| Author |
Message |
|
| Quid |
 Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:59 pm |
 |
|
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 928
|
Hellbound lifer wrote: If you fill up the 275GB on your laptop with music , your laptop will run as slow as hell. Put it all on an external drive.
No it won't. That's not how computers work. The slowest thing will be opening your music folder, which will still take under a second. The only reason that would cause your computer to slow down is if you literally filled up every last piece of space on the HD (I typically leave about 10-15GB for page, temp, hibernate files etc etc) |
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| Hugh Scully |
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 1:49 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 29 May 2012
Posts: 243
|
| aha so a 90% full drive is as efficient as a 1% used drive, but if you push it to the last few percent the functional stuff gets crammed out? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Quid |
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 2:03 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 928
|
Well it's not as simple as that at an operating system level, but for the purposes of just storing a lot of music, pretty much. Assuming you're on a windows machine (I don't know if Macs handle things differently), you need to leave a bit of space on the drive so Windows can store temporary files while it's doing things and also so that it can use some of it as virtual RAM.
Chances are the only time you'll notice something taking longer is if you waited till the very end to add all your music to WMP/Winamp/iTunes and it took a while to scan your music folder, which ya know, makes sense. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Hugh Scully |
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 2:24 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 29 May 2012
Posts: 243
|
| well if I go through with all this, the laptop will be my sorting everything out forum, tagging, album art, correcting song titles etc, and then probably ship it all over to an external drive and a portable player...probably keep all my physical music anyway but just box it up and stick it in the folks' attic |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Hugh Scully |
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:50 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 29 May 2012
Posts: 243
|
Fuck it: ripping using windows media player at 320 rate...I'll keep the physical music in then folks' attic, instead of archiving and ripping exact wav files and shit, just easier to keep an actual collection.
Anyone have any tips for artwork and album info? I'm trying to use tagscanner but it seems completely incomprehensible to these luddite eyes. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Loki |
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:18 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 931
|
| if you're using WMP and have a working internet connection just click "find album info" when you right click on the album art box. for about 75% of your collection it should be fine. The rest is probably manual. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Hugh Scully |
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:21 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 29 May 2012
Posts: 243
|
sound! I'll try that now, getting a build up of unknown albums already 
I have something called 'apply media changes'...is that the same thing? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brox |
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 8:07 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Nov 2009
Posts: 1209
Location: Lisburn....N.Ireland
|
Loki wrote: if you're using WMP and have a working internet connection just click "find album info" when you right click on the album art box. for about 75% of your collection it should be fine. The rest is probably manual.
IF it does not find the cover just google for the cover and save the pic file in the album folder......its better doing this anyway as the cover will stay with the album if transfering/copying the album folder.
*Make sure you are set to mp3 and not that shitty WMA. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Hugh Scully |
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 8:28 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 29 May 2012
Posts: 243
|
| yeah I *think* Im just using regular 320 mp3....hope so! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brox |
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 8:35 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Nov 2009
Posts: 1209
Location: Lisburn....N.Ireland
|
| Just click on the rip box......it tells you what format you are using...wma+mp3 etc....or check the albums you have already done. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Hugh Scully |
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:24 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 29 May 2012
Posts: 243
|
| yup, I ticked the right box it's .mp3 and eh 320 too so 5-7 mb per track- is that going to be good sound quality for most purposes or just indicative of a largeish file? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Quid |
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 10:45 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 928
|
| If you're using decent headphones or speakers, there's a noticeable difference between 320 and 128 which WMP defaults to. If you're just gonna listen through laptop speakers or a 10 euro non-branded pair of earphones from hmv, then there's no real discernible difference. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Hugh Scully |
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 10:47 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 29 May 2012
Posts: 243
|
Im hoping 320 mp3s sound decent on the laptop or through someones hifi like... or equally through some good headphones on a portable player... apparently 320 is relatively close to the real thing...
Having a good old time to malice's second album! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Quid |
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 10:59 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 928
|
| Try listening to a song on CD and then the same song on youtube. In order to converse bandwidth, youtube gimps the audio on videos that are uploaded. That'll give you a rough idea of the difference between ripping to 320 vs 128. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Hugh Scully |
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:13 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 29 May 2012
Posts: 243
|
is the wav from an actual album like 1064 to an mp3's 320 or is that not the way it works at all?
250 albums done today. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
