100GB drives (real soon now)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/21266.html

This note in The Register seems to say that 100GB laptop drives are near.

--Glenn

I hope I don't ever have enough cd's to need one of those :-)

or maybe we need a file type that takes more space than wav

32Gig MK2 In 2001 VW Golf TDI

I hope I don't ever have enough cd's to need one of those :-)
or maybe we need a file type that takes more space than wav.

If it will make ripping and encoding trouble free, bring it on!

--Glenn

I've been having to delete older cd's when putting on new cd's for about 6 months now - and that's on top of a 36gb empeg...

Could have easily filled up 50gb's or so by now if I didn't care about the space limit..
-mark

...Still (barely, pending 1.1 release) proud to have owned an Empeg since 00287

I think it may be harder using wav files because the I would have to manaly input the data into the empeg database. unless I am wrong and wav files do have ID3 tags

32Gig MK2 In 2001 VW Golf TDI

I pretty much do that for my MP3's anyway, I don't trust CDDB nor like that it must have been filled by either one busy moron or a lot of people who don't like capitals or know how to spell or put the year in the comments section.

Question, I think I know the answer to this but anyway, since MP3's are a lossy compresion & once the segments are lost that's it. If you convert a MP3 back to a .wav then re-encode at a higher rate, is it any better than the previously lower encoded rate, given the same encoding parameters as was the original file?
My choice would be straight .wav files on my empeg.


#695-Mk2/Many pretty faceplate colors-12Gig/TUNER-anxiously awaits v2.x & VR

"No buyers regret"

If you convert a MP3 back to a .wav then re-encode at a higher rate, is it any better than the previously lower encoded rate,

No. It will be worse. Once you throw away the information, it is lost. And each time you go from .wav to .mp3 you are throwing away more information. If your original .wav file had 100% of the information, and you converted it to an .mp3 that, say, threw away 25%, when you went back to .wav you would only have 75% of what you had to begin with. Convert that to a higher-level .mp3, say one that kept 90% of the original information, you are still left with only about 2/3 of the original information.

You can't go home again. (Hmmm.... that would be a catchy title for a book, wouldn't it...)

tanstaafl.



"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"

It's worse than that, even.

One of the side effects of MP3 compression is "compression artifacts". If you've ever listened to a low-bandwidth audio/video stream, you know what compression artifacts sound like already. A description of it might be that it sounds like bits of "garbage" in the air around the sounds. They are usually gurgly, watery kinds of sounds which "surround" the other sounds. Hard to describe in words, I suppose.

Even high-bandwidth MP3s have them, they're just so faint that you don't notice them except in really rare situations.

If you re-compress an MP3 that was already compressed once, you will be piling compression artifacts on top of more compression artifacts. They will become significantly worse.

It's funny. Just the other night I turned on TechTV and they had a program on called "AudioFile", which is their regular program about MP3s and internet audio. On this program, someone wrote in and asked how to make all their MP3s sound like they're playing at the same volume.

I was just aghast at their answer. Did they suggest a real-time dynamic compressor plug-in for WinAmp? No. Did they even talk about why MP3s sound like they're at different volumes? no. The first word out of their mouth was "normalization". "NO!" I screamed. But okay, when I realized that they were dolts who didn't know that most albums are already normalized, I calmed down to see what they suggested for normalizing the MP3s. Did they suggest re-ripping them with Normalization turned on? No. Did they suggest using MP3Trim, which will normalize a file without decompressing it? No. They suggested de-compressing the files, normalizing them, and recompressing them. NO!!!!!!!

I turned off the television at that point. Their advice was wrong on so many levels... I will no longer trust a single thing they say on that program...

___________
Tony Fabris

If you expand an mp3 into a wav file and then recompress, you'll get a lower quality then what you started with - don't do this.
-mark

...Still (barely, pending 1.1/2.0/TeAsE release) proud to have owned an Empeg since 00287

I did some experimentation with wav - mp3 - wav and found that there didn't seem to be any actual data loss until you got down to 96kbps. I thought that above this, the difference in output sound quality was to do with how much compression was used and was dealt with by some shmancy algorithm, but that the original data was still the same. Did I get this completely wrong? I encode most of my CD's at 128 and the same with any conversions I've done from tape. Should I be doing this at an initial higher rate which I can then archive to CD and then re-encode at a lower rate for my empeg?

___________________________

Steve - 18GB Mk II Sssmokey

I wouldn't even go as low as 128. More often than not you'll notice the artifacts are quite prominent on percussion sounds, particularly Cymbals/Highhats etc at this bitrate. That's in my experience anyway. YMMV. Personally I use VBR.

MP3 is lossy whatever bitrate you use. It just gets more lossy the lower the bitrate.


Marcus (beaker)
32 gig (various colours)

Edited by beaker on 07/09/01 03:57 PM.

Hi,

I had some serious artifacts using 128kbit so I started to encode my collection all over again. I've switched to VBR (using lame) and since harddrives are becoming bigger & cheaper almost every month I don't mind the extra space.

Have a look at r3mix for some info on this subject

[email protected]
--------------------------------------
Reg:1934/Mk1:158-6Blue(sold)/Mk2:380-12Amber

Would 100gb or indeed 2x100gb really make you think what you can do with that amount of space.

What about .mpeg video files output to an incar TV Screen ?

Surely Empeg must be going in this direction for Mk III ?

What about .mpeg video files output to an incar TV Screen ?

This has been mentioned before, and here's my opinion:

1) Watching movies in the car, at least up on the front dashboard, doesn't make any sense to me to begin with.

2) If you want to watch movies, there's already in-car DVD players which do this job much better.

3) Shuffling a huge collection of music in your car, without CD swapping, makes a lot of sense. In fact, it makes so much sense that I wanted to do it long before I heard about the Empeg Car. But shuffling a few dozen 2-hour movies in the car doesn't make sense. At least not to me.

4) The only time that movies in the car make sense to me is in the case of RVs and in the back seat for the kids on long trips. But in those situations, an ordinary DVD or VCR seems fine to me. I have no desire to compress 2-hour movies onto a hard disk, I'm fine with swapping a disc every 2 hours.

I'd much rather put that kind of storage to better use: Higher quality song files, and more of them. Space as a file taxi. Space to record digital audio, for tivo-like features with the radio. Space to allow ripping CDs directly on the player, like the upcoming big-name unit discussed earlier here on the BBS.

___________
Tony Fabris

and don't forget a few Gigs for those Nav system maps ...

(list 6284, Mk1 S/N 00299 4GB blue [for sale]. Mk2 S/N 080000094 26GB blue)

and don't forget a few Gigs for those Nav system maps ...

Ooo, yeah, good point. Imagine having an entire continent's worth of detailed nav data...

___________
Tony Fabris

Nav data with video out to an LCD screen!


|| loren.cox ||

In reply to:

---

Nav data with video out to an LCD screen!

---

Now you're talking. How much space does a 'typical' map take anyway?

Plus, how long would it take to download the video file and how many are you likley to watch on any trip? Hardly seems worth it really.

Having the empeg control the DVD or video would be better. surely making a little PIC to latch on the serial line to control the player would be easier.

Murray
I made a conscious descision in a semi-conscious state

DVD's are great for films, but I was thinking of some classic comedy which doesn't demand the same level of picture quality or sound quality.

Love the idea of the Navi System. Bring it on !

LTJ