Lossless--Is it necessary? Why I say no

[43st]

Different solutions for different folks really.. I don't think anyone should be 'strongly encouraged" to rely on non-enterprise hard drive storage to archive on. Not to mention digital decay, which is something that is still in the process of being understood, from an archiving perspective.

My CD's are my archive, and 160 kps (VBR) AAC is my digital source (mp3 is dead from a quality perspective), which I can change at any time. I don't have a single point failure with this and it's more future proof than the constantly changing file formats and HD technology. I guess I just don't find it trustworthy yet, it's neither robust nor can it provide longevity. Unlike my first CD, from 1988, which is still going strong. How many of you have a hard drive from then that can say the same thing, or even a computer file from then?

 

[iriverdude]

I've had far more CD or DVD's go faulty, than a hard drive. Of course a hard drive stores more so if it goes down lost more, but on a item but item case, CD/DVD media is less reliable.

 

[43st]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've had far more CD or DVD's go faulty, than a hard drive. Of course a hard drive stores more so if it goes down lost more, but on a item but item case, CD/DVD media is less reliable.

Yes yes, environment is an important factor as well. That would be a great reason to keep things in digital form. But archive does imply something that is not in constant rotation, or being handled day to day.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

It depends on your definition of archive. I'm certainly not thinking of enterprise or government level archiving. And my archived files are in active use so they're not an archive in that sense either. But in practical matters for personal use a lossless rip is a reasonable archive of a CD even if it isn't a CUE file that can recreate the CD exactly.

I had my media drive crash (physical head crash) a few months ago. That's why you have a backup. The HD crash was an inconvenience but I didn't lose anything of importance. You can also keep an additional backup offsite so if your home burns down you'll still be able to get your music back (though you'll lose the physical CDs and the value that the physical CDs have). I consider digital copies safer than physical CDs since I can have multiple backups in multiple locations.

I've had CDs fail. While I was ripping my CDs over the past 6 months I had some CDs that wouldn't rip even though they had no scratches or other visible problems. I had to buy or borrow replacements to get a good rip. I have one CD that is bronzing (the lacquer used is going bad), it was still able to rip but its days are numbered (I ripped that disc to a CUE file so when it does go bad I can recreate it).

I have personal computer files that are over 25 years old. Things like assignments done back in college, papers I wrote, fractal images I made, and lots of other stuff. The old files were originally on floppy disks. The files all made the migration from floppy to CD/DVD to HD over the years. It's not rocket science and doesn't require enterprise procedures.

 

[43st]

All the more reason that a one size doesn't fit everyone.. I've had many more incidents of corrupt, lost, incompatible, etc. files over the the past 25 years than bad CD's or homes burnt down (very valid point!).

By enterprise I mean redundant or backed up in some regular fashion, which you state and is certainly is important if you're going that route. I have a back-up drive that I use on occasion, but nothing is in RAID 1 or on a regular schedule. I certainly don't have multiple backup drives that I maintained regularly. I guess when you guys call for using cheap storage you mean keeping 2 or more copies on 2 or more drives? And backing those up weekly and keeping one or more off-site? Do you really go through all that?

Now I'm paranoid that I need better and or more backups of my other data... heh.

 

[KLJTech]

I rip all of my CD's to FLAC and store them on my hard drive and then use Foobar2000 when using my PC as a source with my main stereo rig.

I do believe that at some point you have to settle on which gear you're going to use and then get back to enjoying the music. It's all about the music and how that music makes you feel and if you're always focusing on the equipment you may lose sight of that. It's the same reason that on a cheap car stereo you'll find yourself tapping your toes to the music since you're no longer thinking about the gear, just listening to the music that moves you.

 

[Rempert]

If you rip to lossless, you have an automatic layer of redundancy and a form of backup. Even if you regularly use both the CD and the hard drive, if one fails you can use the other to create a new a copy. More rigorous backup systems may be better, especially for people with hundred thousand dollars in music, but this is already better than nothing. If you rip to mp3 and let's say your CD falls out of a box and gets stepped on, you now only have mp3 version of the songs you payed full price for. So in this regard, any rip to lossless is effectively useful for archival purposes.

Hard drive space is so cheap and transcoding from flac to mp3 (for example) is so fast and easy, that it is hard to make any reasonable case against ripping to a lossless format any more. Certainly if you get a song from an amateur or independent artist which is only available in lossy format, then you can still enjoy the music. So it's not a case of lossless being *necessary*. It's simply reached a point where when lossless is an option, there is really no downside to it for computers and several possible benefits. Then you can quickly and easily transcode for your portable player if space is still an issue there.

 

[dan1son]

I use lossy (ogg -q6) because I can get small enough files to keep a copy of my entire collection at work and home. My library is large enough that it just wouldn't work with flac. I do the majority of my listening at work and want full access to my library (the media players, like songbird, have an awful lot of meta-data that goes well with a full library, and gets wonky with a small offshoot). Ogg files are also small enough that I can stream them from my home to other peoples houses, cell phones, etc. I can store a good chunk of music on my phone and portable player. FLACs are too big for that.

I've done a large amount of listening tests and have come to the conclusion that I can't tell the difference between ogg -q6 and a cd. If that changes I'll re-rip my cds.

I'm in this hobby for the music. I like it to sound as good as it can, but I'll take some tradeoffs for convenience if needed.

If I only had 60 cds on my portable, I wouldn't have been able to listen to MJ right after he died last week either...

EDIT: I do see the merits of ripping to lossless for archival reasons, and in todays world it's probably worthwhile. When I first started ripping (over 10 years ago) this wasn't the case, and I'm not about to re-rip for the sake of archiving alone. It took enough time the first time

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 43st /img/forum/go_quote.gif All the more reason that a one size doesn't fit everyone.. I've had many more incidents of corrupt, lost, incompatible, etc. files over the the past 25 years than bad CD's or homes burnt down (very valid point!). By enterprise I mean redundant or backed up in some regular fashion, which you state and is certainly is important if you're going that route. I have a back-up drive that I use on occasion, but nothing is in RAID 1 or on a regular schedule. I certainly don't have multiple backup drives that I maintained regularly. I guess when you guys call for using cheap storage you mean keeping 2 or more copies on 2 or more drives? And backing those up weekly and keeping one or more off-site? Do you really go through all that? Now I'm paranoid that I need better and or more backups of my other data... heh.

My backup procedures aren't that formal. My backups are manual when I get around to it. I don't use an automated backup program. I could do much better than what I'm doing, but what I've been doing has been good enough for home use. Basically I do a backup when I realize that it has been a while since the last backup or I've just completed a lot of work that I don't want to lose.

I have an external 1TB drive for on-site backup. I also have another smaller external drive that I try to keep off-site just in case my place gets robbed or burned down. Right now my off-site drive is sitting right by the computer waiting for me to get around to update its backup files.

RAID isn't a backup. RAID should be considered as a system that increases reliability but is not a substitute for a off-line backup. If files get corrupted or accidentally deleted the RAID will dutifully mirror the corruption and dutifully remove what you accidentally deleted. That is not a backup.

 

[Ferrariman]

I can't tell the difference between Flac and MP3 VBR 192, so it's all good. More space for me.

 

[nullstring]

I can't tell the difference between V0 and lossless..., but I try to get lossless for the fact that it would be a pain in the ass to have update my library to lossless in the future if new equipment changes this fact.

 

[bergman2]

it all depends on one's kit and listening preferences...as I have matured, and my bank acct expanded, I can distinguish, and prize, wav's and the like and my gear, quite frankly, deserves better rips

 

[Zarathustra19]

The main point here is that Lossless isn't "necessary" at all, obviously. But then again, our choices in headphones are not necessary either. Its debatable whether music is or is not necessary for humanity (I'm of the opinion that it is, but thats beside the point). Lossless is a luxury, like a fine wine or a good cigar. Its something that you pay more to be able to have (in terms of getting a new hard drive or what not, just like our headphones or speaker rigs are luxuries.

Cheers all.