its funny, b/c just deciding what to rip, or not, is itself a rather subjective decision, and kinda defeats the idea that one can have a perfect system with clear black and white rules you can apply to everything. i have basically just resigned myself to following "what do i feel like keeping at the moment" with an unfortunate deference to not being efficient the more highly i regard the artist, which results in bloat and dupes that i do detest.
so my guess is there are a lot of Simon and Garfunkel fans here. i have original CD issues on their complete works box set. it is hissy, noisy, and static filled. it is also bright and full of headroom and has a warm, booming AM radio sound i love! i GREATLY prefer these noisy versions, to the remasters, some of which i also have ripped, which while vastly cleaned up by comparison, just sound and feel "dead" to me. (its not volume bias, i use RG on everything) but its not always that way. i think the Beatle remasters actually sound better than the orig CD issues. i don't think the difference is as stark and clear as the S&G ones, but its still there. so i don't always prefer originals or remasters, its simply subjective on a case by case basis. ...but i highly regard both artists, so i am loathe to get rid of any tracks; the exception is if some given version just "offends" me in how it sounds, but thats not too often. (generally speaking, i would say i prefer late 90s, early 2000s remasters, to either orig releases or newer remasters. in general, that era is pretty well cleaned up, but not overly compressed. RG values provide a good clue to that) this all gets more complicated as given tracks show up on soundtracks and greatest hits or comps of whatever type, like "Time Life" ones or what not. and the older it is, u start to run into the same thing, but the Left and Right channels are swapped, or mono vs stereo, and on and on. slight differences, maybe in time, compression level, etc. sometimes i will take a dupe (or near dupe) that i want to maintain a copy of, but out of random playback, and stick it in a separate archive subfolder that isn't in the music subfolder that random playback draws from; but sometimes i leave it in, just another subjective choice. a feature of radio station automation, is "rotations" where for scheduling purposes a group of tracks are considered one track. so say you have 4 versions of an Ad. they all are about 30secs, so these 4 are listed as 1000A, 1000B, 1000C, and 1000D. then each time 1000 is scheduled, the automation knows to progress A -> D in order and then go back to A. you can have as many rotations as you want, but you want the differing versions to really not be more than a few seconds different in length, b/c only the A versions length is considered by the scheduler, (and keeping time in a radio station is fairly important). it would be cool if we could classify dupes in a similar fashion, and have the choice of either cycling thru them, OR just being able to prefer one for playback when any of them are called upon. in a personal listeing situation, length [differences] isn't as important, if at all. a third option would be marking something as a dupe that nevertheless is to always be skipped. (these 3 modes / options could be tagged somehow, and useful esp in random mix playbacks) this is all a really long winded way of saying what i said in my previous post. in scenarios where i respect the artist more, i error toward keeping more, hated dupes be damned. that doesn't mean all dupes are kept tho. and it would be cool if personal software had better playback management, and detection, of dupes. using: win7 64 + lms 7.9 & duet & ipads w/the logitech app, and ipeng on an ipod http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/various_artists_logic & http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/compilations ------------------------------------------------------------------------ BJW's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=58242 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=107724 _______________________________________________ ripping mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/ripping
