thomas fisher wrote:
> On Saturday 09 February 2008 17:52:08 Cory K. wrote:
>
>> Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>>
>>> Probably in the long run I will do as Cory has done and back up my whole
>>> CD collection in FLAC (all it needs is time plus a big enough external
>>> hard disk).
>>>
>> Ju
On Saturday 09 February 2008 17:52:08 Cory K. wrote:
> Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> > Probably in the long run I will do as Cory has done and back up my whole
> > CD collection in FLAC (all it needs is time plus a big enough external
> > hard disk).
>
> Just to give you a idea of size, 650 some odd CDs
Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Probably in the long run I will do as Cory has done and back up my whole CD
> collection
> in FLAC (all it needs is time plus a big enough external hard disk).
Just to give you a idea of size, 650 some odd CDs encoded at "--best"
take up 212GB of harddrive space for me.
Cory K. wrote:
> The higher bitrate you use you obviously get closer to lossless. So it
> really becomes a question of acceptable file-size and HW support.
>
> At high bitrates, you'll hear no difference between _any_ codecs. I've
> done studio testing to the effect. Most tests you'll find online
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you are interested in listening tests I recommend hydrogenaudio.org.
>
Great advice there. ;) (I forgot)
> The reason for me encoding in a lossless format is not so much weather
> I can hear the difference but about having the option to transcode
> however I like
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:58:05 -0500
"Cory K." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I listen to a lot of classical and otherwise complex music, so I'm
> > concerned that when I rip CDs I get a very high-quality result.
> >
> > By default I'd therefore use FLAC b
Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I listen to a lot of classical and otherwise complex music, so I'm
> concerned that when I rip CDs I get a very high-quality result.
>
> By default I'd therefore use FLAC but I'm curious about the very high
> quality level (say -q 9 or -q 10, that is, round a
Hello all,
I listen to a lot of classical and otherwise complex music, so I'm
concerned that when I rip CDs I get a very high-quality result.
By default I'd therefore use FLAC but I'm curious about the very high
quality level (say -q 9 or -q 10, that is, round about 300+ kB/s) ogg
and MP3 encodin
