9323 songs 224 GB 27 days. Guess the encoding type?
Noticed lots of duplicates and I really need to go through and purge unwanted songs. However it was interesting that the duplicates often sounded very different from each other depending on who mixed them and when. Some of the older music was just stored poorly poorly and regretably, will never have the dynamic range or the definition found on an even mediocer modern recording. THe big magnet we are sitting on is hard on magnetic take that is often falling aprat with early plastics half life looming.
I tried keeping various formats, some for archiving and some for MP3 mobile use, but my backup software didn't like more than two or three version of a song. So now when I backup, I just do a complete erase first.
It's funny how for some folks an archive means keeping meticulous track of all the tags... and I admire that. Heck, I'm just happy to get it all down, so what if there's are a few missing tags and a few gigs of duplicates?
I started with a 200GB then got a 400GB and that would be fine, but I need another large HD for backing up. Not going to risk a loss like my itunes library! Using a 500SATA Seagate inside the old G4 with a SATA Card for $70. When I get a Poer Mac I'll just put the 500 GB SATA in the new Mac, along with a copy of the itunes library.
What strikes me as odd is to got htrough all that trouble to archive a huge amount of music and then throw away 90% "forever" with a lossy MP3 compression. Once those bits are gone, they are gone, except of course if one has the original CDs. I can sympathize with just keeping one format, and if an Ipod is used to keep the most practical version for iPod/Mobile enjoyment. Also once a file has been recorded in a lossy format there is no room left to create any other types of files without really messing up the quality.
Ever since I got a pair of M&K 1600 monitors (not the best for critical listening, set up on my desktop with the Mac, but they get closer to revealing more of the musical subtleties and dynamic range than most other dinky plastic "computer speakers" and for $340/pair as demos it works for me). They play effortlessly and much louder too!
I don't understand the logic of throwing away so many of the bits and believing without at least suspecting, that some portion of the music and enjoyment of one's favorite song goes with it?
Lately I just listen to various smart lists at my desk or pipe the wiring to some larger speaker systems in the front room, garage, bedroom or outdoors, depending on the mood and what I'm doing.
I know that the stock sound card in my G4 400 isn't exactly a state of the art part that's doing justice to the music, and I hope to be upgrading to a MacPro sometime in the near future with a better sound card. Until then I know thatI've at least got all the bits just waiting for a better playback chain and the music will only get better.
It's also funny that hard drives are getting really cheap. Frey's aka Outpost.com, just had a sale on 400GB SATA II Seagate internal drive Kits for $129. For the price of 10 new CD's just about anyone can get a HUGE hard drive (or 2). And with that kind of investment in time and money compiling a library I hope everyone has st up a backup system!
The unique and greatly enjoyed music libraries that each in their own way have collected, with greater breadth and quality like no other music lovers in the history of mankind..well it could all be gone in an instant! So do yourself a favor and back it all up, somehow, it's not to difficult or expensive and is very cheap insurance considering what would happen if drive without a backup should fail. Ands apparently drives do fail in one way or another unexpectedly and often.
It seems like only a small percentage of members subscribe to idea that it's worthwile in keeping a music library in a lossless format. I will admit for the trouble in dealing with a great deal more data, the percieved sonic benefits rapidly reach diminishing returns.
I'd just like to make the case that HD's are very inexpensive for storingn a full bit rate version of song files on, compared to even a few years ago and with every possible kind of music available, perhaps one of the potentially unexplored avenues may be in finding a way to get more out of the existing music with better playback equipment.
Of course, getting too anal about "the best" equipment can also ruin the enjoyment of music just as easily, so I'm talking about practical upgrades that one can easily hear. Good sond is much less of a mystery to the people that produce and mix all the music we enjoy in studious or concert halls. Try to find out what kinds of speakers aucuostics, encoding standards and playback equipment that the music industry uses... and then try to copy some of the principals in our own homes or headsets.
Besides setting up more accurate speakers with better resolution, along with a decent subwoofer which really makes the music sound much better by reproducing what's already there, applications like Pearlyrics that track down the words to the songs has added a greater appreciation when I can read along and finally understand (or not) what the artist was expressing lyrically.
I just wish I had looked at more of the equipment offered in music stores for playback, especially, powered "nearfield" monitors speakers, that seem well suited for those that listen at destop Computer set up.
For high quality semi pro, powered speakers, the prices seem to be a bargain, compared with the high mark up home audio systems that many including myself have grated their computers to for stereo playback.
The wall of Monitors I checked out over at Guitar center were in a completley different class than the underpowered little desktop speakers that pass for music reprouction speakers. Of course they cost much more, but seemed a lot cheaper than comparable home stereo set ups.
Starting with pro audio equipment, although it's more geared to sitting very close to the monitors, is at least being able to listen to the music on the same kind of speakers that were originally used to mix it.
The Pro audio and musicians stores seem to provide speakers/monitors for a designated purpose, with practical designs, where monitors are valued as tools that have defined standards, rather than the tiny underpowered drivers in even cheaper plastic boxes sold as an after thought or given away with a computer system and cheap by large chains marketing to homeowner/ computer users that look at cost only where $50 spent on speakers might be percieved as excessive.
It just seems like such and incredible opportunity, that at no other time in history has the quantity (and potential quality) of a personal musical collection ever been so promising. I just hope that more music lovers at least give the other 90% of the bits a chance to make a difference in music by auditioning the song with full range reproduction equipment, before deciding if it's desirable to compress and toss out so much of those bits, since the playback equipment available with most home computers, may not be worthy of the music. Once compressed the range and full dynamics is never going to come back and I believe much of craftsmanship the sound engineers have captured from the musicians, may never be heard as intended to be and as it was mixed for.
If on the other hand one gives a fair listen to both full rate encoders on full range tonally balanced speakers and it really doesn't make a big difference to the basic enjoyment of a piece of music and perceptual coding is something that's acceptable, well then why the heck are those recording studious and engineers wasting the time with 24+ bit recording ?
-
Dave
Still listening to see which versions ae the best to keep. Don't think there is a best mix, just a different vision in the mixing studio.
