Comments on: Uncompressed Digital Library

By: john

john — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:30:42 +0000

Hi, check out http://test.fycd.com - it’s a new service and it’s cheaper than the competition because the whole process is automated. The cost for 400 CDs with 192kbps MP3 AND WMA lossless is $405. If you hurry and you join the beta test program we’ll do it for $252.50. Those folks you mention above would want around $600.

So, whaddya say?

By: Henry Hsu

Henry Hsu — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 04:24:29 +0000

It’s actually remarkably easy and fast to rip your CD’s if you have a second computer.

One day I — inspired to rip all my CDs — I set up a spare computer in my cage [cubicle]. While doing my normal job on one computer, I just changed CD’s every three or four minutes (whenever it’s convenient) on the other computer… it becomes a subconsious motion after just a few CD’s.

I ripped about 75 a day (I don’t actually sit at my desk the whole day) without getting fired.

By: echeng

echeng — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:07:51 +0000

Thanks, Michele.

I’m a mainstream sort of guy when dealing with computing. I think I’ll likely either stick with WAV files (hard drives are cheap!) or WMA’s lossless format. However, I’m not sure whether the digital audio client boxes these days support WAV files. I assume they do.

The RipDigital guys say that they will charge $0.50 extra per CD for another format, including WAV. So that’s $1.50 per CD for MP3 and WAV. Not so bad!

By: Michele

Michele — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:54:02 +0000

SHN is compatible with all operating systems. Mac OS 9 users can’t use FLAC, or APE either I think, so many traders still use SHN, although many use FLAC too. They don’t use APE because up until recently it hasn’t been Mac OS X compatible. You’ll find pirates using it for commercial CDs though. FLAC has more features than SHN and is generally easier to work with. You can get standalone gadgets that’ll play FLAC, but none that’ll do SHN. They’re listed on http://flac.sourceforge.net/ on the right hand side that says Hardware supporting FLAC.

By: echeng

echeng — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:52:23 +0000

compression does not implicitly imply loss of data. when you zip up your files and unzip them, you get the original bits back, and not some approximation, right?

Think of LZW compression, etc.

By: Sha Sha

Sha Sha — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:50:20 +0000

A question from the uninitiated like me: how can a compression format be lossless? Doesn't compression, by definition = some data loss? Or in the case of audio, does lossless = can't-hear-any-difference-between-compressed and-uncompressed-but-technically-there-is-some-data-loss?

Please explain.

By: DaveP

DaveP — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 01:31:25 +0000

BSOD?! That’s RFBS. NG. I will have my whizzy new laptop blessed by…a rabbi or something…

By: echeng

echeng — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:55:13 +0000

Here’s a good comparison of lossless compression formates out there:

http://www.monkeysaudio.com/comparison.html

But what I want to know is if my mainstream media players will play those formats. ;)

By: echeng

echeng — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:52:21 +0000

A lot of the (legal) music traders out there use the SHN format. I see that there is a WinAmp plugin for it. Anyone know if there is wider support for it, or if there is another dominant lossless format or codec that people use?

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 14:35:14 +0000

get a Thinkpad T41.

:-)