> I will eventually re-encode all of my CDs to flac, ogg and mp3 > simultaneously (with a custom script).
That's kind of what I do know. I actually rip to flac (well, I use cdparanoia and have a set of scripts I use to create metadata - I don't use the lookup services, they are wrong too often - so it's a little more work, but worth. Then the flacs get moved off to my flac drive - and I transcode to mp3 and copy those to my music directory. I don't play flacs, I use them strictly for archival purposes - I'm sure they sound better even on my stereo (not the best - better speakers are needed) but the mp3's are good enough. Ripping to flac (or any lossless) really is the best thing because you never have to rip it again, unless you lose your flac drive and don't have them backed up. Most people I am sure are aware of this, but I bring it up because a LOT of people spend hours ripping to aac or ogg or mp3 or whatever - and then they have to do it all over if they want/need to use a new format (or an updated better encoder for the same format). Ripping to flac avoids all that mess. On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:36:43 -0800, Joshua Uziel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Mike Kozlowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050310 11:54]: > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Robin Bowes wrote: > > > > >>those of us who use ogg, having the server decode it and re-encode to > > >>flac instead of sending pcm is going to make a lot more sense. > > > > > >It's probably not worth the CPU to do this, if it's even doable in real > > >time. I would either convert all your oggs to flac, or stream in PCM. > > > > This sounds inconsistent with what Slim people have said previously. > > I will eventually re-encode all of my CDs to flac, ogg and mp3 > simultaneously (with a custom script). I want flac on a future file > server I'll build up for the squeezebox, I prefer ogg to take on my > iRiver H340 and my laptop, and I want mp3 just in case. > > That said, I've done only ogg to date... with my wireless SB1, I was > doing PCM, but that cut out a bit for me... especially with either > network traffic or running the microwave. The problem wasn't that bad, > but I've been using 320kbps lame re-encoding and haven't had the problem > at all. > > Re-encoding to mp3 with lame is _by_far_ more expensive CPU-wise than > having it re-encode and send flac. In the short term, the flac option > is better for me with ogg... and better in the long term as well when I > re-rip everything with flac. > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss > -- http://mpeters.us/ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
