tem wrote: > I've been lurking on this site and I'm about to take the squeezebox > plunge, but a couple of nagging questions keep running through my mind. > First let me state that sound quality is very important to me. That > being said I really love how much more of my music I found myself > listening to when I have all my cd's loaded into 2 large changers. I > consider the squeezebox the next evolutionary step (I've also > contemplated the sonos system), for accessing and distributing all my > music. My question is this...with memory being so cheap, why would I > want to rip my cd's to one of the lossless formats as opposed to just > ripping them as is. I use a computer all the time but certainly am no > hacker, and it seems that there is a lot of work involved. Am I > missing something or would it not just be easier to buy twice as large > a hard drive, rip full strength, download info via cddb/gracenote or > similar and be done. Won't this give me the artist/album /song info > I'll need to do various sorts.
Its no real work, you set up the ripping tool to do the tagging and compressing, and then you just feed your CDs in one after another. All the good ripping tools talk to cddb/freedb and do that part for you. Automagically. The down side to cddb, etc. is that if you listen to unpopular music, it is usually wrong in cddb, or missing. The compression storage saving on your hard disk is not going to be more than 50% (or two to one) when you use lossless. The big reason is that with a lossless, you can embed tags with the files, and then the are self managing. Plus you can stream the compressed Flac files to your SqueezeBox, saving network bandwidth. Cutting the amount of data by a factor of 50% can all you to have four times the usage (Ethernet is not linear). -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
