Well here's what I have in mine. I am running Widows XP
Rob
Well here's what I have in mine. I am running Widows XP
Rob
"I could be arguing in my spare time"
try changing the setting to custom
True that, my friend.
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.
I think Ti Dome touched on some of these in post 22
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.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 could be arguing in my spare time"
Not indivisible at all!
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!
2ch: WiiM Pro; Topping E30 II DAC; Oppo, Acurus RL-11, Acurus A200, JBL Dynamics Project - Offline: L212-TwinStack, VonSchweikert VR-4
7: TIVO, Oppo BDP103D, B&K, 2pr UREI 809A, TF600, JBL B460
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 HeatherBut 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
"I could be arguing in my spare time"
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.
Widget
". . . as you have no doubt noticed, no one told the 4345 that it can't work correctly so it does anyway."—Greg Timbers
Thanks. Hard to navigate the morass of available options. Don't see mirroring in any specs.
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.
". . . as you have no doubt noticed, no one told the 4345 that it can't work correctly so it does anyway."—Greg Timbers
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/
2ch: WiiM Pro; Topping E30 II DAC; Oppo, Acurus RL-11, Acurus A200, JBL Dynamics Project - Offline: L212-TwinStack, VonSchweikert VR-4
7: TIVO, Oppo BDP103D, B&K, 2pr UREI 809A, TF600, JBL B460
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)