On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:33:08 +0100, Christian Pernegger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I do know that transcoding to WAV is not insignificant; and am skeptical of > >the overhead > >requirements for FLAC. Regardless, the bandwidth requirements for a FLAC > >transmission is greater > >than that of ogg. > > While this is true, bandwidth / size is not really an issue any more in any > kind of stationary setup. Harddisk sizes are such that even encoding your > CDs in a lossless codec is hardly worth the effort anymore - if it weren't > for tagging support I'm sure some people would just rip to .wav and be done > with it.
I'm not sure that's true. If it were not for flac - my archive drive for ripped music would be overful and I would need two drives. I still have room for many more albums on that drive because it is compressed. The other issue is backup - compressed means less media is needed for backing up your archive. While it is true that hard drives are getting bigger and cheaper, storage needs of users are getting bigger as well - especially now that a lot users are keeping video rips of movies around etc. Compression lets you keep more of it so you don't run out out space or have to have several external SCSI/FireWire/USB drives all over the place. -- http://mpeters.us/ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
