Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › How many songs do you have in your music library?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How many songs do you have in your music library? - Page 5

Poll Results: what genre would you absolutely have to find in someones music library

 
  • 2% (6)
    R&B
  • 5% (16)
    Pop
  • 45% (124)
    Rock
  • 6% (17)
    Hip Hop/Rap
  • 1% (4)
    Reggae
  • 13% (36)
    Jazz
  • 25% (69)
    Electronic
  • 1% (3)
    Country
275 Total Votes  
post #61 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

That's not really fair to say. He/she may honestly not know and it's not fair for you to judge them. At one point I wasn't so savvy on this stuff and was making mistakes myself. It wasn't until I got a hold of better copies of recording that I owned that I figured out I was loosing quality with the lossy files.

Then they shouldn't be recommending things. What this person suggested would take a lot of time and result in a giant mess for any poor individual that actually did it. Don't underestimate how quickly bad advice can travel.
post #62 of 581

I've got about 4500 songs in my iTunes library, about 67 gigs, consisting of aac,  wav, mpeg, alac, and aiff files from 256k to 24/96. It's all good. The file types represent what quality was possible or considered appropriate at the time the selection was placed in the library.


Edited by sterling1 - 5/4/12 at 2:59am
post #63 of 581

About 3,100.  I've probably gone through a lot more over the years, but there's only so much of it I actually enjoy.

post #64 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by driver 8 View Post

About 3,100.  I've probably gone through a lot more over the years, but there's only so much of it I actually enjoy.

I see what you're saying.  Agree with the logic but I'm more liberal with what I keep.  I'm sitting at about 28,000 songs now but I've deleted several thousand.  No sense in having music I don't even like, just to have it.  There's got to be at least a fighting chance that I'll want to hear it again someday.

post #65 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilky61 View Post

That's fewer than what I carry on my 16gb iPhone...

 

 

 


It's still around 60gb though, since its predominantly lossless (unfortunately a lot is alac since itunes is just...easier. I tried foobar, I tried winamp, but I just can't get over how user friendly the tile-view on the computer infecting software hogging un-hi-fi apple software is). Then again, I'm 19 and in college, so I can't afford a whole lot of music. My music collection literally doubled this semester though, since dj's at the campus radio are allowed to rip anything in the studio archive to their personal pc.

 

Luckily its yard sale season yet again, so my music collection should get a much enjoyed boost :)

post #66 of 581
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by obzilla View Post

 

X2

 

It's the same as upsizing an image. All you do is create more bits and bites, and have the same (or less) amount of data as before.

So you are saying if i have a 128 kbps file and uses this audio encoder to bring it to 320 kbps(constant bitrate ) im wasting space ? very_evil_smiley.gif


Edited by XxDobermanxX - 5/4/12 at 3:57pm
post #67 of 581
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

Wait are you saying you are upconverting your already lossy formats? You know if you are doing that you aren't getting better quality, if anything you are getting worse quality and wasting space. In order to get good quality you have to begin with a quality recording (Lossless source). From there you can convert down to lossy or convert to other lossless formats, not the other way around. :)

Tried that and it didnt sound good :( thats why i collect music at 320 kbps . probably should have tried another flac song

post #68 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDobermanxX View Post

So you are saying if i have a 128 kbps file and uses this audio encoder to bring it to 320 kbps(constant bitrate ) im wasting space ? very_evil_smiley.gif

yes. if anything the quality would get slightly worse.

post #69 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDobermanxX View Post

So you are saying if i have a 128 kbps file and uses this audio encoder to bring it to 320 kbps(constant bitrate ) im wasting space ? very_evil_smiley.gif

Yes.

post #70 of 581

47038 songs

 

171.2 days

 

1,023.80 GB

 

according to my itunes

post #71 of 581
5560 total. It's only stuff I listen to on a regular basis. All ripped to FLAC from CDs.
post #72 of 581
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdiddypdler View Post

yes. if anything the quality would get slightly worse.

So whats the difference when you rip a cd to flac format? i have  alot of original 320 kbps rip but just a small amount of 128 kbps ,i usually look for it in the highest format but some cant be found in good format. 

post #73 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDobermanxX View Post

So whats the difference when you rip a cd to flac format? i have  alot of original 320 kbps rip but just a small amount of 128 kbps ,i usually look for it in the highest format but some cant be found in good format. 


FLAC is lossless so it sounds (and is) identical to the original. MP3 throws away data (and thus quality) to make the file smaller.

 

Converting from 128 to 320 just makes the file larger, you can't get back what has already been lost and as pointed out before, because you're reencoding it with a lossy CODEC again, you further lose quality (probably not much if you're moving up to 320, but still. You should never transcode from one lossy format to another for this reason).

 

Essentially what you're saying is the equivilent of saying: If I photocopy a painting to black and white, and then photocopy it again as colour, I'll get the colour back. You can't, as it simply doesn't exist anymore and photocopying it again will just further degrade the quality.

post #74 of 581
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enverex View Post


FLAC is lossless so it sounds (and is) identical to the original. MP3 throws away data (and thus quality) to make the file smaller.

 

Converting from 128 to 320 just makes the file larger, you can't get back what has already been lost and as pointed out before, because you're reencoding it with a lossy CODEC again, you further lose quality (probably not much if you're moving up to 320, but still. You should never transcode from one lossy format to another for this reason).

 

Essentially what you're saying is the equivilent of saying: If I photocopy a painting to black and white, and then photocopy it again as colour, I'll get the colour back. You can't, as it simply doesn't exist anymore and photocopying it again will just further degrade the quality.

I understand what you saying , i just see people here saying they rip cd to flac or 320 kbps format so i thought they were doing the same thing. i have original 320 kbps rips and they sound just like flac( very clear details , drums etc) ,the 128 kbps file i had i converted to 320 kbps before i knew much about these stuff . yes i know bad in bad out i learnt that when i used a program to convert my videos to 1080p and realise that it quality wasnt improving (lol was trying to upload the video in 1080p for youtube). you learn by mistake . to sum it up, the conversion stuff is like a chemical change , you can have all the ingredients for a cake but once you bake the cake you cant get the ingredients back. 

beerchug.gif

post #75 of 581
Total Tracks: 109,388
Total Albums: 8,818
Total Artists: 2,142
Total Genres: 76
Total Playing Time: 7495:29:23
 
 
All flac, on a 4tb drive enclosure, ripped via dbpoweramp.

Edited by DrTone - 5/5/12 at 11:32am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › How many songs do you have in your music library?