Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: best lossless codec ? (Read 14014 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

best lossless codec ?

Reply #25 –
Quote
or just buy a few drives in raid configuration. the odds that they will all fail at the same time would be extremely small.

Maybe with a SCSI array, but with ATA/IDE the probability of total failure is not as infinitesimal as it would seem, especially with infamous 75GXP failures.  When the 75GXP was released, IDE RAID was an extremely hot commodity, which the 75GXP series performed extremely well--except for one small problem:  the drive failed frequently and not uncommonly in succession.  But you're right floyd.  For the home user, if s/he has the budget, a basic ATA/IDE RAID configuration is the most economical means to add fault tolerance to storage with files of typical lossless sizes.  I wonder--if you have the money to purchase 2,3 or more HDDs, a net savings of 2-3% in file sizes would likely be even less relevant. However, a resilient and lasting file format will always be relevant. 



Quote
I did mean ROM

How do you plan to record the data to the chip?  This isn't really worth discussing. 


Quote
It's fast enough to stream 16/44.1 PCM audio isn't it?

It doesn't have to.  It only must be fast enough to read at the compressed data-rate.  Speed considerations are most relevant when copying the data at rates faster than real-time--otherwise at a 1:1 ratio, it would take 74 minutes to transfer data of a "full" CD recording.


Quote
Back up your stuff to a hard drive and disconnect its power when you're not using it.

If that involves disconnecting the cables directly then a person risks damaging the HDD.  The solder points on the PCB can be quite fragile on some drives.  People need to be extremely careful.




Some very good storage ideas have been discussed here, and many address some of the common points of failure.  That's exactly why FLAC's resiliency is so important: it minimizes yet another point of failure--and one that can be quite catastrophic.  A data-loss as little as a few bytes will make many other lossless  formats entirely unreadable--FLAC will remain readable, from beginning to end, with the exception of the affected frame.  That makes it the ideal archival and sharing format for lossless audio.

best lossless codec ?

Reply #26 –
Actually I owned a 75gxp, and it failed    luckily i got my data off it before it totally died.

IDE drives just don't seem as durable as they used to.  my dad's 5 gig drive is 4 years old, no problems, but the last two drives I bought needed to be RMA'd within 1 year.  and now my current 120gb 8mb WD drive is making strange noises as well.. argh

best lossless codec ?

Reply #27 –
I have 1 questions!

It has been mentioned that flac can be played on a pocketpc.  Where can I get the software to do this?

best lossless codec ?

Reply #28 –
Quote
Quote
or just buy a few drives in raid configuration. the odds that they will all fail at the same time would be extremely small.

Maybe with a SCSI array, but with ATA/IDE the probability of total failure is not as infinitesimal as it would seem, especially with infamous 75GXP failures.  When the 75GXP was released, IDE RAID was an extremely hot commodity, which the 75GXP series performed extremely well--except for one small problem:  the drive failed frequently and not uncommonly in succession.  But you're right floyd.  For the home user, if s/he has the budget, a basic ATA/IDE RAID configuration is the most economical means to add fault tolerance to storage with files of typical lossless sizes.



IDE - RAID Array

This is a VERY good idea for storing compressed music files. One would not want to write TONS of files on an 80GB IDE only for it to fail and take all of your music with it.. and all the time you spend processing is GONE.


A good soultion is to buy IDE drives in pairs and connect to your PC as a RAID-1 or MIRRORED PAIR ..  in addition to the native Primary and Secondary mainboard IDE ports.  A cost effective IDE - RAID adapter is the Promise FastTrack 100TX2 which can be had for ~ $90.

http://www.promise.com/product/product_lis....asp?familyId=2

http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.a....asp?EDC=290291


This adapter can combine TWO pair of IDE drives in `mirror' configuration (two separate MIRRORS) so you have a duplicate copy of ALL your files should one drive-unit fail. If one unit DOES happen to `bite it' .. then your data is still there. You can either pull the remaining GOOD drive or stick in another one and rebuild the pair.

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Note: make sure that your box is of `compact enough size' so that cables are NO LONGER than 18" to the furthest Hard Drive.  Do NOT use cables longer than 18" regardless of the fancy sales pitch.[/span]


Twin 40GB 7,200 RPM drives can be purchased for ~ $90 ea. and 80GB drives go for around ~ $120 ea.  You can expect to spend $270 for a twin 40GB array and $330 for a twin 80GB array. It's a LOT less expensive than SCSI drives.. which start at ~$250 each.


Cheers..!!

best lossless codec ?

Reply #29 –
Maxtor has announced a series of High End IDE Drives that are spec'd to run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
and they are suppose to come with a 5 years warranty.
They also come in 7200, and 5400 RPM versions, i suppose 5400 is more suitable for this purpose.
"La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid."

best lossless codec ?

Reply #30 –
Quote
Maxtor has announced a series of High End IDE Drives

That is the first time I think I've seen the words "Maxtor" and "high end" appear in the same sentence 

Kidding aside, you're probably referring to the Maxline family.  The standard is 5400, the plus line is 7200 RPM, which as an immediate consquence reduces latency, and that is why there is a notiable difference in access time (note how it matches the latency with RPM and is probably the only significant difference between lines).

Quote
i suppose 5400 is more suitable for this purpose

You're right in terms of a archival storage drive.  Access time is of little issue, and even STR is not of significant consquence if even one foot on the playing field of competitors.  Also, typically, lower heat and noise.  If you plan on using this drive to run applications or write data regularly, access time and STR will become increasingly more important, although for AV STR should be sufficient with either.


Out of the major players in the HDD industry, Seagate and Maxtor are the ones who arguably take reliability most seriously.  Western Digital is steadily rebuilding their reputation with the WD800/1200/2000BB/JB series.  However, IMHO IBM receives a grade of 'F' in reliability--as well as customer service (good luck with the RMA).  I know I express it often, but regardless of how inexpensive, don't buy ibatchi (IBM/Hitachi) storage products.

best lossless codec ?

Reply #31 –
I'm crossing my fingers here. Just bought (2) 60 GB WD's to set up a mirrored volume set. Forgot that the workstation version of W2k doesn't come equipped with the necessary RAID software (only available on Server  ). So I guess I'll write a batch file that looks at the Archive bit and copies files over to the 2nd drive if they've changed. Historically speaking, I've seen just (1) SCSI HD failure versus (5) IDE failures.

xen-uno
No one can be told what Ogg Vorbis is...you have to hear it for yourself
- Morpheus

best lossless codec ?

Reply #32 –
Quote
The standard is 5400, the plus line is 7200 RPM, which as an immediate consquence reduces latency, and that is why there is a notiable difference in access time (note how it matches the latency with RPM and is probably the only significant difference between lines).


you are correct to assume that the bigger latency comes from the spindle speed, to be exact it is calculated as half the time it takes the cylinder to complete a cycle. it makes allot of sense as this is the expectency for how long you will wait for seening the exact spot you want under the head when you make a random access to the drive

You are correct to assume that the bigger latency comes from the spindle speed, to be exact it is calculated as half the time it takes the cylinder to complete a cycle. It makes allot of sense as this is the expectancy for how long you will wait for seeing the exact spot you want under the head when you make a random access to the drive

but all this is crap, if you look at the bandwidth needed to stream a video from the Hard Drive you will find WAAAAAAAY below the drive's transfer rate, all that remain now is for Maxtor to come up with this wonder...
"La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid."

best lossless codec ?

Reply #33 –
I think you're post needs to be defragmented Moonwatcher 

Quote
but all this is crap


It is true that the transfer rates for playback on compressed media do tend to be substantially lower than the actual capabilities of any modern HDD.  However, you must get the data on the drive in the first place.  Can you imagine copying 250GB of data at speeds of only 1x (realtime) the typical playback speed of the media?  74 minutes of music takes 74 minutes.  The prospects are not fun.  So STR does serve a very important function, even if the ulitimate read speeds will be a fraction of the HDDs capability.  As for AV, uncompressed video at 640x480 @ 24bit is 27MB/s.  Throw in some extra I/Os as with typical disk usage and you can potentially drop frames.

Quote
spindle speed, to be exact it is calculated as half the time it takes the cylinder to complete a cycle [full rotation]

More specifically: 30000 / spindle speed = latency ms

best lossless codec ?

Reply #34 –
uncompressed??? from the HD???
now you are talking about editing, we are talking about a HD fro storage.
"La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid."

best lossless codec ?

Reply #35 –
Quote
or just buy a few drives in raid configuration.  the odds that they will all fail at the same time would be extremely small.

unless your psu goes bang and fries all of your drives at the same time

best lossless codec ?

Reply #36 –
...or all is stolen.
That's why I also make backups on a couple of harddisks in mobile racks, and store these elsewhere.