Okay, let the frothing and foaming begin. :smsex:
http://www.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/
Printable View
Okay, let the frothing and foaming begin. :smsex:
http://www.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/
Quote:
Originally Posted by [URL="http://www.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/"
I didn't read much beyond this point. I believe, Apple's long term goal of controlling the music industry and it's distribution is clear. How long will it be before record producers/bands won't just be "encouraged" to master records with Apple software, but will have to if they want to sell their music via iTunes. 10, maybe 20 years? Every bit of space in that cloud of theirs has a dollar value. People who have grown up only knowing AAC, iPods, and earbuds will undoubtedly be impressed with the improvement. When in doubt, apply software.
It only makes sense that as an enormous distributor of compressed music and owner of their own format, Apple is getting into the recording quality issue. As long as it's better I say go for it. It could trigger industry competition for better recordings and formats, rather than just creating more monopoly' for iTunes, which of course is evil!:shocking:
See how I just did that? :wave::dancin::uhmmmm:
Mac is the music industry standard! Many movies are produced on Mac's.
Since I work at radio station I deal with all this time. Though we do use wave files for on air, all most all of the audio we receive is in the from of a MP3 of some kind, which we convert to wave.:crying:
A MP3 at 348K sample rate sounds very good, but sadly most use 128K. The fact the Apple is upping the anti to 256k is good.
The ACC is a very good encoder, thou I prefer the LAME encoder.
I agree with many that most young people have never listened to really good sound.:(
The article provided good guide lines for people producing music that have no clue about good production values.:blink:
Yeah, and during the mid '80s as Japanese businesses bought up much of America it felt like we'd be speaking Japanese by now... their massive economic bubble changed that. Apple will not always be on top. I appreciate their dedication to quality in their hardware. I just hope the American proclivity towards the inexpensive doesn't replace Apple quality (which was driven by Mr. Jobs) with a cheap copy that is only styling based.Quote:
Originally Posted by rusty jefferson
As for iTunes, the store... I have no use for it until they offer 16/44.1 or better, losslessly.
Widget
I listen to a lot of NPR. Frequently I'll notice that an interview has audible compression artifacts. The voice is still intelligible, but digital space just isn't that dear... I wish the producers would pay for a little more data transmission. If it jumps out at you in a car, it is pretty bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcrobso
Yes and no... a heck of a lot of the younger set are setting up turntables and spinning vintage as well as new vinyl. There may be a nostalgic resurgence towards better sound... for example, I don't think that the "Beats" generation are wearing the big cans for fidelity, it is fashion, but the side benefit is that they are listening to something significantly better than the disposable earbuds that come with iPods and other players.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcrobso
Widget
I use it from time to time--maybe four or five times a year--to get music I just can't find (legally) anywhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
I get a lot more content off emusic, which is less expensive but limits files to an average 192kbs using the variable bit LAME mp3 encoder.
If anyone bothered to read all ten pages of the PDF on the Mastered for iTunes page, it's a simple but useful primer for aspiring recordists and masterers who may not encounter any of this information elsewhere. It at least broaches topics that are often lamented on this forum as the foundation of criticism of much current, recorded music.
http://images.apple.com/itunes/maste...for_itunes.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
In general I don't like Voice over IP, But I'm stuck with it, it comes down to bandwidth. I do use VOIP but on studio grade units that cost about $3K and the ACC encoded is the standard one to use.
Yes I know there has been a revival of vinyl, but it is small compared to MP3 players and ear buds.:crying:
I know I look out of place on the train with my AKG headphones, but I have quite ride with good sound.;)
sure, but realize that there is a huge difference between NEW and OLD vinyl. And as you know, the trend is to higher quality , heavier vinyl and to better carts/styli. I see a lot of low volume, Indie productions released only on MP3 and vinyl in our area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
There seems to be many that get their feet wet with cheap USB TT's and then progress up the ladder.
I once read an imaginary argument between 2 audiophiles ...1st one was going on and on about his super high digital sampling rates approaching 99.9 % ....the vinylphile says "thats nothing, I've been sampling at 100% for years"
thats sorta funny ...many Pods don't drive big cans very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
when I've gone to the local record shows, there seem to be 2 major groups of buyers ....those older (55+) who are on a nostalgia trip and those at 30 or less. Not much in the middle. The under 30's that I've met will buy just about any POC plastic TT just to be fashionable. It's a fashion/lifestyle statement (at least here) to be purchasing and spinning licorice pizzas.
as to the expectation of quality today, I can say (as a NON-cellphone user) that the quality when someone calls me on one is horrible ...have rarely had a conversation with someone on a cell where the quality approached a wired land line. And that is seen as an OK tradeoff for the convenience.
But seriously...Quote:
Originally Posted by Titanium Dome
Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, I have had to grudgingly use it myself. The more I read, the more I liked. They are such an industry powerhouse they could use their power for good at a time when the industry really needs it.
jcrobsoQuote:
Originally Posted by jcrobso
Not sure what you are saying. VOIP is using the internet for telephone.
Why would we... unless we are in the music biz?Quote:
Originally Posted by Titanium Dome
I think it's great that they are suggesting that folks who want to record music and sell it through their "store" elevate their product offering, but I am not sure how that affects me. I doubt I'll be buying any of it. As for the "poor quality of today's music" Scott Fitlin RIP, the new music I buy from Kate Bush, Nora Jones, Mark Knopfler, Herbie Hancock, etc., etc... are all better recorded than the typical offerings from the '70s or '80s. I suppose if my musical tastes leaned towards dance/club music or contemporary pop I might feel differently.
Widget
I remember from my DJ days in Canada , the import vinyl was always a better recording on heavier vinyl .
ECM and Bluenote+ and a lot of independent labels release vinyl ,but how wants to pay £30-40 each ? There are more and more HD tracks available from the musicians websites to download these days .
Rich
Yes indeed, why would you? It's not like it's the topic of this thread you're commenting in or anything. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
Not that you have to care, or care much, but how the implementation of compressed music/sound files affects you is all around you. You commented on the sound quality of NPR. Whether we like it or not, it all rolls down hill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
No, I mean why would I spend the time to read through ten pages hyping Apple and giving tips and pointers on how to make mediocre sound, sound it's best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Titanium Dome
I applaud the intention, but still find it falls far short... don't get me wrong, the fact that they even acknowledge that there is such a thing as digital quality is a vast improvement over "perfect sound forever" but that isn't the point. Since my days of endless hours in the studio and music recording are long past, it really doesn't pertain to my current avocation, the reproduction of music.
Widget
I mentioned the topic of the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Titanium Dome
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
But I did find the parallel subjects more interesting. Don't get me wrong, it is both interesting and likely a positive step that Apple is acknowledging improvements made and also acknowledging room for more improvement still.
I hope that Apple or their successor(s) embrace studio quality. I am not sure what the market is for that level of quality, but I hope a big player steps in to find out.
Widget
In the radio industry IP based technology is taking over. We get remote sports feeds from all over the country using IP based remote units. Comrex Access is what we use. I can even log into them using my smart phone and do a remote where ever I am located.Quote:
Originally Posted by pathfindermwd
Ah, I see. Learned something new. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jcrobso
Cool. :cool:
I don't think the 80's thing is a good analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
Certainly, Apple won't be on top forever, however they, and Amazon, Walmart, Google, and a few other companies are positioning themselves to be in control for a long time to come. If you don't think Apple is striving to be the primary music source for the planet, you're kidding yourself. Not trying to go all George Orwell on ya or anything, but for the near future it is important for Apple to limit the size of music files for portable devices, cloud servers, and cell/wifi networks that would come to a grinding halt if all iTunes users had lossless (actual) files. They have successfully lowered the standard and gotten very rich in the process.
I agree with your iTunes store philosophy 100%. I currently don't use iTunes at all. I choose FLAC.
I don't know if I can give them a pat on the back for the improvements. I'm cynical I know, but they lowered the standard so far to make portability/storage work, I understand that. Now, 10 years in they bump the algorithm a little and introduce special software for the recording industry to use to make recordings sound their best on iTunes? I just don't trust them to do the right thing for the industry/public. I appreciate the average iTunes user will either enjoy or not notice the improvement....er, degradation.:hmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
I agree 100%, but I think it's unlikely we'll see this type of improvement any time soon, or without an exorbitant price increase. The "Audiophile Upcharge" if you will. If HD Tracks or some of the other higher end distributors demonstrate they can be profitable, one of the media giants will buy them.
Apple makes the most bread on the hardware not the content. Amazon, by contrast, is willing to lose money on the hardware to make money off the content. I don't care about either model: I want rationally priced, high quality content that belongs to me when I purchase it, whether I store it locally or in the cloud or in some unknown futuristic medium.Quote:
Originally Posted by rusty jefferson
We all have to get a clue, as you've noted, that the infrastructure and the curmudgeonly media companies were the main drags on file size and quality to begin with. Now there's a gradual loosening of both of those strictures, but you can't expect a stilted structure of a century to change in a decade without some sacrifice from those who want to see it improve. Companies follow profits, not aficionado pipe dreams, as does JBL/Harman with numerous iPod docks, entry-level consumer gear, and a very few high-priced, premium products that most here will not be able to afford without sacrifice.
In the past and to a certain extent currently, the media companies still control the content game and are the ones who've insisted on all kinds of DRM, restrictions, and controls. This is public knowledge, well known, well documented, and freely admitted. Add in associations like the Blu-ray group, and it's a cluster frak of huge proportion. Without reading the entire contract between Apple and the big four media companies, it's mere speculation to assign responsibility to Apple alone for bit rates, file sizes, and bandwidth restrictions. No doubt there were horrendous negotiating sessions with Jobs and the corporate execs, egos on both sides exceeding the available space and air.
The end result was something that was limited, restricted, and for some people less that the physical status quo, but it was still a step toward a future that Jobs and some other smart people at Apple and elsewhere believed would be a revolution in the making. Eventually, DRM came off. Eventually iTune Plus came to be. Now, there's Mastered for iTunes.
Perfect, no. Progress, yes. In the same range of time, LPs didn't improve as much; cassettes didn't improve as much, CDs didn't improve as much. Notice I wrote range of time, not "same time period" because none of this happened simultaneously. It happened historically.
That's a good choice; nonetheless:Quote:
Originally Posted by rusty jefferson
Dylan: But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You’re gonna have to serve somebody.
I think FLAC is great. I spent a couple hundred bucks to get the Beatles' USB metal Apple with the remastered FLAC files on it. They sound great; just as good as the 320kbps MP3 files that play in iTunes. Not better IMO.
There are some pieces of music I like that aren't available in FLAC or other high quality formats. I don't cut off my nose to spite my face. I listen to the lesser quality files that I can get, and I find it easy to enjoy the music rather than fret over the file type or bit rate. Now if a higher quality option is available, I'll take it if it's' reasonable and legal. No worries there, but I'm not going to lose the chance to hear great performances or favorite bits, even if the medium is not 100%. I'm unwilling to pay that opportunity cost.
Apple doesn't want a pat on the back from me, you, Widget, or anyone else, so no need to worry about that. ;) They want people to buy their gear and use their content services. I know you know that, but you kind of made me write it. :p The credit I would give Apple is that it is moving the stake forward. Certainly part of that is to keep selling stuff, but part of it is also to set a higher standard as conditions allow. Apple gets dumped on all the time for relatively conservative upgrades or simply adding things that other vendors already have in their products. IME, other tech companies will throw in anything they can to have the latest gee-whiz technology, whether it works for most people or works at all. I live in the second-largest metro area in the US, and some companies were touting "4G" products and willing to let consumers sign up for expensive two-year contracts for 4G phones on networks that had no 4G service in 90% of the local area. We sure as heck didn't have it here, yet whiners were complaining about Apple not having a 4G device. Uh, well, there's no 4 G here. Now that it's actually becoming available, there's the "new" iPad, when the infrastructure is in place to make it meaningful and they can sell new, high margin products with technical features that can actually be used.Quote:
Originally Posted by rusty jefferson
I see the Mastered in iTunes as a similar step. With the cloud becoming a reality rather than complete vapor (see the pseudoscientific pun there), there's enough storage and bandwidth on the horizon to make it all work. Apple's $25 iTunes match will put all your non DRM music and old iTunes DRMed purchases in the cloud at 256kbps DRM free, even if you originally got it at 128kbps, whether from iTunes, emusic, your own ripped discs, etc. It's incremental improvement, but it is improvement.
Actually, it's more than incremental improvement for the majority of iTunes users. It's a doubling. For those of us who deign, feign, or complain about needing much higher bit rates, it's at least incremental. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rusty jefferson
I'm not sure what your 100% agreement is, but I think it's with Widget's "embrace studio quality" comment. If so, I'd like him to give a better comment on what that means. I've been in a lot of studios, including most recently AIX Studios in West LA (along with grumpy and JBLaddict). What's going on in that studio is a lot different than what's going on in some of the more mainstream studios I've been allowed to visit. If Widget means that AIX kind of studio standard, then yes, I'm in agreement. But if he means virtually all of the other studios where I've been, then, uh, pass on that standard. It's mostly retrograde s#!t when it comes to the mastering process. I'm more interested in forward moving approaches, and Mastered for iTunes has that feel to me.
Neither Apple nor anyone else can take bad studio standard recordings and make them more than what they are. I know in theory some guys have said they could, but they've never proven it to my satisfaction. It appears that Apple is playing to the non-studio standard guys and gals who are mixing their own. The studios aren't going to change. They'll fight the loudness wars for a long time to come. But individuals mixing their own, young artists who want to avoid the studio system, veterans who are tired of being burned by the studios, they can all go around that behemoth and try Mastered for iTunes if they want. They get the tools for free. Apple gets access to the content at a predetermined and well-known price; the artists get hosting, sales, accounting, distribution, access to the largest market, and 70% of the take.
If a consumer (that's most of us) doesn't want to wade through iTunes, that's fine. There's no need to do that. But if Apple's initiative produces one, then two, then four, then eight, then xx artists who make better mastered products of really good music that would never escape the studio system and we're ignoring the iTunes products out of principle or pretense, we could end up later to the party than we already are. I'm getting too old to miss any parties. I need to keep on dancing till the world ends.
:banana:
Why foam ITunes is just portable music for me. I purchase physical media and will continue to do so until the option is gone. At least they are moving in the right direction.
Do any of you have ITunes? That last revision has the AAC VBR as an option in the encoder. I have been using MP3 VBR for years and the higher bit rates sound quite good. I am going to try the AAC VBR and see what's what.
Rob:)
What is iTunes? Is it music management software or a store? I guess they want it to be everything to everyone and therefore like the confusion... now every time I launch the music software on my computer they want me to log in... I've never set up an account so I can't, but it still asks. That's kind of annoying, but it is a small price to pay for a free software package that does most things pretty well.
What is studio quality? 24/96 at a minimum and DSD or 24/192 preferred. There have always been low end studios... back in the analog days there where folks who mastered onto 1/4 track 7½ ips or worse yet cassette tapes... low end pro studios used half track machines at 15 ips and the high end "audiophile" studios ran 1/2" or 1" tape at 30 ips.
Ultimately, those are just formats though... and while you need a decent format, you need engineers and musicians who know what to do with it. Hi rez crap is still crap, whether it be poorly played or poorly mic'd.
AAC VBR??? Where do you see that?
Widget
I got the newest version yesterday and don't have that option either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
For me, iTunes is just a method to transfer tunes to the mobile device,
and it doesn't do that very well. The newer versions won't work with
the new Nano.
Guys , click AAC and it appears in the bottom box
It's not quite as easy as Rich made it sound, you have to click on AAC, then options and an additional window pops in where you can choose it. Se Below:Quote:
Originally Posted by SEAWOLF97
Wolf, you've mentioned these problems before... I find that very strange. Latest iTunes and latest iPod and having trouble? I'd believe it if you had a 5 year old iPod and had trouble getting it to synch with the latest software or vice versa, but your situation seems odd. Have you dropped in to your local Genius Bar?
Widget
Itunes on PC/XP3 ...Apple USB cable , straight from PC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
iTouch works perfectly
Nano isn't ID'ed or now ignored on same cable after swap.
problem started AFTER one of the many iTunes version upgrades.
Nano works fine on laptop with older vers. of iTunes. I won't let the LT
upgrade iTunes at this point.
Genius bar ?
Never been inside of an Apple Store? They offer amazing customer service... you usually need to make an appointment, but they have techies who will get you stuff working... they even know about Microsoft related "issues"... contact them and see if they will help.Quote:
Originally Posted by SEAWOLF97
Widget
I'll toss some coins in the fountain here for what it's worth...
I have a number of iDevices and have been using them for about 5 years. I like their design and for the most part I am happy with their sound quality. However, I have purchased a grand total of *one* song on iTunes in the past 5 years, and that was because we were hosting a party and someone wanted to hear a song I somehow didn't have in my fairly large collection (2000 LPs, 1500 CDs, 50K+ MP3s). It was a quick and easy process and I can see why it's popular with some people.
What I can't get past is why this "gotta have it now" generation is willing to pay the same or more for a 128k digital copy of the CD, just to get it ASAP. Wouldn't everyone rather have "all the bits", and the real media in hand if for no other purpose than to have a "backup" ? I know how I'm voting with my money, but I am clearly in the minority. The real reason is of course that no one is forced to buy the whole album any more, and we all know that a lot of albums have only a good song or two at most. Apple clearly knew that, and coupled with the "buy it now" mentality, they hit it out of the park.
So now, many years later they have decided to up the ante to 256k. Having done a bunch of comparisons myself with MP3's at various bit rates, I know this will make a difference on some music. What I am somewhat interested in is the following:
1) will they charge more now ?
2) will they try and get people to re-buy their already purchased iTunes music all over again at 256k? This is a time-proven music industry practice we've all been through
3) Will they FINALLY act like a decent corporation and KEEP TRACK of what you purchased so that you can download it again at a later date if your computer and mobile device both go kaput at once? Too many of my friends learned the hard way early on with iTunes that it's up to you to do your own backups. And will this be free or will they charge some kind of "cloud" fee for it ? They don't need to re-store all the songs again (a bit for bit copy of your data), they just need to check that you have purchased it and let you download it again.
Steve's gone...will the money machine continue ? I think the next gen is going to be eyeglass-based with voice and retina scanned control.
When they all have 100TB internal storage (or 100PB), we'll all look back on this compression craze and laugh....
jblnut
(I'm a data storage guy and the time when we're all walking around with terabytes is just around the corner)
Well here's what I have in mine. I am running Widows XP
Rob:)
try changing the setting to custom
True that, my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Titanium Dome
I appreciated your detailed response, post #22. Just to be clear, I have no problem with folks that use, like, love Apple/iTunes. I understand the genius and practicality of it. As posted earlier, I currently don't have a need for their system, but I "get" why millions use it.
To the original point of the thread, I hope you see my concern with the idea of music being mastered with software specific to a low bit rate format to enhance it's playback. I see a potential for a overall loss of quality for those of us who would like to purchase cds/downloads at the "studio quality level". Over time, producers/bands will default to the iTunes "production" as that may be the biggest market, and hey, "It sounds pretty good to me". I would prefer to see music mastered at the highest quality level possible, then have the software applied that gives the best results on iTunes.
I think this may be a good thread, if you want to start one. There is no way, imo, that the mp3 file should be able to hold up against the remastered 24 bit FLAC file. It should be night and day, if everything in your system is set up properly. I am assuming you mean on your main system, with the K2s, not in the car, or on a secondary system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Titanium Dome
I think Ti Dome touched on some of these in post 22Quote:
Originally Posted by jblnut
I wouldn't worry about that at all. It's just another output format and it's better than the original "standard". If the view is to still do vinyl as a niche market then 24/96 or better isn't going anywhere.Quote:
To the original point of the thread, I hope you see my concern with the idea of music being mastered with software specific to a low bit rate format to enhance it's playback. I see a potential for a overall loss of quality for those of us who would like to purchase cds/downloads at the "studio quality level".
Rob:)
I love being invisible ... !
Not indivisible at all!Quote:
Originally Posted by richluvsound
But why use VBR at all? Why not use Apple Lossless - if we are talking quality, use the highest possible bit rate.
I went through my whole collection around T'giving/New Year and reripped all of it at Apple Lossless setting ...
Yes, we do have iPods and an iPhone - so FLAC isn't useful for us ... but if Apple Lossless is the same as FLAC,
the jump from the older 320kb (with a few older ones at 192kbps)to rates in excess of 600 (and some above 1000k)
is significant and is a great improvement.
As long as the "Mastered for iTunes" program encourages a better quality overall, why not?
I've got something like 7 or 8 Terabytes in my eSATA drive cabinet -
using a dedicated 2 TB baracuda drive in that box for the under 500gB itunes collection is easy -
... and remember - backups, backups, BACKUPS!
Storage is so cheap there's no need to compromise your collection and use AAC for your own CD rips.
ALAC for me too-entire collection ripped (and backed up!)
The idea HD downloads could bring the web to a standstill is rather far fetched me thinks too!
It does look as though Apple do give a toss about SQ though I just wish they'd hurry up and make ALAC's or 24/96 available.
Hello HeatherQuote:
But why use VBR at all? Why not use Apple Lossless - if we are talking quality, use the highest possible bit rate.
Depends on what you are using your Library for. If I had a server at home I would use Lossless. It's only portable and I like flipping CD's as much as I did vinyl.
Rob:)
FWIW: I only use Apple Lossless, some say it is as good as uncompressed others say no, some say it is as good as FLAC others say no, there doesn't seem to be any conclusive evidence that there are any sonic "losses" between lossless compression and uncompressed files and it appears those that advocate one lossless type over another are merely expressing opinions.
The reason I mention all of that is that as Heather will agree, transferring hundreds of gigabytes from silver discs to a hard drive isn't a trivial exercise so you really don't want to do it more than once if at all possible. Yes Rob, you may only use your iTunes for portability today, but in the future I doubt that will be the case. The shiny silver discs may live on for decades to come, but just as quickly as vinyl and cassette tapes vanished, I see CDs disappearing in the not too distant future.
My 120GB iPod Classic holds about 400 albums in Apple Lossless... do you need to carry more than 400 albums around? The current Classic is 160GB so it'll hold well over 500 albums... I imagine 500GB solid state drives will be here soon enough... lighter, smaller, better battery life, and 1,500+ lossless albums in your pocket?
Now, sorta, kinda back to the original topic... if the point of Apple's "Mastered for iTunes" is to show they are growing with the industry and will continue to improve their sonics, then we should assume that at some point they will offer much higher rez offerings, probably at a premium price point. As has been pointed out by others in this thread, memory just isn't the dear commodity it once was... as for the "cloud effect", streaming HD video will make high rez audio files look pretty trivial.
Oh, and as Heather mentioned... back up, back up, back up! I wouldn't trust anyone's cloud either. Desktop Terabytes are cheap, cheap, cheap... pick up a few today. :D
Widget
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
Please, point me to a few good cheap drives. I need some.
I'm a new owner of a 160GB "Classic" using all Apple Lossless, and I'm loving it . . . in the car!
I'd buy a 2T drive that allows mirroring... effectively a 1T drive, but when it fails, and it eventually will, you'll have a back up. Prices are typically between $100-$200.Quote:
Originally Posted by BMWCCA
Widget
Thanks. Hard to navigate the morass of available options. Don't see mirroring in any specs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
Looking at WD, Seagate, etc. Requires spending much more for Firewire options and most seem to be USB 2.0 rapidly being replaced by 3.0. I've used and still own WD and LaCie without a failure but those all had multiple choices for connectivity. Is USB 2.0 as fast as Firewire 800 and does USB 3.0 which is backwards compatible with 2.0 work well enough on a USB 2.0 Mac to ignore the Firewire options?
Going price seems to be as low as $120 on Amazon.
Back on topic.
A drive itself does not do mirroring. You need the operating system to do that, or you can buy a little NAS that will take care of it. I use 3ware raid cards (with 5 old 500gb disks each) on an old pc in the basement to serve up all my tunes and DVDs.
Lots of ways to do this...just make sure your collection lives on more than one drive in one single computer and you should be ok.
Jblnut
I prefer to use 3.5 inch drives instead of the laptop style 2.5 in drives.
I buy 2gB Seagate Barracuda, usually 7200rpm drives if I can get them, but the slower speeds aren't too bad.
Been using these DIY FireWire 800 external dual drive cases from Otherworld computer (MacSales) for a couple years
they can be configured to do RAID across the two drives if need be - tho I don't do RAID.
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other...ng/MEPQ946QL2/
Nowadays, I just have my TimeMachine backup drives in that case...
But since I got the MacPro - I put an eSATA card that supports Port Multiplier in it,
and loading one of these up with 4 drives
http://www.amazon.com/ProBox-Drive-E...dp/B003X26VV4/