[peel] Re: techy. May I borrow your ears?

[lollygagger]

Thanks for all your comments about OGG and DVD's and hard drives.

It is my great distrust in back up hardware e.g hard drives and dvd's, cd's that is pushing me to make so many backups.

With respects to OGG I appreciate compressing data to 1:4 is not as preferable as lossless flac 1:2 but I am making this compromise becasue on wav my tapes and cd's currently take up 800GB. So I already have it copied in WAV on 2 hard drives and now on DVD's. It's taken the best part of 2years to do this. Doing about one tape a day.

As for OGG at 350kbs  I can not discern any audiable difference. I have listened to tracks through headphones, valve amp. semiconductor amp. comparing original and compressed tracks and can't tell the difference. When trying this at similar bit rates on WMA  & MP3 it shows up right away. So I thought this info could be usefull to others archiving and paranoid about not having enough back up copies and usefull to me to borrow the ears of others to see if they could confirm what I have found?

Thanks again for your comments.

Gordon Adam (Ye I have two names so sorry for any confusion if you have been following my past messages)
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: thebarguest 
  To: peel@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 2:36 PM
  Subject: [peel] Re: techy. May I borrow your ears?


  I must admit, I thought the recent show offerings from
  Kevin Beech (& Julian) and Andthezmore, coded in 128/44 mp3,
  sounded fine, as good as an FM radio broadcast.

  More importantly, I wonder whether some of my dvdrs will get
  corrupted in the same way some of my 4-year-old cdrs have....
  Maybe the dye starts to "leak" in time ; how could the scientists
  simulate ageing when developing a recording medium ?
  Don't throw away your original tapes !

  --- In peel@yahoogroups.com, Riving Ton <deedeeramain@...> wrote:
  >
  > Hi Adam!
  > 
  > We had a similar thread about compression a short while ago and I 
  think we decided that FLAC was the ultimate compression format as it 
  was lossless.
  > 
  > Personally - I use .ogg but I realise that it is getting kind of 
  redundant because nobody else finds it convenient plus - I use 
  dbpoweramp also and some of my ripped CDs don't sound right - the 
  bass on some of my files is muffled and really poor quality. 
  > 
  > Finally, memory is getting cheaper and cheaper so compression is 
  becoming less necessary as time goes by. I can see a short time ahead 
  in future that I'll want to just copy my CDs directly to a storage 
  medium without any compression.
  > 
  > I normally buy hard drives in twos - one is a backup of the other. 
  Hard drives fail and new hard drives are no exception so I'd be 
  gutted if I spent lots of time ripping my CDs to hard drive to have 
  the hard drive fail after a couple of months. (This happened to me 
  with a 120GB pocket drive. The clicking noise signalled a failed disk 
  that would cost around a grand if I wanted to recover my data!).
  > Don't forget that DVDs are not indestructible also!
  > 
  > Regards,
  > 
  > DeeDee
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ----- Original Message ----
  > From: lollygagger <lollygagger@...>
  > To: peel@yahoogroups.com
  > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 7:55:19 PM
  > Subject: [peel] re: techy. May I borrow your ears?
  > 
  > Hi All
  > 
  > May I borrow your ears?
  > 
  > I'm back to archiving my Peely & assorted tapes to hard drive and 
  dvd's (4 c90's to a dvd) 
  > 
  > Its going to be about 130 dvd's and two large hard drives before I 
  have finished but I am looking to make a back up archive copy I can 
  leave with a family member.
  > 
  > I have been looking at compression encoders to bring my music data 
  to 1:4 so that my entire collection can be copied to 30 dvd's. Flac 
  gives a ratio of 1:2. WMA and MP3 at 320kbs appear to lose the 
  original dynamic sound.
  > 
  > I have personally found that by using the dbpoweramp prog with OGG 
  at 350kbs giving the 1:4 that there doesn't appear to be any 
  difference from the original.
  > 
  > Can anyone else confirm that OGG gives the best performance for 
  compressed music?
  > 
  > Your ears and opinions would be useful (Keeping in mind that OGG 
  would be used as an archived copy and not for a typical player)
  > 
  > Adam
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  __________________________________________________________
  ______________
  > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. 
  > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
  >



   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.8/1339 - Release Date: 22/03/2008 16:43