs.
I have FLAC copies of my music and also encoded the whole collection to mp3s for phone/portable player. I don't know exactly how big your music collection is but my 732 hours of music (about 8000 tracks) only took about 4 hours to encode to MP3 with my 2500K, and encoding from WAV to FLAC is actually slightly faster than to mp3 in my experience. Encoding to OGG is a bit slower, but still probably only 50% more time than FLAC.
These days it's really the video encoding that takes forever, especially if you want to do x265. You basically will want a supercomputer for that.
Acidicheartburn wrote:Funny, I'm currently waiting for 76 files to re-encode to 44khz 24 bit FLAC.
Ifalna wrote:@JBI: impressive. 0.7TB ... that's a LOT of music.... even in 2016. Makes my 120GB seem meager by comparison.
Ifalna wrote:@JBI: impressive. 0.7TB ... that's a LOT of music.... even in 2016. Makes my 120GB seem meager by comparison.
Ifalna wrote:Didn't know the clip+ could handle 128GB cards. Always thought 32 was the limit. Good to know for the future.
just brew it! wrote:Windows won't let you create FAT32 file systems on large media. It amuses me that I need to use Linux to create a Microsoft file system...
biffzinker wrote:The chunk size for a 128 64 GB FAT32 filesystem ends up being 64 KB so if you wrote a 1 KB file your wasting 63 KB of space if I remember correctly.
Edit: Correction, 128 GB FAT32 filesystem nets you a 128 KB chunk size
travbrad wrote:One thing I would note is that the Sansa Clip+ has been discontinued and the new model they came out to replace it doesn't doesn't have a Rockbox build and probably never will because it has so little memory and a different processor so it is essentially worthless for a large music collection. You can still find some leftover stock of the Clip+ (for 3x the original price) but even those will soon be gone.
travbrad wrote:The battery in mine degraded to the point where I only had about 2-3 hours of battery life, and when I went to a look for a new one I realized you can basically get an android phone (with microSD) for the same price or cheaper now which supports just about any music format. I preferred the physical buttons of the Sansa Clip+ for a portable player, but you can find some cables with buttons that will work (depending on the phone)
just brew it! wrote:The one in the original Clip was an oddball thing, little foil pouch with wires sticking out of it. I imagine the one in the Clip+ is similar.
biffzinker wrote:just brew it! wrote:The one in the original Clip was an oddball thing, little foil pouch with wires sticking out of it. I imagine the one in the Clip+ is similar.
So Lithium Polymer?