> 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.
Sure, 50% compression will yield you double the music. But a lossy codec will yield you perhaps ten times as much music. Yet you use flac - becauise it saves you from reripping, because of tagging and because it is SMALL ENOUGH. If 1 TB drives were $100 (and they will be, in the not-too-distant-future), perhaps even raw storage is SMALL ENOUGH.
The other issue is backup - compressed means less media is needed for backing up your archive.
Notice that I wasn't arguing agianst compression per se, but against using lossy compression on a device where storage and memory is not severely limited.
Even the size of the backup media increases. Backing up .flac to CD was not very viable - you wouldn't always get two albums on one disk. With 4.5 GB DVDRs it's manageable, with 9 GB ones comfortable.
C.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
