How do you organize your music on your comp?

[RainDawg]

Originally Posted by feralicious

This confuses me... then what is the point of getting a high quality show in lossless if you are going to listen to it compressed? Why not listen to the lossless files?

Well, I've done ABX tests from FLAC to OGG with a quality of 6, and I honestly can't tell the difference....in fact, there really isn't anyone who can. I never, ever pass those lossy files on, but for storing on my PC, I can fit about 5 times more with OGG-6 than I can with FLAC.

The point of getting the lossless file is that I have it in it's original quality. If I ever want to go to a different format, I can always go back to the original. Also, I can trade with people who can also compress to whatever format they like. As long as the original lossless file is passed on, anyone can do anything to it they want and it doesn't add quality loss each time....

[RainDawg]

Originally Posted by feralicious

Are the metadata scripts easy to set up? Mind posting a sample? I've not tried to do all that, and doubt that I will since I don't have the time to simply archive and listen to what I've already got, and it just keeps coming in...

Yeah, I'll cook up a sample for how I do this tonight. It took me a few hours to get all the scripts written and the metadata templates saved, but it literally takes me about 15 seconds to completely tag a new set...I consider this a critical step as my Rio Karma will then browse through stuff by artist and then album. If I didn't tag the FLACs, it would be just a huge list of files..

Tagging is also necessary as, when I drop stuff onto my media drive, foobar2000 will browse through it by tags...if there's none on there, it's really ugly.

I don't if anyone else has ever had a folder on a Win-32 system with, say, 600 sub-folders in it....when I organized my files like that it would take 10 seconds or more just to load the folder in Explorer. With foobar2000, it browses all those files instantly . And, like I said, I can put multiple tags onto a single file so that it shows up under different artists.

I'll post a few samples into a new thread tonight or tomorrow.....

[greenheatherc]

Originally Posted by Reflection

I'm just looking to get some feedback and ideas on how others organize their bootlegs and other tunes on their computer.

I had a pretty good system going, but now that I have started downloading a lot more bootlegs(resulting in multiple file formats: flac,shn,wma) and started playing around with foobar2000 I think I need to get a new system in place .

Just looking for suggestions and ideas, particularly if you use foobar2000.

Thanks

what's a bootleg?

[RainDawg]

Originally Posted by feralicious

Where do you find the time...????

Efficiency....saving the scripts and writing batch files for everything saves an enormous amount of time. Lets see, the whole path a show takes for me is:

1. Find a show I like, queue it up in Azureus
2. Share as long as I can....
3. Check the md5s and/or ffps
4. Rename the files to etree format
5. Run shntool len check for sector boundaries errors, fix if necessary
6. Tag the files with foobar2000
7. Put the folder into "To Listen"
8. Listen to the music on my home PC or Rio Karma
9. When checked and verified clean/gapless/etc it gets put into my tradelist (again, a batch script to adds the metadata to a database)
10. Post the new show to my tradelist website
11. Compress to OGG-6 if it's a good one
12. Burn it to a DVD, delete it from the hard drive

I know...I'm a bit obsessive.....

[RainDawg]

...bumping this over to Technobabble

[Five]

nice trick with the "list"... haven't seen that before

Here's how I do it:

1. Find a show I like, queue it up in TorrentStorm
2. Share as long as I can....
3. Check the md5s and/or ffps
4. Rename the files to etree format
5. Check a track to see if it's lossy-sourced and/or has SBE artifacts (small gaps & clicks) at the beginning or ends of the tracks using CEP
6. Convert to FLAC (if it isn't already)
7. Check for SBEs and/or correct them using FLAC frontend (gotta get my SHNtool running soon)
8. Tag the files with foobar2000
9. Listen to the music with WinAmp when I get the chance.
10. Burn to CDR, delete from HD. Good shows don't get burned right away.
11. Rave to local traders about my favorite shows and burn them a copy of the data if they want it. They do the same for me with their shows.

[feralicious]

Dammit! You two (RainDawg and Five) are making me think about redoing all 80 of the DVDs of flac/shn I've already archived.

[RainDawg]

http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/...ead.php?t=1140

[dacrawdaddy]

Originally Posted by feralicious

This confuses me... then what is the point of getting a high quality show in lossless if you are going to listen to it compressed? Why not listen to the lossless files?

Supposedly, the audible frequencies of MP3, OGG, and other formats that are 'lossy' still fall well outside of the limitations of human ears. In other words, the lowest frequency ranges of these file formats are well below what we can hear, and the highs are well beyond what we can hear. So, technically, there's not going to be an audible difference between a (medium or high bitrate) MP3 and a SHN or FLAC file. So they are fine for personal use and for smaller storage size.

Problems pop up when these files are distributed, because during the conversion, they *have* experienced a significant drop in quality from the original SHN or FLAC files (whose frequency ranges are much greater than 'lossy' file types). The 'lossy' problem is exponentially multiplied when MP3-sourced CDs are EAC-ripped into "lossless" file types, converted to MP3 or other 'lossy' file types, then burned to CD again, and EAC-ripped again. ---Then there's an exponential loss of quality, than *does* make an audible difference. (Have you heard any of those terrible sounding MP3's that you used to be able to download from Napster or Kazaa? Probably came from MP3 sourced audio CD's ripped, burned and re-ripped again and again.)---

So the 'lossy' file types are OK for personal use ... and they usually only use about 10-40% of the hard drive space as 'lossless' files do. Anyway, I'm glad this community and others support technology and methods that educate about and support 'lossless' archival quality music.

[Five]

Yeah, it's all about HD space when it comes to lossy. In a few years it'll be completely unnecessary that's why we've got to wage the war on mp3. FLAC-APE-SHN is archive quality and still will be in 20 years but mp3 will be total and complete garbage when people have discs that hold 100GB or something like that.

For the record, ogg is 100x better than mp3 IMO, but I only use something like this if I need to email a snippet to somebody.

[wazoo2u]

Originally Posted by dacrawdaddy

Supposedly, the audible frequencies of MP3, OGG, and other formats that are 'lossy' still fall well outside of the limitations of human ears. In other words, the lowest frequency ranges of these file formats are well below what we can hear, and the highs are well beyond what we can hear. So, technically, there's not going to be an audible difference between a (medium or high bitrate) MP3 and a SHN or FLAC file. So they are fine for personal use and for smaller storage size.

....I'm glad this community and others support technology and methods that educate about and support 'lossless' archival quality music.

First, glad your on the bandwagon and understand that lossless is far preferable to lossy.

OK... just a point of clarification. ALL lossy compression schemes use mathematical algorythims to "fool" the brain into thinking that it hears frequencies that aren't really there. It's inaccurate to focus on the "frequencies beyond human hearing" composition of lossy files, since the information that is missing is WELL WITHIN the range of human hearing. The codec is simply fooling your ear into thinking that you hear things that actually ARE NOT THERE. This is why lossy technology basically sucks, and the long term effects of listening to these "pseudo frequencies" has yet to be seen. There is some speculation in the scientific community that prolonged listening to lossy codecs can actually damage human hearing.

I'm told that OGG sounds better than 256 CBR MP3, but that doesn't mean it's not missing frequencies that would be present in a lossless file. While it might be difficult to hear much of a difference (and this depends on the sonic composition of the material) between a high bitrate encode and a lossless file on portable electronics, when you put these into a critical listening environment, there's no comparison to be made.

[feralicious]

Yeah, I've heard both sides. Some swear they can hear the difference, some say it's not noticeable. I can see going lossy if you're putting it on a portable player, but it seems that if you go through all the quality control and then the copy you actually use for listening isn't the best one then it seems like a bit of mental masturbation. It's there on the shelf to look at but not to touch. Kind of like when I grab more shows than I can even listen to...
But I know I can hear the difference between analog/vinyl and digital/cd and much prefer analog/vinyl but the world went digital and it certainly is easier to deal with and keep intact. My fear is that everyone is out buying mp3s for $0.99 a song, which I think is a crime punishable by... something, and which really isn't cheap considering it's lesser quality and distribution costs are mimimal, and that the world will continue to go that way. RainDawg, I know that's not what you're doing and not the issue that spawned my question, but my mind has wandered here now, and in general, I worry that the masses continue to settle for lesser quality in everything in life and it's really sad. And we're so out of control really, with what the new technology will be that dominates, or anything else for that matter. Okay, I'm depressed. I'm going back to bed.

[RainDawg]

For the record, I think that $0.99 for a lousy mp3 is a crime. I would never, ever, pay money for that.

I wouldn't believe someone who says they can tell the difference unless they can pass a true ABX test (which you can do with foobar2000 btw ). Play the original lossless, play the high bitrate lossy, and see if you can....

[Andy L]

Originally Posted by RainDawg

For the record, I think that $0.99 for a lousy mp3 is a crime. I would never, ever, pay money for that.

Here in the UK, we have the privilege of paying 99p for lossy, DRM-infested MP3s which, at current rates, is almost double the price you guys in the US pay. iTunes songs cost 79p and are encoded in AAC format, but that's still more expensive and still has DRM. I would never pay money for that either, as I refuse to be told what I can and can't do with the music I've paid for.

The majority of people don't care about quality or DRM though, which is why these online stores are taking off (that, and their sheer convenience). Given a 5GB hard disc with a choice of 150 lossless songs or 1500 MP3s, most people would go for the 1500 MP3s every time. Hopefully, as bandwidth and hard disc space increases, more people will go for lossless, but I can't see it happening somehow.

[RainDawg]

Well, Andy, there are two issues here. One is the lossy/lossless thing, the other is the DRM issue. The simple fact is that most of these things can be found as complete CDs for around $1 a song....

These online music services really aren't for collectors though, and I realize that. But I sure as hell won't be paying that much money for a stupid copy-protected lossy file. It's another example of coporations stealing from the ignorant.

Given a 5GB hard drive, I'd personally prefer an OGG-6 compressed from my own original CD...but that's just my choice. I always make them myself from the original source....