What Do I Need?

[mzpro5]

I have my music ripped at 256K MP3 format. I have 8,620 songs that take up about 58GB of space.

I currently use the HD in my computer for the SB and have everything backed up on the WD Passport.

I chose MP3 because of the flexibility and I honestly believe the sound to be very good. If I want reference quality I just pop in some CD's.

 

[Yesfan70]

I just ripped one that was 742.

742MB? :shock: An 80 minute CD is 700MB, uncompressed, so that one has me baffled.

Keep in mind even too that Flac and other lossless files are said to have a "2:1 compression", it's not always going to be exactly half the size of the original file. Some files won't compress as much as others. Once it is said and done though, I would think the music collection over all is pretty close to half it's original size.

You sure you're not pulling my leg on that 742? :?

 

[Zing]

And now another...751.

I think CDs are 800MB max, not 700.

 

[mzpro5]

The CD in my computer says it has 702 MB capacity. I think when you rip a CD you do not get a one-one transfer. I think there is data added to the ripped file that is not on the CD, thus the extra MB showing up on the ripped file.

Then again I could be completely spewing nonsense so maybe we should wait for someone with more knowledge on this subject to chime in.

 

[Yesfan70]

And now another...751.

I think CDs are 800MB max, not 700.

Nope. The old 74 minute blanks were 650MB and the current 80 min ones are 700MB link


EDIT: Are you ripping to WAV? I just don't see this happening with Flac or other lossless ripping.

 

[Flint]

Why are you not ripping in "LOSSLESS" like FLAC or WMA-Lossless?

The results of using lossless is exactly identical data stream during decoded as uncompressed while cutting the size in half, approximately.

 

[Zing]

EDIT: Are you ripping to WAV? I just don't see this happening with Flac or other lossless ripping.

Apple Lossless.

 

[Flint]

Really? Then the folder size after ripping should be approximately half the size as the original CD data size. So, if you have 800MB on the CD, the result should be around 400MB.

 

[Zing]

Really? Then the folder size after ripping should be approximately half the size as the original CD data size. So, if you have 800MB on the CD, the result should be around 400MB.

You're not far off. The CD that said it was 751MB during importing, is now 505MB. But Yesfan is still having a difficult time digesting that there was 751MB of info on there to begin with.

 

[Flint]

It is possible to get up to 900MB onto a single CD. I know this because I got one from Microsoft once which was 898MB in size.

 

[Yesfan70]

Really? Then the folder size after ripping should be approximately half the size as the original CD data size. So, if you have 800MB on the CD, the result should be around 400MB.

Just for shits & giggles, I looked up an album in my collection to see what the properties were.

So I right click on the folder Tears For Fears - Everybody Love A Happy Ending and see the folder size is 365MB. It shows the folder containing 18 files, but there's only 12 tracks on the album and when I open the folder, I only see 12 tracks.


Odd. :think:

 

[Flint]

Most ripper add album content info, images, writers, artists, etc to the ripped file folder. Those files are usually hidden.

 

[Yesfan70]

It is possible to get up to 900MB onto a single CD. I know this because I got one from Microsoft once which was 898MB in size.

I've read that before (I think 900MB is 90 minutes), but I've also read it's not a good practice as a lot of players tend to hiccup when they try to play those discs. I think it boils down to using the space allocated for the table of contents (the part that tells the player where on the disc everything is located).

 

[Yesfan70]

Most ripper add album content info, images, writers, artists, etc to the ripped file folder. Those files are usually hidden.

That makes sense and kinda goes what Mz was talking about earlier.

 

[Yesfan70]

Really? Then the folder size after ripping should be approximately half the size as the original CD data size. So, if you have 800MB on the CD, the result should be around 400MB.

You're not far off. The CD that said it was 751MB during importing, is now 505MB. But Yesfan is still having a difficult time digesting that there was 751MB of info on there to begin with.

Yeah, I kept thinking that was the end result, not what the CD size itself was. Clear as mud now. LOL!

 

[Flint]

It is possible to get up to 900MB onto a single CD. I know this because I got one from Microsoft once which was 898MB in size.

I've read that before (I think 900MB is 90 minutes), but I've also read it's not a good practice as a lot of players tend to hiccup when they try to play those discs. I think it boils down to using the space allocated for the table of contents (the part that tells the player where on the disc everything is located).

CDs are one lone track, so the limitations to capacity are really in how far the apart the track has to be from itself as it spirals over the disc. If the optical assemble of the player can track the single "groove" with it being closer to the adjacent area groove, then you can get more rotations and thus more capacity. The distance between each bit is fixed by the spec, but the tracking azimuth angle has been toyed with since it became a defacto standard about 10 years ago.

 

[Yesfan70]

It is possible to get up to 900MB onto a single CD. I know this because I got one from Microsoft once which was 898MB in size.

I've read that before (I think 900MB is 90 minutes), but I've also read it's not a good practice as a lot of players tend to hiccup when they try to play those discs. I think it boils down to using the space allocated for the table of contents (the part that tells the player where on the disc everything is located).

CDs are one lone track, so the limitations to capacity are really in how far the apart the track has to be from itself as it spirals over the disc. If the optical assemble of the player can track the single "groove" with it being closer to the adjacent area groove, then you can get more rotations and thus more capacity. The distance between each bit is fixed by the spec, but the tracking azimuth angle has been toyed with since it became a defacto standard about 10 years ago.

But isn't there also a TOC that the player has to see to be able to know where each track begins and ends? I want to say that's one reason why a burner can record track at once (and put that dreaded half second gap between tracks :roll: ) because the TOC tells the burner when to start and shut off the laser.

 

[Flint]

Yes, there is a TOC at the very beginning of the disc which defines where to find the start and end of any file, or tune. The laser doesn't turn off and on, though. The digital data processors do all that stuff, the laser is constantly on when reading from the disc.

 

[Yesfan70]

Yes, there is a TOC at the very beginning of the disc which defines where to find the start and end of any file, or tune. The laser doesn't turn off and on, though. The digital data processors do all that stuff, the laser is constantly on when reading from the disc.

Are you talking about for playback or recording? If you're recording one track at a time (no disc at once), I thought the laser would shut off and on between burning tracks. I always thought that was the reason why you got those dreaded half second gaps in between tracks.

 

[Flint]

This entire time I've been talking about playing. Multisession discs (which manufactured CDs are not) support starting and stopping while recording on them. There are still issues with some players and multisession discs, which is why most Audio CD burning applications default to Redbook burning sessions where the entire list of tracks are combined into one single file with the ciritical TOC in place to control how the player finds and plays multiple tracks from the single long file.