Lossless Music on Harddrive

MillerLiteScott

I would like to convert my entire iTunes library to Lossless but it really start to take up space on the hard drive.

Can I just buy and external harddrive and use that solely for my iTunes library? I have a Roku soundbridge on my network that I use for my whole house sound and would stream music from the external harddrive.

I am open to anyother suggestions.

bobman1235

Sure, you can do whatever you want. An external or even another internal hard drive will just be more space, shoudln't be difficult to add.

My question is - are you using the original sources (CDs) to get the lossless files? Because if you're just converting MP3s to "lossless".... you're wasting your time.

dane_peterson

To answer your question, yes.

My dad recently purchased a 250GB Harddrive in August, and got an enormous music library from a friend so he could DJ at my wedding. The only thing being stored on the HD is music.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that you're not going to acheive the sound quality you're looking for by converting current MP3 tracks to lossless. It's kind of like upconverting regular DVDs to HD output.

MillerLiteScott

I have been doing both, burning CD to replace the existing MP3 and I have converted some existing MP3's:mad:

I will probably just create a new library on the hard drive.

Next question. Does and external Hard drive have to be connected to a computer or can it just be connected to the network, or would that be a server?

bobman1235

The hard drive would need a way to talk to the network.... ie a PC controlling it. So it needs to be connected to your PC. There are probably stnadalone network drives out there somewhere, but I would imagine they would be prohibitively expensive.

I seriously wouldn't bother with "converting" your existing MP3s, all you're doing is taking up 10x the space with the exact same file data. It makes absolutely no sense. Go back to the original source and rip it lossless if you want, but once something has been converted to MP3 it already "lost" its data, converting it to lossless from there can't magically pick that data back up, it's gone.

VSchneider

bobman1235 wrote:

The hard drive would need a way to talk to the network.... ie a PC controlling it. There are probably stnadalone network drives out there somewhere, but I would imagine they would be prohibitively expensive.

Attaching a hard drive to a home network is quite easy (w/o having to go thruough a PC first), and is NOT expensive at all.

I would either buy an ethernet aware enclosure like this one and plug my own hard drive in it, or a complete thing.

You are thinking about a network file server with multiple hard drives in it and built in redundancy and data protection, and those things usually cost a small fortune, but still relatively cheap considering that some data simply cannot be replaced.

Val

bobman1235

Hmph, learn something new every day. Neato.

madmax

So why is it called lossless? I noticed one time those files are half the size of a CD. Is 50% of the data on a CD wasted space?
madmax

heiney9

madmax wrote:

So why is it called lossless? I noticed one time those files are half the size of a CD. Is 50% of the data on a CD wasted space?
madmax

It works very much like a .zip file. A .zip file is a full file only made smaller. Without using WINZIP the files are useless. FLAC works exactly the same way it is a compression of size, but all the information (every single bit) is kept. I'm at work but I have some very good links at home that explain why FLAC lossless is an exact copy. As long as you use a great ripping program like EAC the copies are indistinguishable from the original digital recording.

I'll post the links later

H9

Jim Shearer

madmax wrote:

So why is it called lossless? I noticed one time those files are half the size of a CD. Is 50% of the data on a CD wasted space?
madmax

The CD format is not compressed. Apple has a lossless format that does lossless compression similar to what happens when you WinZip a data or program file. So you need some computes to unpack it before it plays. Looks to me like less computes than you need to re-work an MP3 file to get it to play.

Cheers, Jim

bobman1235

WikiPedia article on FLAC if you're all that interested. But the comparisons to the ZIP format are pretty much exactly what you need to know. Most random data can be compressed pretty well via those kinds of methods.

treitz3

I was just reading up on wickpedia about the "lossless" format and came across these words......"Linear prediction to convert the audio samples to a series of small uncorrelated #'s (known as the residual)"

Do you want "residual sound". Not knocking the "lossless" format yet, because I haven't heard it, but just using common sense........

Would you want to listen to "pure music" [that's already "chopped into segments, or samples" when converted to a digital format] or "residual, linear predicted" music? I'm not 100% certain at this point, but I would almost be willing to bet (sound unheard) that you will be able to tell an audible difference.

Again, I haven't heard a "lossless format"....but it makes me wonder.

bobman1235

It's just a term, it's not at all what you're thinking.

Here's an example : The one compression algorithm I remember from college has to do with pattern recognition. All digital data is just at its root a string of ones and zeroes. Within that string of ones and zeroes are many repeating substrings. If you can represent those repeating substrings with a smaller substring and substitute it, you've already shrunk your file size. So that's essentially waht these compression algorithms do - find repeating patterns, and represent them in a compressed way. The "reader" has to then uncompress them, but the end result is the ORIGINAL STRING OF ONES AND ZEROES, exactly. There's no "residual" data, that's just a term that happens to have a negative connotation, but doesn't mean anything like what you think it does.

unc2701

Yeah lossless really is lossless. Here's a really simple example of how it works- you've got a bunch of samples on the CD, let's say ten of them are:
8423,
8456,
8054,
9967,
8111,
8744,
8659,
8934,
8011,
8220


So the algorithm notices that those ten are all pretty close to 8000. So it puts down 8000(base number), 10(number of samples to use it for), 423, 456, 54, 1967, 1111, 744, 659, 934, 11, 220

So the ten samples are represented by 38 digits, whereas it was 40 before. A small gain in my example, but the clusters can be quite long, or much more similar. The predictive algorithm finds the best mix of length and base number to get the file size way down. It can easily reconstruct the original data. There is processor cost, but most hardware players that are compatible have a chip that does everything, so it sounds the same as the original CD.

Note that the real algorithm is much better than the above, but that gives you an idea how a lossless compression works.

heiney9

treitz3 wrote:

I was just reading up on wickpedia about the "lossless" format and came across these words......"Linear prediction to convert the audio samples to a series of small uncorrelated #'s (known as the residual)"

Do you want "residual sound". Not knocking the "lossless" format yet, because I haven't heard it, but just using common sense........

Would you want to listen to "pure music" [that's already "chopped into segments, or samples" when converted to a digital format] or "residual, linear predicted" music? I'm not 100% certain at this point, but I would almost be willing to bet (sound unheard) that you will be able to tell an audible difference.

Again, I haven't heard a "lossless format"....but it makes me wonder.

Do some more research this is how misinformation gets spread around. You state things like samples, segments, converted, residual and nothing is being sampled, converted, etc. You added those terms yourself and they have nothing to do with FLAC lossless. Residual is confusing because it's connotation is of something left over, but in this case it doesn't mean that. I can't go into long detail in this post at work, but your interpretation of what you read is all wrong.

FLAC is indentical to the original digital recording if the proper procedure is followed. Now ripping the digital info to be converted to FLAC is another issue, but FLAC as a means of archiving and retrieving info is IDENTICAL.

There are programs such as I mentiond EAC (which is free) which allows one to rip an exact digital copy so it can be converted to FLAC. Using both programs and following the correct procedures will yield perfectly identical digital copies.

heiney9

Bobman1235 and Unc2701, nice simple examples......good work. I tend to get a bit long winded.

madmax

I'm guessing a song stored in lossless format could actually be converted back to its original format and copied back to a CDR with no changes? So other formats use algorithms which change the music (for example removing sounds most wouldn't perceive anyway) but a lossless format only compresses the data like a zip file.

heiney9

madmax wrote:

I'm guessing a song stored in lossless format could actually be converted back to its original format and copied back to a CDR with no changes? So other formats use algorithms which change the music (for example removing sounds most wouldn't perceive anyway) but a lossless format only compresses the data like a zip file.

EXACTLY. Of course every part of the chain has to be done correctly in order to have a perfectly identical copy. But that's easy enough if you know what your doing.

If you "rip" a cd to a computer hard drive but do it with cheap software or incorrectly the "rip" could be slightly altered therefore when you convert it to a lossless format like FLAC you are not getting a bit perfect identical output. But that's not the fault of the lossless medium that's an error in either the ripping software or the software operator. This will be in the format of a .WAV file. That .WAV canm then be comverted to FLAC with anywhere form a 20-40% reduction in file size.

The biggest issue with "ripping" programs is that they tend to round off or average some bit information. EAC (Exact Audio Copy) is the best "ripping" program available. Once set-up for you particular drive chracteristics it will "rip" exact digital copies and provide you with a "checksum" file verifying it's an exact bit for bit copy, no rounding or averaging of word length.

daniel_paul_

I want to start archiving my rare cd's to harddrive. I have losst a couple due to physical damage that can not be replaced. Any other programs for ripping, storing and burning (I see EAC) that fully maintain the information would help me. Informational links would also help. Thanks

treitz3

Sorry, didn't know it was such a touchy subject. I feel you guys's' passion though:eek: .

All I was trying to do was point out the facts that I knew and had just read. If I misinterpreted......I'm human.

I have always been able to tell a "burnt" CD from a Redbook original, but I have not heard it on a lossless format yet. That's why I am skeptical when it comes to burnt CD's and maybe why I interpreted the words the way I did.

Is there another thread that has this topic in it.....did NOT have the intention of hijacking this thread!

My apologies to the author of this thread. My bad.

I'm just trying to find out the low-down on this before I blow dollars on something that I might not be happy with. I geuss I'll start a thread of my own when I get the chance.

Peace, Tom.

heiney9

treitz3 wrote:

Sorry, didn't know it was such a touchy subject. I feel you guys's' passion though:eek: .

All I was trying to do was point out the facts that I knew and had just read. If I misinterpreted......I'm human.

I have always been able to tell a "burnt" CD from a Redbook original, but I have not heard it on a lossless format yet. That's why I am skeptical when it comes to burnt CD's and maybe why I interpreted the words the way I did.

Is there another thread that has this topic in it.....did NOT have the intention of hijacking this thread!

My apologies to the author of this thread. My bad.

I'm just trying to find out the low-down on this before I blow dollars on something that I might not be happy with. I geuss I'll start a thread of my own when I get the chance.

Peace, Tom.

Tom it's alright........we are all human. But really untilyou do some more research and actually experiement with lossless formats you shouldn't make statements based on your experience with lossy formats. There really is NO difference with FLAC vs. Original if done correctly.

Daniel_paul_

EAC is free and it's been so long since I used anything else to rip files from cd to my hard drive. I have always trusted it 100% to rip exact copies. I believe the website http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

This will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about EAC.

I also use Monkey audio's .APE and Shorten .SHN. They all work the same except FLAC has gained much more support for portable devices and streaming devices. FLAC can be decoded on the fly and Shorten can not. APE files can be decoded on the fly, but has little if any support on portable or streaming devices. They all need their own software which in all cases is free.

unc2701

I've personally convinced myself that EAC really does rip the exact bits for the music... I ripped the same song twice, done a bitwise comparison and they've matched exactly, then I burned it to a CD, then ripped that back and gotten an exact match.

Now, I won't reject the idea that the CD player might treat a burned CD & the original differently, but you can truly make an exact copy.

treitz3

unc2701 wrote:

Now, I won't reject the idea that the CD player might treat a burned CD & the original differently, but you can truly make an exact copy.

But........if........it's an exact copy..........why would the playback be different?

daniel_paul_

Thanks heiney9 for the running start.

mldennison

heiney9 wrote:

I also use Monkey audio's .APE and Shorten .SHN. They all work the same except FLAC has gained much more support for portable devices and streaming devices. FLAC can be decoded on the fly and Shorten can not. APE files can be decoded on the fly, but has little if any support on portable or streaming devices. They all need their own software which in all cases is free.

One more plus for FLAC over SHN or APE, FLAC is a very open standard and able to support different sampling frequencies / bit depths. SHN does not and I do not believe APE does either. So, if you had the rights to do so, you could make 24bit/96kHz FLAC files of all of your DVD-A discs as well. Probably not a big point now, but it is nice that FLAC is more future-proof than SHN.

unc2701

treitz3 wrote:

But........if........it's an exact copy..........why would the playback be different?

That's a whole different can of worms. You'll get a bunch of different answers to that question, but the only correct one as far as I can tell is jitter. Google is your friend, go forth and search.

treitz3

unc2701 wrote:

That's a whole different can of worms.

Damnit! Nothing can be simple.

Going to Google after I grab a freakin' beer or twelve. TXS.;)

heiney9

mldennison wrote:

One more plus for FLAC over SHN or APE, FLAC is a very open standard and able to support different sampling frequencies / bit depths. SHN does not and I do not believe APE does either. So, if you had the rights to do so, you could make 24bit/96kHz FLAC files of all of your DVD-A discs as well. Probably not a big point now, but it is nice that FLAC is more future-proof than SHN.

FLAC is by far the best overall choice. I have SHN fils as well as APE files because I trade bootleg recordings and many are traded in those other formats. I don't use APE or SHN for own personal files, I use FLAC exclusively for my lossless needs.

heiney9

treitz3 wrote:

Damnit! Nothing can be simple.

Going to Google after I grab a freakin' beer or twelve. TXS.;)

Yeo, this is not a simple subject, but interesting nonetheless. Grab a 12 pack, pull up a chair, getr comfortable and get your learn on.

treitz3

Sona wrote:

If I get Reeltime's meaning, I think he's saying that compared to vinyl, CD's are already a lossy format, meaning data is lost.

Yes.

MillerLiteScott

Thanks for all the help.


All of this info is a lot to take in in one sitting.


I have another computer/music related question.

I use my lap top for my iPod and iTunes but all of my music was eating into my hard drive which is a Centrino Duo with what appears to be a 40 gig C drive (where all my music was) and a 40 gig D drive. My computer was all choke up with only 8% of the C drive left and it was acting slow. So yesterday I clean up and got rid of a lot of unnecessary **** in my computer and transfered my music to the D drive portion of the hard drive. My music is essentially the only thing on the D drive. When I pull up iTunes there in nothing in the library. Computer works great now.

Can I transfer iTunes to be in the D drive or to read from the D drive?

Thanks,

Scott