best format for archiving (aver.) 150 MB per CD, archiving and transcoding/re-encoding Options

[zorba]

Hi,

i don't want to buy extra drives and do need the best format to archive and transcode into mp3 (160-190) for hifi (some cds i don't have ) and mp3 player.

I plan to allow 150 mo (average) per CD (lots)

I'd say wavpack lossy @384kbps, what would you say?

[cvp]

Hi,

i don't want to buy extra drives and do need the best format to archive and transcode into mp3 (160-190) for hifi (some cds i don't have  ) and mp3 player.

I plan to allow 150 mo (average) per CD (lots)

I'd say wavpack lossy @384kbps, what would you say?

Bite the bullet, buy a larger drive, and go lossless (any variety). You'll always regret it if you don't.

[DARcode]

I agree with cvp, but if you stick with lossy AAC, LAME and Vorbis are all more efficient.

EDIT: Changed OGG to Vorbis, ooops...

This post has been edited by DARcode: Feb 10 2006, 16:30

[PoisonDan]

If you don't have the resources to go lossless, Wavpack hybrid (lossy) indeed seems to be the next-best thing for transcoding.

Look here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=29150&

This post has been edited by PoisonDan: Feb 10 2006, 16:47

[zorba]

Hi,

i don't want to buy extra drives and do need the best format to archive and transcode into mp3 (160-190) for hifi (some cds i don't have  ) and mp3 player.

I plan to allow 150 mo (average) per CD (lots)

I'd say wavpack lossy @384kbps, what would you say?

Bite the bullet, buy a larger drive, and go lossless (any variety). You'll always regret it if you don't.

it's ok with 200cds ...but when you have to store 1500 or 2000 cds (X2 due to backup), it becomes very expensive

[xmixahlx]

for quality, i think your options are musepack or vorbis. choose vorbis if you don't think musepack fits your needs.

and make sure you think about how you want this to be structured before you realize you want to change your mind half way into the ripping process, eheh.


later

[salpro]

i suggest u to use musepack mpc
while you can listen with it on computer, the coding and decoding speed is very good and suits the need for transcoding for use on mobile devices

[cvp]

it's ok with 200cds ...but when you have to store 1500 or 2000 cds (X2 due to backup), it becomes very expensive

I know. I have 2500+ albums (don't have an exact count on number of CDs that represents, but it's close to 4000) and it's just under 1TB. But then I keep Q98 wma and 128Kbs mp3 copies around as well!

OTOH - All the more reason to get it right first time. It's not just the ripping, it's all the tagging time too. Especially with that number of albums. Besides if you're going with 384Kbs or similar, you're going to need to 250 to 500GB anyway.

But - your choice!

[Eli]

I would reccomend lossless, keep that as your backup, and transcode to your lossy file of choice. My setup:

Rip with EAC to FLAC on local HD
Transcode to mp3
Move FLAC files to external HD (the only read/write that occurs, otherwise externals are turned off)
Use mp3s for listening and portable and cd burning.

[Wintershade]

If you really want to archive, you should go for lossless. If you don't want to buy hard disks, go for DVD-Rs, which have proven to keep my personal archive (about 600 audio CDs) in pretty good shape (just don't buy the cheapest ones, and be careful not to scratch them).

For those albums that you don't have the CDs anymore, keep them the way they are, because transcoding will severely degrade the sound quality, and you will actually feel that the next time you get a new hi-fi with a good set of speakers.

My friend once said: "Buying a hi-fi and then listening to lossy formats is like having a new Ferrari, and putting slim tires on it, in order to save money."
If you really want hi-fi, stick with lossless, or you'll be very very sorry later.

Cheerz =]