Hey everyone,

My first post here. I'm going to be moving out of the country soon and cannot bring my entire CD collection with me. I originally planned on backing them up lossless, but I have over 1000-2000 CDs, and I can't afford to buy a bunch of large hard drives to put them on (~400MB per disc, right?). If you're wondering why I have so many CDs, yet can't afford to buy a few more large HDs, I work for a radio station and have been getting CDs for free for years.

I want the best audio quality I can get out of the lossy options, but I also want simplicity and the most compatible. I was originally going to go with AAC, but based on what I've read here, it sounds as if if LAME MP3 at 320CBR is my best option, right? Is there much of a difference between OGG, MP3 and AAC at this level? If I go with LAME MP3, what other options should I select to make sure I have the best audio quality?

Is the difference in sound quality noticeable between a lossy encoded file with the highest quality options and a lossless file?

Thanks.

At 320 kbps there are usually no difference between modern lossy encoders.



Try yourself, but usually, 320 kbps encodings are fully transparent. Even 320 kbps is overkill for most people.

Try a listening test of Lame Mp3 (3.97b2) at 320kbps CBR, -V 0 --vbr-new (~245kbps VBR), -V 1 --vbr-new (~225kbps VBR), -V 2 --vbr-new (~190kbps VBR), etc.

If you go with Lame 3.90.3 for some reason, --alt-preset standard or --alt-preset extreme should work for you.

From the last listening test, mp3 only lost to aac (barely) at the 128kbps range.
Check out the results: http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-128-1/results.htm
Also, check out the reccommended mp3 settings, http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=28124

Also, don't consider just dropping lossless as HD space is cheap and getting cheaper. Just read in the latest Maximum PC about the new Seagate Barracuda HD, it only sported 750gb of space. Under the tests it ran and accessed faster than the WD 500gb drive. Though it does run hot. Right now its priced at $500, but the 500gb drives go for cheaper.

Also, are you getting the best compression out of your lossless formats?

Remember, listen for yourself and be the judge yourself, after all not all EARS are created equal...just similar.


- Gow

I'd probably just use LAME -V 2. Even with thousands of CDs you'll probably never notice an artifact. Plus if you buy an MP3 player, you won't be stuck with lower total songs and worse battery life from high bitrate.

FOr your concerns about compatibility, quality and filesize, MP3 VBR at high bitrates ( -V 2 --vbr-new, -V 1 --vbr-new...) should give you no problems in the future.

I myself am partial to Ogg Vorbis but I think MP3 320kbps CBR is Good Enough™.

I don't know about harpsichords though...

What file size should I expect per disc? I was estimating around 300-400MB on average. Also, wouldn't it take considerably longer to convert my CDs to a lossless format (like FLAC or WavPack) than an MP3? I think what I may do is convert my top 100 or so CDs to lossless, probably FLAC (?), but also MP3 because I'll basically only be using an MP3 player after all of this is over.

As for HDs, I currently have a 40GB (came with computer, fairly useless now), 160GB IDE (Maxtor, ugh), 320GB IDE (WD), 500GB SATA (WD). I'm putting my DVDs on the 500GB (it should hold around 80), though I may run out of room. The 300GB is for DivX videos. The 160GB I'm using with my computer. I have to buy another for this project. I'm still debating between the much cheaper 320GB or a 500GB, or 2 320GBs for about the same price as one 500GB. Argh.

this may sound stupid, but why not buy some of those 200 CD Case? it will be a lot easier to transport and you won't lose your entire collection. after you settle down on the new country you can convert it to lossless at your own pace and finally get rid of the discs.

I'd have to buy 10-15 of them. I want to pack as light as possible. My CDs and DVDs currently consume a huge portion of my room, and I'd probably have to pack them all in one huge suitcase by themself without the jewel cases (in cake boxes?), maybe 2 suitcases with the jewel cases. Really, I'd probably have to box them up and ship them, but I really don't want to go through that, then having to find room for them in a tiny apartment, and encoding them in my free time, when I'm trying to get my life started in a completely different country. I'm also not sure it'd be too easy to sell them there (Japan).

yeah, cake boxes would take even less space, but i agree that selling them may not be easy, i thought you were just going to throw/give them away.

I just finished coverting about 1800 CD's over. I used LAME with the Nero plug-in and ripped to M4a (AAC) at a variable bit rate in the 320kbps range.

Those took up about 10MB per song and they sound close enough to CD for my ears on a very high end audio system.

*edit* I just check and that is equal to 125GB on my 300GB drive.

I ripped 900 CDs of popular/rock/contemporaryjazz music and the average came to 559mb per disc. This was mostly 1970s and 1980s music and a little bit of 1990s stuff. If your collection is mostly recent material (1990s+) I would guess the average would be higher because today's artists seem to pack more music onto a CD.

I also ripped 1500 CDs of classical music. The average was much higher: about 677mb a disc. Most of my classical was multi-disc box sets so the record labels often crammed 75+ minutes onto each disc to minimize the # of discs and keep their costs down.

Since you got a lot of your discs via the radio station, you may have lots of promo CDs with only a couple of songs on them. Your your average disc size may be way less than 559mb.



I would echo the same recommendations made by others that you archive to lossless if at all possible. Ripping CDs is such a monumental hassle that you only want to do it once---and be able to transacode to any new lossy formats on the horizon---without ever touching the CDs ever again. Get financially creative---look around your house for things to ebay so you can buy hard drive space!

I archive all my CDs to single image WAV+CUE. I then run batch processes to convert to MP3 and/or AAC and/or FLAC. The single image WAV+CUE gets you gapless playback (good for live recordings and classical music). Also, the WAV+CUE lets you burn an exact replacement disc in case something bad happens.

Have you considered a Web based backup? I use MP3Tunes. I have a free account and have about 1400 tracks stored. For the amount of storage you would require there would be a fee. Check it out. This might be just what you need. http://www.mp3tunes.com/

Actually, WavPack high, Flac Compression Level 6 or lower (5 down to 0) and Monkey's Audio Low up to High, encode faster than the standard lossy codecs: lame, ogg aoTuV, etc. Test and see for yourself.

The reason behind the lossless encoding faster probably lies in that its not so much cutting bits out of the audio file as lossy does but just compresses the audio file.

Also, I would consider ripping to lossless than archiving them into zip or something akin to it, burn to a DVD-/+R. Good for future use AND in case something happens to a CD you still have the audio. Than after burning the archive, you can encode the lossless into lossy and you are good to go. No worries or however you want to do it.

Still, its all up to you, these are just suggestions.

- Gow

On average per disk, how long did it take you to do that? It almost seems like with your classical discs, you don't even need to use anything...CDs max out at 700MB.


What program and settings did you use for single image WAV+CUE? How do you run batch processes to convert to MP3?

Honestly, I'm not sure all 2k+ discs are worth such a large size. I'm sure after I go through my collection, I'll have less than 500 that I wish to completely preserve. So, lossless isn't out of the question then, unless it takes a long time.

Are those non-lossy really that much faster than the Lancer SSE(2 || 3) (Ogg Vorbis) optimized builds? I'm of the age of 35 and I can hardly ABX ogg vorbis -q 4 from the original wav. And I have fairly good equipment. (Sound blaster X-Fi Platinum & Beyerdynamic DT 770 headphones)

/Kef

Its why I put standard formats and typed ogg aoTuV but not ogg aoTuV (Lancer), as I know that Lancer is blazing fast for ogg encodes. Still, try an encoding speed test with Lancer, FLAC and wavpack. Which encodes faster?

Lossless is lossless, good for a true bit for bit archive of the original source material.

ghostrider,

If you consider wavpack for your lossless archive, you might consider doing the single file with embedded cue, which can be played and converted by foobar2000. Plus, instead having to deal with multiple files per CD, you only have to deal with one. Than in turn you can convert, burn, so on and so forth.

How to do it is answered here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=42438

This suggestion is just for archiving your CD Rips for future transcode use, you can burn them, delete them, etc.

My suggestion on mp3 still stands. Try -V 0 -vbr-new, -V 1 -vbr-new, etc. and compare to 320kbps CBR.

I was just suggesting the lossless archiving because CDs can become damaged so its best to have a backup and backing up several cds in lossless to a single DVDR maybe a little less time consuming and less expensive than making a CD to CDR backup copy.

For burning DVDRs, my suggestion is Roxio 8, which from my experience can allow you to make Data DVDs with the option to expand to as many discs as you need depending on the amount you need to burn, plus it sticks a small log file that tells you what is on each disc. Nero 7 is another good alternative.

- Gow

Lame 3.97b2 -V 2 --vbr-new (or -V 1 --vbr-new if you prefer higher bitrates) gets my vote. You will not notice any audio quality loss with these settings, and trust me, one day - you will be happy that you choose the mp3 format because of it's superior compatibility.

at 320 kbps wavpack lossy (with high setting) is for me the best choice:
- very high encoding speed ( 3x aac, 2x vorbis or lame, 0.6x vorbis lancer)
- no arctifacts ( at 320 is is always possible to get artifacts from lossy encoders, with wavpack lossy
in the worst case you can get little amont of noise )
- better source for transcoding rathen than other lossy codecs.

for compatibility use lame preset extreme

for best ratio speed/ compression/quality use ogg lancer at Q7

try yourself with some killer samples found of hydrogenaudio the best for you.

I would have to continue the vote for the Lame mp3 encoder. Other formats such as Nero AAC, iTunes AAC, ogg lancer, etc. will all produce high quality files. My only problem with them is that they don't have the hardware support that mp3 has.

If you don't care about hardware compatiblity then Nero AAC, iTunes AAC, or OGG Lancer would all be good lossy formats. If you want universal compatibility then choose Lame mp3.

I suggest using -V 2 --vbr-new as that seems to be the "sweet" spot for the file size-song quality trade off.

Personally, I have my primary library encoded with Lame mp3 at -V 4 --vbr-new (160kbps VBR) and my archived library encoded with FLAC backed up on my external hard drive and on numerous DL-DVD's.

If compatibility is no issue, then WavPack Lossy at about 400kbps may also be an option.

The reason is the following: Typical lossy formats, especially mp3, are not a very good choice for transcoding. If for example you encode to mp3, then thats final - you should never again reencode them.

With WavPack lossy at about 400kbps its different - in various tests, it has been shown files encoded that way do not suffer much from reencoding. So, in layman-terms, you could call WavPack lossy at 400kbps "almost lossless".

If on the other hand compatibility is an issue and you will never transcode, then LAME -V0 or -V2 may be a good choice.

Reading this in the strictest sense, yes, Lame 320 cbr would be your setting. But unless you have determined through successful ABX that 320cbr is insufficient, I would suggest to change that to -V2 --vbr-new to save considerable space at no perceptible quality cost.

I also agree that if you plan to transcode from these files for various hardware uses, or are unsure what hardware besides a computer you might want to play them on, Wavpack lossy around 320 would be the best approach.

ot: aren't radio stations CDs clearly marked "for promotional use only - not for sale"?

To the person who averages 667mb for lossless classical cd -- are you sure? I haven't checked one of mine, but that definitely seems much too large. I would guess 250mb average is more likely.



Usually no, though there are some extreme cases, like castanets, fatboy, trumpets... check out the thread about Lame problem samples. There's others in there where there are definite artifacts present at highest quality.

That's why some recommend Wavpack lossy because it doesn't artifact in the various ways that mp3 does.

My figures of 559mb and 667mb are for uncompressed raw WAV files. Unfortunately, the harddrives that have the FLAC versions are at offsite storage so I don't have those numbers at hand.

historically, FLAC compresses on average to 50%, so it would be 330mb at most per cd.

You could use OptimFROG DualStream, in quality mode with quality 5 (on average 418 kbps), this would ensure that the encoded content is transparent for almost every purpose, including transcoding, editing, etc.

Command line would be: ofs --mode fast --quality 5 *.wav

Encoding is twice slower than WavPack, but DualStream uses an advanced quality metric (both objective and perceptual) to maximize quality instead of just simple bitrate reaction control.

In my opinion, noise shaping is not recommended for either WavPack and DualStream, if you want the best transcoding quality.

You can read more about OptimFROG DualStream, and see a detailed comparison with WavPack hybrid at

http://www.losslessaudio.org/DualStream.php

Florin

I have more than 2000 classical CD losslessly encoded: average bitrate is between 620 and 640 kbps¹. The best ratios are close to 1:5 [~300 kbps: clean mono or very clean & quiet stereo recordings - usually piano) and the worst ones are 1:1.4 [~1000 kbps: systematically harpsichord: bloody instrument!]. Even with 80 minutes CD's I never get 600 MB per disc.


¹ with flac and WavPack: bitrate would easily drop to 550 kbps with strong encoders like OptimFrog.

EDIT: “classical” was added.

Dualstream encoding is even way quicker when you add --mode fast --optimize none. I get a bit identical file, but encoding is around 30% faster and I cannot see much difference in size on many samples. What do you think of this Florin ? - Are there any disadvantages ?

Nice idea... Indeed, when using DualStream in quality mode, the compression options do not affect the quality at all (the decoded content is bit identical between different options).

So you can use, if speed is an issue

ofs --mode fast --optimize none --quality 5 *.wav

instead of

ofs --mode fast --quality 5 *.wav

The option --optimize xxx only searches during encoding time (asymmetrical) for possible better compression parameters. The ONLY disadvantage is that, on average, the .ofs files will be few kbps larger (2-5 kbps).

Florin

In fast and normal mode, there seems to be no size difference at all. In fact --optimize none beats normal sometimes !

I reckon you should make --optimize none the default in the next Dualstream release.

I remember doing a checkpoint about halfway through my project and I think it was more like 60% as an average for the entire library. Some simple music CDs like solo piano compressed smaller than 50%. Some rock CDs were more than 60%.

If you want a comparison of the file size of some albums, here they are:

Pink Floyd - Animals [FLAC] - 244MB
Pink Floyd - The Wall [FLAC] - 426MB
Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here [FLAC] - 265MB
Radiohead - OK Computer [FLAC] - 382MB
Radiohead - The Bends [FLAC] - 350MB
The Beatles - Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band [APE] - 231MB
The Beatles - Let It Be [FLAC] - 219MB
The Eagles - Hotel California [FLAC] - 223MB
The Verve - Urban Hymns [FLAC] - 470MB

So, evidently, 90's alternative rock makes bigger file sizes then other rock...

For me, FLAC encodes really fast. Like 50x, while LAME encodes at alot less speed.

In my opinion, find some way to keep the CDs. A collection like that is great.

to ghostrider, the original poster:

I know a few others have said it, but I STRONGLY encourage you to spend a little time (even if it's just a few minutes) doing some ABX testing for yourself. I used to encode all of my stuff in flac.... Honestly though, for a collection the size of yours, I think all this talk of lossless is just silly. mp3 will always be supported--a dozen years from now, there will be a way to play mp3 files. If you can't tell a difference between the mp3s and the originals now, you won't be able to then so wtf--who cares about transcoding?

And YES hard drives are always getting cheaper and space is always increasing. If it's unnecessary though, it's just simply wasteful. I don't actually care to fight one way or the other, but to me, some people's reasoning about the whole lossless thing is flawed: essentially, it seems the idea is to take up more space now, in order to take up less space someday in the future (store lossless now so that you can take advantage of better lossy codecs "on the horizon" as someone said). Is that not just silly?? Wow.

If we were to meet and you asked my personal opinion: though my heart wants to love ogg vorbis forever and ever, I would heartily recommend lame at -v2 or -v3 for compatibility. It's transparent 99.9% of the time for 99.99999% of the people out there, and you can share it with anyone.. forever.

Yeah, this is a tough decision. There are a lot of factors to consider. Out of those thousands, I think there are only a few dozen albums that I love, listen to often, and sound great. Those I'll probably go lossless just in case. For the 500 or so that I like enough or paid for, I'll most likely do LAME VBR. The rest, I might just sell them off and not even waste my time. Like I said before, I got many of them free. Many of them I only listened to once or a few times and haven't touched since, but I've kept them because I'm a pack rat.

As for the future, in 10-20 years a higher quality audio format may finally catch on and replace CDs and MP3s (DVD-Audio and SACD haven't). So, it may not matter much that I recorded a CD version of an album lossless when a much better version is available then.

Is there any way or program that allows me to rip to a lossless format and LAME MP3 simultaneously? If not, it sounds like WavPacks hybrid thing is the next closest to having both made at the same time, right?

So many CD's... if you can't go lossless (not everyone has gigantic hard drives), I suggest you do some listening tests before deciding on a format or another, with its settings. I personally recommend Vorbis, which is what I use, but of course if you want compatibility, go for MP3. No word on AAC, because I don't use that, I only have a few songs encoded in this format, and they're re-encoded from MP3s (at 128, so the quality is terrible). A nice choice from one of my friends who was messing with iTunes at the time

Anyway, with Vorbis at -q 6, you should get near transparency. You can go a bit higher and use -q 8, using -q 10 would be overkill, and in this case, it would better to use lossless. For MP3, I think the recommended settings by the experts here are quite nice, and I seriously doubt you'll hear differences. But then again, it's only a personal opinion, my own equipment is not that good, so I tend to follow some of the recommendations since doing some tests in my computer isn't that helpful.

And judging from the path the music industry is going, I seriously doubt a more capable audio format would replace CD's. Lossy DRM'ed files is all what we get I fear. At least, if they offer lossless downloads, I would be more than happier. But that's another story...

Oh, I've seen your latest post. Try MAREO, is very easy to set up, and you'll get perfect results.

I'm not sure a few minutes of ABX should give people any confidence. In 1998, I was naive and thought that 160kbps was good enough when I compared it on a few songs. But weeks later, I noticed that Talking Heads "Burning Down the House" and Swing Out Sister "Breakout" had a very noticeable and annoying swooshing effect at 160kbps. (There are dozens of songs in my library that make life difficult for MP3 encoders but I can't remember them all off the top of my head.)

I'm not an audiophile maniac but I can still tell the difference between 224kbps and the original WAV. Not on all music but definitely some songs with intricate cymbal sounds. And I can hear the difference listening on a laptop with a crappy headphone jack. It doesn't take golden ears and $100,000 speakers to notice artifacts. I haven't done extensive ABX listening tests with 320kbps. It's not a priority because I've already decided to save to WAVs. It's just a different philosophical approach: you can waste days ABX at various kbps rates trying to gain confidence in the right bit rate for your ears----or you can just skip all that and go lossless.




You are correct---it is silly!

But you misinterpreted my post. The idea isn't to geek around forever looking for the latest encoder format! The key idea driving the need for lossless is to never touch your CDs ever again regardless of what new thing comes in the future. The "new thing" could be any thing. Don't restrict your mind into thinking that a "new thing" is simply a new file format. A "new thing" may be a piece of hardware (Squeezebox --> SONOS). Also, a "new thing" could be software utilities that have nothing to do with encoding (Daemon Tools, etc).

I also want to make another key terminology distinction... when I recommend "lossless", I'm really recommending the full CD image single WAV + CUE. This approach gets you an "archive" qualiity backup of your CD. I know others rip "lossless" by taking a CD with 10 songs and creating 10 separate WAV files.

Case study #1: I first encoded individual CD tracks (not whole CD images) in to MP3 in 1998. At the time, the best I could do based on disk costs was 160kbps using AudioActive encoder. I physically loaded/unloaded about 400 CDs to extract my favorite 1000 songs and encode them to MP3. 1998 was the days of Pentium II 450mhz so the encoding times took forever; it was an all around monumental hassle of a project. In 2004, I learned that LAME is much better than AudioActive and I also decide that since disk space is much cheaper, I'll encode to 224kbps. The first depressing thing that hit me was that I would have to physically handle those same 400 CDs again plus the hundreds of new ones since 1998.

With the 1998 episode still fresh in my mind, I decided to be a little smarter about this. Just save the whole damn CD to an image file! So that's what I did with my entire collection. I then created my 2nd incarnation of MP3s (at 224kpbs) from my CD image files instead of the CDs themselves.

Case study #2: I first had a Squeezebox V3. With that hardware, I was able to play MP3 files gaplessly (because Slim Devides intelligently reads CUE sheets). I later got into a SONOS box. However, the only way for SONOS to play gaplessly was with WAV or FLAC. So my entire MP3 library was basically unusable on the fancy SONOS box. It wasn't a big deal because of the CD lossless archive investment I made in Case Study #1, I simply ran another batch process to covert everything to FLACs. Again, I did not have to touch my CDs to make this conversion. Sure, all hardware universally understands MP3. Sure, the SONOS also "understands" MP3 but it's not optimal. For SONOS, the FLAC format works best. It's hard to predict the weird idiosyncracies of future devices.

Case study #3: the CD image files lets me use Daemon Tools to mount them as virtual "CDs". I can then see them in itunes or Windows Media Player with metadata like titlles and album cover art. Also, various other music library utilities interface with freedb,CDDB,etc and these will only work with CD images ---- not MP3s. Also, Foobar2000 reads them beautifually and plays them gaplessly. These are examples showing advantages of lossless having nothing to do with future lossy file formats.

Conclusion:
The choice between lossless CD archive vs lossy is not religious. It's simply a matter of balancing the investment in time/diskspace now vs flexibility in the future. I acknowledge that there are very valid reasons for skipping the lossless step and always physically handling CDs whenever you need to manipulate/recreate your digital music library. I also acknowledge that lossless is overkill for lots of people that just use their ipods for the train commute to work. People can just evalulate their lifestyle, and how extensively they use their music, to determine if lossless archiving is a sensible approach. For me, it's a no brainer. Ripping a large CD collection is a major project (whether lossless or lossy) and we can't generalize into a one-size-fits-all approach. That's why some recommendations seem "silly" to some but make perfect sense to others.

I currently have probably over over 2500 cd's in flac files on 2 400gb and 1 300gb drive. And yeah I probably spent $450 for those drives plus $75 for some external enclosures but I don't regret it at all. I am so thankful I wont have to touch those cd's again, and can't wait to get a raid 5 array nas so I'm absolutely sure of it! The time I've spent getting cd's "accurately ripped" was a pain. I've probably had 300 cd's stolen from me in my lifetime, 40 or so get so horribly scratched that nothing will work to save them, and a dozen get cracked or broken. Those are my reasons for keeping lossless. I can burn another cd! If you aren't willing to put the money down for more hard drives. I would at least keep the out of print cd's in lossless. You won't want to spend $50 to get a replacement on ebay or settle for a crappy remastered version if there happens to be one. If you still have extra space, keep your cd's already in poor shape and your favorites in lossless. Hell whenever a 4tb nas is somewhat affordable I'm sure I'll have one so all my dvd's are lossless also

My personal music library, to clear up any confusion with my previous posts, is in lossy Nero AAC 1.0.0.2 (26 May 2006) at -q0.55.

On DVDs I have archived my CD collection due to the fact that the ripping process + scratches + other headaches that go with that process is a pain. The archive is Single WavPack Lossless files at high compression with embedded cue tracks (comparable to Wav + Cue method) with the addition of the EAC Log added to the tag. From there I can just pop in a DVD pull off the archive I need, pop it into Foobar2000 and convert to whatever lossy format I need. The reason behind my archive is to not only save me the headache of re-ripping a CD collection but also to protect my investment into my audio CD collection.

Its a better safe than sorry philosophy.

Very few CDs on my Hard drive’s music library are in lossless due to the waste of space...its a waste because I am a big music freak who listens practically to any type of music out there. From Juju to Latin, from Classical to Opera to Rock to Metal to Jazz to whatever. Space is an issue when you are aiming for the massive library of audio files.

Outside protecting my CD investment or having a favorite piece of music in lossless on the HD's library, everything else is lossy, because lossless has still not achieved a size comparable to lossy...yet.

One thing I do keep in lossless regardless of space issues is my Karajan Complete Beethoven Symphonies, 1963 Cycle...for obvious reasons. (My favorite symphonies, etc.)

Hopefully, I have finally cleared up any confusion with my postings...maybe.


- Gow

*Results May Vary*

I think this is a very good point you bring up. It's another example of realistically balancing the resources you have (hardware, time, and $$$) with the kind of ultimate library you want to build. Yes, my entire library is lossless but it only takes up 2.5 terabytes. If I had a choice between all the world's music recorded since the dawn of man as 320kbps MP3s vs my modest library at WAV lossless, I'd choose the MP3s of course. But setting aside that hypothetical dream, I'm over the hill and I'm not really buying music in vast quantities anymore (less than 10 CDs a year). Therefore, I'm able to continue the lossless approach without any "sacrifice". If someone's music collection has stabilized, it would be another factor in the decision.



I also have this Beethoven set. I have the 1997 special remastering of the 1963 recording. It doesn't sound as brittle as the original 1980s pressing. I have a couple of other Beethoven cycles (Gardiner, Barnboim, Zinman, Mackerras, Fresnik). All lossless of course. :-) Also, some would argue that his 17 string quartets are even more musically special than his symphonies. I hope you have one of those in lossless too.

I common theme I'm seeing is that a "hybrid" approach makes a lot of sense. Deliberately keep some CDs lossless while compressing the others. Or keep all CDs lossless while compressing all DVDs to MP4. There are a zillion variations on a hybrid approach.





I use EAC function "Copy Image & Create CUE Sheet" Alt+F7. Because I have enough disk space, I don't bother with making EAC encode on the fly to FLAC or Wavpack. My raw archives are basic single file WAV+CUE.

Yeah but theres only 1 master for most stuff, so in 10-20 years you'll have the option of buying a remaster (or maybe even the exact same version) in a new format. Given how most the remasters from 1980s albums I have sound (complete shit), I wouldn't count on big improvements. If anything, I expect remasters and releases to get worse over time.

Anyway I doubt they'll be a higher quality version of CD anytime soon. We already have DVD-A and SACD, and both fail to improve meaningfully on CD unless you really want 5.1 audio and its actually available for your music. I don't think thats going to change.

I have just one advise. Don't convert them to lossy. You will regret it later. If not in a year then in a few years. Have you considered putting your discs (maybe in cake boxes) in a box and have it shipped to you in Japan? See http://postcalc.usps.gov/ or something similar.

EAC sounds like the best option for me for the CDs I wish to preserve. If I need to start compressing the directories down a bit because I'm running out of space, I'll use FLAC or WavPack, but it seems like more hassle than it's worth at the moment. Estimating that an average CD will be around 500MB, I can copy as many as 600 whole onto one 320GB HD. I doubt I'll want to keep that many in perfect condition though. I can devote another 320GB to MP3s. Leaning heavily towards the new Seagate 7200.10. That'll put me at 4 externals (see beginning of thread).

I've never used EAC before. I noticed on the website there are two versions. One with Disc at Once (eac-0.95b4-cdrdao.exe), the other without (eac-0.95b4.exe). Why two versions? I always burn my CDs DAO, but maybe that's not what that's about?

IIRC, cdrdao was included to increase drive compatibility. If EAC works with your burner, the bundle with cdrdao is not necessary.

This thread has grown quite a bit so I'm sorry if the question was already asked, but did you consider burning lossless to DVD? I'm able to average about 16 titles per disc using Monkey's Audio set to High compression. I can usually pack an extra title per DVD over flac at its highest compression (-8).

My goal is to leave here with as few discs as possible. Burning the CDs to DVDs would definitely reduce the number of discs, but I'd still have a lot. When I get settled somewhere again, I'll definitely do another form of more reliable backup. HDs worry me a bit, especially when used for more than a few years.

I'd be interested to know why you think this is a hassle. It's really incredibly easy to do using EAC, and you'll essentially cut your disk space requirements in half (that's a bit optimistic, but it's certainly somewhere in that range). If you really are set on WAV, go ahead, but I can't think of any reason not to encode losslessly.

(BTW, if you're looking for a cheap hard drive, I think this is a pretty good deal: http://shop3.outpost.com/product/4187703 )

Classical and ambient average out at approximately 200—300 MB per disc with reasonable lossless compression (WavPack high, Monkey's normal or high). Loud music with saturated high frequencies (modern uptempo electronic music, some alternative and experimental music, different metal subgenres and so on) can go up to 500 MB, with about 350—400 MB on average.


I'd rather buy 2x320: more space, less strain for each of the drives. 7200.10 are totally great, I'm buying one of them (exactly the 320 GB one) this summer.

If you seriously want to be safe and go with lossless, use it while you can.
For compatibility, LAME 3.97b2 --preset fast extreme is the best quality you can possible get out of MP3 (there's virtually no difference between -V0 and CBR 320, at least no audible one), with Ogg Vorbis Lancer (something around -q6 should sound equal to or even better than 320 kbps MP3) on the second place. You won't have another chance to reencode them, though.
If you want to combine low filesize with virtually lossless (suitable for transcoding) quality, WavPack 4.31 -lmx -b350 will suffice (it will produce quick to decode VBR stream with an average of 350 kbps). Note that it would be incompatible with all the players that don't support Rockbox, but still quick and easy to reencode to any lossy format of choice.
Well, that kinda sums it up.

You might regret the lossy option in some future, especially for CDs/music, you like a lot.
The cheaper and more priceworthy alternative to saving Loslsess/lossy on HD:
Burn to DVD+R, especially, if you have a (reliable) dvd-writer already. Take good dvd+r, eg. verbatim.

25 DVD+Rs are cheap, 15-16 Euro here, and those are already more than 100 GB !
I pack my DVDs/CDs into those bags, they don#t take that much space.

You can pack ca. 12-13 Loslsess (Flac or wavpack) albums on 1 DVD, ca. 30-40 albums on 1 DVD in lossy MPC at quality 7-8 (bitrates from 220k to 280k).
Even if you select Lossy MPC only, you have a very high warranty for transparency, even after transcoding to mp3 or such for portable usage (though you can already use the mpc on certain portables eg. via rockbox or on phones), and the bitrate of MPC q7-8 is low compared to which you would need with 320k mp3, or wavpack lossy.

As you see, i recomemned you either Loslsess Flac -8 -V or wavpack -x -m,
or Lossy (or both) Musepack, MPC at quality 7-8 --ms 15 --xlevel,
ripped by EAC secure test & copy, maybe via mareo.exe at same time to Loslsess & Lossy.

I store the music twice (Loslsess & MPC) on dvd+r, so I have a backup on different dvd+r.
in fact 3 times, but I don#t count the mp3-lame -V5 --vbr-new (130k vbr) as archive backup, te mp3 is for my portable.

maybe see http://high-quality.ch.vu , my mareo.exe profile you'll find inside a mareo topic here at HA.

1. keep your cds somewhere, files are only files, cds are things
2. rip into lame mp3 for convenient playback, files are only files, cds are things
3. bring your favourites cds with you for careful listenings
4. enjoy music, enjoy life, don't waste time

...my 300GB HD crashed yesterday morning : lossless stuff, no backups

Forgot to mention... Monkey's Audio and FLAC can also do the embed cuesheet + single file.

The one reason I would see for keeping the lossless files after you encoded the lossy ones is that your time is worth much more than a few hard disks. I would estimate that ripping/encoding a cd costs about 20 minutes of my attention (OK, I'm a control freak - you could do it just fine in 10)... checking tags, checking checksums, and I didn't even include my cleaning the disc before ripping...

So, let's say five discs in an hour, which use about 2GB. Cost of storing those rips on hard disk twice (backup) at 50ct per GB: 2 euro/dollar (approximately...). I'd say that's a better price than having to do the ripping again anytime in the future...