Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BigMike]

Those of you that have done extensive comparison testing of different encoders, please enlighten the rest of us that do not have to time to do so. Can you really hear the difference between a song ripped with the best lossy encoder and one ripped with a lossless one? Can you still get decent compression from a lossless encoder? Any other information/advice on the subject would be of great help to many of us. Thanks...

[joe|PLS|mama]

"Can you really hear the difference between a song ripped with the best lossy encoder and one ripped with a lossless one?"

That mostly depends on how good your hearing is, how you listen to your music and on how good your equipment is.  What may be transparent for me may not be for you.  The only way you'll really know is to take an hour or two and encode some files in different formats and listen to them.  Personally, I am encoding in MPC (Musepack) format.  In listening tests, generally about 99% of people cannot tell the difference between the compressed file and the original.  MP3 has slightly less quality.  However, with MPC you will get "transparent" quality at almost half the bitrate of MP3.  If disk space is a consideration for you, this might be a good option for you.  Note, that there are no portable or hardware players that support MPC, so if you are looking to use a portable player, then you should probably go with MP3.

"Can you still get decent compression from a lossless encoder?"

The most compression you'll get from any lossless encoder is about 50%.  A 60mb file will probably be compressed to somewhere between 30 & 40mb.  A 60mb file compressed with MP3 or MPC will probably give you a file somewhere between 10 & 15mb, depending on which quality you choose to use.

Also, note that I've only mentioned MP3 and MPC.  There is also OGG and AAC.  If you really want some good, first hand info on the subject I suggest checking out the user forums at Hydrogen Audio.  The people there are quite knowledgeable.  The developers of the various compression formats post there fairly often.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=

[zevele1]

Rip some songs in all formats.But the same songs,let say thake 4 or 5 songs.
Play them ramdom and do what you have to do.But do not 'test':one song after one to try to find the best.
If you are not in front of your computer,you will notice that now is good or now is no good.Have a look at the jukebox and you will see the format.
APE is lossless and has the best sound but take room
The best compressed format is Org-Vorbis,But you can play them only on your computer.There is only one player who plays Org Vorbis for now.

[gvag]

OT but a certain synchronicity. As my eMusic subscription will run out in a week, I've been downloading like crazy, all 128kbs Xing MP3s. Yesterday/today I've been working around home and my wife's away so I just grabbed all the new stuff in a playlist, hit shuffle and cranked the volume and it was a treat.

I have a fine amp, an excellent sound card, and mediocre speakers, but I use DFX (standard enhancement) with low bitrate MP3s and it breathes a lot of life back into the sound.

So as I'm bopping and jiving round the house doing my chores it just hit me that wow this is really cool. Like this is fine - Robben ford, Tania Maria, Rabih Abou-Khalil, Eric Dolphy, Tadd Dameron, John Lee Hooker, Eric Clampton... - even when I lived in Vancouver many years ago I never had access to music like this 24/7.

And this is the synchronicity - when I was younger living in Vancouver I used to tune into a Saturday afternoon jazz show on FM or occasionally catch some late night CBC jazz and I really enjoyed it but today I had the thot, "How does what I'm playing now compare to those FM broadcasts?". The answer is easy, my computer based MP3s are far better than FM sound. And as us old guys are wont to do, I flipped back in my mind to being a teenager in Vernon, BC in the early sixties, it's high summer in the Okanagan, 1 AM and friends and I are sipping wine and listening to Wes/Les (I forget) Bowman on AM radio from Salt Lake City and his nightly jazz show and he says "I've got a real treat for you tonight give a listen to Las Cuevas De Mario from Art Pepper's new album Smack Up." The music was incredible (still is forty years later).

What makes it so is not the technical detail of the sound. There is always better sound but no matter how much better the sound technically it doesn't make the music better.  My emotional reaction to the music does not change when I change the speakers or the bit rate. I'm not saying that hi-fi is not important, just that I find it easier to decide if my system is good enough by listening to the music. Does it make me feel good, does it take me back, does a tear cometh to my eye? Ah!

Listening to: 'Maybe Next Year' from 'Smack Up' by 'Art Pepper' on Media Jukebox

Cheers

[Mike Noe]

I did a lot of comparisons before settling on APE (lossless).  I can't believe the difference between APE and MP3 and even WMA on my system.  It truly depends on your "complete" system, source to speakers.  My system is very neutral and revealing and so it was an easy decision.  I decided disk space was cheap compared with quality and I don't need mobility right now.

[JimH]

APE all the way for me!  Here's how I look at it.  Say you have 500 CD's of music.

[CORRECTED NUMBERS--thanks Dan]

With MP3 at 128Kbps, you then have 500 X 50MB/CD or 25 GB.
With APE, you have around 500 X 300MB/CD or about 150GB.

The difference is about 125 GB.  

Disk prices are now approaching $1/GB.  I saw an 80GB drive a couple weeks ago for $89.  

The difference in storage cost between MP3 and APE is about 50 cents per CD.

If you compress to APE now, you can always change your mind later.  If you compress to anything lossy, you pay a penalty for changing later.

APE is perfect quality.  It is exactly the same sound you would hear if you listened to the CD on the same equipment.

And for those, who might not know it, Matt of JRiver is also the big cheese at Monkey's Audio (APE).

[Poison Dan]

Say you have 500 CD's of music.

With MP3 at 128Kbps, you then have 500 X 50MB/CD or 2.5GB.
With APE, you have around 500 X 300MB/CD or about 15GB.

The difference is only (can't believe I can say that) about 12 GB.

Ahem... This is not exactly true.

500 x 50MB/CD = 25 GB
500 x 300MB/CD = 150 GB

So... the difference is not 12.5 GB, but 125 GB. Quite a difference, I would say. Did you mean 50 CDs instead of 500 ?

If you compress to APE now, you can always change your mind later. If you compress to anything lossy, you pay a penalty for changing later.

I agree 100% here. That's why I also use APE for my audio collection.

[Harry The Hipster]

Lawyer's math, Jim...hehehehehe

Anyhow, that still boils down to the cost of one 120G drive (if not now, then pretty soon). A trade-off, like anything else, but if you've got the money it makes sense.

HTH

Listening to: 'Love Will Make You Fail In School' by 'Mickey & Sylvia' on Media Jukebox

[JimH]

Dan,
[sheepish grin]

Jim

[peleton]

I agree completely -and I too use APE for archival. (ie: when I, errhmm, rip CD's that I don't own. -and can't get the orgininal again)

But the point of lossy codecs is not archival, but portability.
Either for web downloads, streaming, radio (yes radio), and of course portable players.

I would certainly go down the 120GB (or even 160GB) disk dedicated to music if I had the cash. -However I don't so I have to limit my collection. (also HDDs are still not that cheap here).
-This means CD's(in CDDA or APE) for backup and mostly Oggs (and some APEs) on the hard disk.

p.

[traveler]

What a great thread! I too am having the same decision making problem. Thanks for all the tips so far. I spent a couple of hours last night on hydrogen. Great site. I have a large music library and am trying to figure out the most economical way to wire my entire house so I have access to my collection in every room. For my home system, disk prices have fallen such that I can buy a few large drives and store my music in wav/cda format. I keep it in wav on disk so I can go in and "normalize/peak rms" my library so I won't have to keep running over to the volume controls between tracks.

Unfortunately for me, portability is an issue. I like traveling. Normally, my bigest concern when I travel is which cd's to take. So I bought a Creative Jukebox 3 so I can take "all of it". Kind of like walking around with a soundtrack to my life.

Also, I'm in my car a lot, and I think that the right car with the right sound system lends itself to a great surround sound environment (5.1). So my next car will have a DVD player and a 5.1 sound system. It's not expensive as one thinks. As it stands now, a DVD can hold between 4.7GB and 9GB (that's a lot of music). I've also read that there is a new standard being worked that will hold approx 20GB. The obvious problem here is how do I easily navigate through all this music? Especially in a car.

Does anyone have experience with AAC? I hear it is indistinguishable from CD quality, and supports multiple tracks. Winamp offers a plug-in and I understand I can play them within Media Jukebox if I have real audio. Unfortunately, there are no plug-in yet for portable players. Nor do I understand the tagging support within AAC.

So at the end of the day, I want it all. I want portable, great sounding music. I don't mind having two formats, I just don't want a bunch of them. Because then the disk space really add up.

I hope this adds food for thought...

[zevele1]

Gvag

You have a point.As i said many times on this forum,i know in France some people who have very very x100 expensive stereos.They spaek about the stereo all the time,NEVER about the music they play on it.

For sure a good amp and speakers do not harm your pleasure
My stereo system is dying right now-heat/humidity/sand

The next one will cost less than this one.I plan to spend no more than $ 1000 on speakers and the same on amp.
But if you tell me i can get all the music i want but i have to play it on an average system,or i can get a top system but with only one box of records.
As you ,my  choice is  'all the music i want on an average system'

By the way,i traded my first APE today....

Listening to: 'The Big Green Serpent' from '#####es Brew Complete Sessions' by 'Miles Davis' on Media Jukebox

[JohnH]

Ok, it looks like the disscussion here is between quality and space. How about for those who are planning on keeping their original CDs for archival purposes and are willing to sacrifice some neglegible quality for space concerns. What is the fastest encoder that still provides a good quality mp3? I am looking at encoding >800 CDs and time is a concern or should I just figure on spending the rest of my life encoding anyway just to keep up with the technological advances and my growing collection?

[KingSparta]

JohnH

I recomend that you rip To Wave Or Ape

And Then At Night When Your Sleeping Encode To Lame VBR, With The Highest Setting.

In Convert Setting Remove Orginal File.

[zevele1]

If you have room,rip to APE  some cds.This is fast.
And at night or when away,convert all the cds from APE to the format  you want.
Again the format is up to you
As i said ORG is by far the best.The riping is very fast.To the point you do not need to do APE first.
But ORG are for your PC only.There is only one player,no car player,no DVD desk play ORG
Sure it will change ,and soon

MP3 under 192 kps  are not an option.On a very good stereo system and playing very loud,i do not see difference past 192 kps.I cannot say  a 192 kps mp3 from a 392 kps.
If you plan to keep your music on your computer and do not have room for APE,ORG is the best

Listening to: 'Chamsin Soundtrack a. The Marilyn Monroe-Memorial-Church' from 'Tanz Der Lemminge' by 'Amon Duul II' on Media Jukebox

[augustine]

JohnH,
>I am looking at encoding >800 CDs and time is a concern or should I just figure on spending the rest of my life encoding anyway just to keep up with the technological advances and my growing collection?

At one time a company called Nirvis, http://www.nirvis.com/ provided free software that would allow you to load up a 200-400 CD changer, and automatically access each CD overnight, and use CDDB to automatically tag each.  Of course you would have to fix up any errors or missing tags, but might help you get a jump start on rest of your life.
-------------
JimH,
>The difference in storage cost between MP3 and APE is about 50 cents per CD

My calculator says $125 divided by 500 CDs is 25 cents per CD, so I agree with your point that the incremental cost for archiving perfect (lossless) copies of each CD is small.  I just bought a 80 GB, 7200 rpm, IDE, quiet liguid bearing, drive for $75.

[JimH]

One last comment about this, and I'll try to get the math right this time.  If your CD collection had 500 disks, as above, it should have cost something like $5000.  Why would you hesitate to spend $200 or $300 to preserve the quality of what you have?

That said, I realize that there are many good answers to this question.  But if the guys in this joint can afford P4's, they musn't be counting pennies too closely.

[KingSparta]

>> But if the guys in this joint can afford P4's,
>> they musn't be counting pennies too closely
well my wife counts the pennies, if it was up to me my bank account would look like world com's

[joe mama]

traveler wrote:

"Does anyone have experience with AAC? I hear it is indistinguishable from CD quality, and supports multiple tracks. Winamp offers a plug-in and I understand I can play them within Media Jukebox if I have real audio. Unfortunately, there are no plug-in yet for portable players. Nor do I understand the tagging support within AAC.
So at the end of the day, I want it all. I want portable, great sounding music. I don't mind having two formats, I just don't want a bunch of them."

Well, most of the lossy encoders (MP3, MPC, OGG, AAC) are effectively "transparent" to most people most of the time.  A lot can depend on the quality of the equipment you are using, what level of quality you use to encode and whether or not you have what the people over at HA call "golden ears".  For example, if you are listening on a portable player with $20.00 headphones on the bus, pretty much all of those encoders will sound fine.  The general consensus, over HA anyway, is that MPC  is the best sounding at bitrates above 160, AAC for bitrates around 150 or 160, IIRC, and OGG/MP3  would be the choice for lower bitrates.

By the way, not sure what you mean by "supports multiple tracks".

You can pretty much use any of the Winamp 2.x input plugins in by putting a copy of them in the MJ plugins folder.  You don't need Real Audio to make this work.  You can get all of the plugins here:  http://www.inf.ufpr.br/~rja00/

Actually, I think there are a couple of portables that support AAC, but in a limited way.  I remember reading that one would play AAC as long as the bitrate wasn't over 160.  I don't remember specifically what brands they are, but you can probably do a search at the HA forums and find the threads.

Technically, there is not a tagging specification officially supported for AAC.  There are, however, a couple of programs that will put ID3 tags on them, but it is not really recommended...especially ID3v2.  You can find one of them here:  http://www.audiocoding.com/

If portability is your main concern, then MP3 is probably the best option, as it is the only format with widespread hardware support.  AAC has one or two players that support it, but don't quote me on that.  OGG may have support eventually, especially since they released the version 1.0 this week.  It is doubtful that MPC will have hardware support anytime soon.  Also, Kenwood just officially added support for FLAC (one of the lossless encoders) to their Music Keg car audio system.

The only reason you might need to use more than one format is if maybe you used one of the lossless encoders (Monkey's, FLAC, LPAC, etc) for listening at home (if you have the hard drive space) and then transcoded to MP3 as needed for your portable.  Monkey's would be ideal for this because it is very easy to convert an APE file to another format using the Monkey's Audio software.  You might also be able to get away with transcoding from a high bitrate MPC to a lower bitrate MP3 without noticing a big quality loss on a portable, but as a rule, transcoding from one lossy format to another is not recommended.


JohnH wrote:

"What is the fastest encoder that still provides a good quality mp3?"

If you are going to use MP3 the only encoder to use is LAME.  On my PIII 733, it encodes at about 3.5x real-time.  If you are open to other formats (MPC, OGG), those encoders are faster.  For me, MPC encodes at around 5x real-time.  I haven't tried the newest OGG release yet, but I recall reading that it was encoding at about the same speeds as MPC.

[Bill Ko]

I archive all my music with APE, using MJ to burn CD's or just for plain listening.  I can definitely hear the difference between lossy and lossless compression.  Just try it with some good headphones, and you'll see what I mean.

As for portability, there's certainly nothing wrong with bringing MP3's along to play in your favorite player, or in the car, where the listening environment is less than optimal.  I'd guess MP3's would be great for parties, too.

Bill

[BigMike]

Thanks to everyone for sharing your knowledge on the subject. After reading the responses,  what I am going to do is to make rips of my favorite CDs in APE format. Some of my CD's of older recordings that are not of the highest quality to begin with, I will encode with Lame or OGG. I am very selective about what CD's I buy, so I do not have a hugh collection. Encoding them in APE format should not be a problem. I think the quality of the original recording is something else to strongly take into consideration when choosing what format to encode with. By using both lossy and lossless encoders selectively, I should be able to rip all my cds with room to spare. Any suggestions on the best settings to use with the APE encoder?

[joe mama]

Use APE at either normal or high.  Using extra high generally takes almost twice as long to compress for only a very small increase in the compression ratio.  Also, extra high requires more cpu usage for playback.

[Abe1]

I have about 200 CDs in APE format. I had them in MP3 and what a difference in quality betwenn APE and MP3. Like someone said the disk space is so cheap. I have my PC connected to my Bose stereo system via monster cables and listen to music on the stereo system using MJ. The sound on the Bose system is just wonderful. APE is not portable, but I usually burn CDs with collection of my choice on a RW and listen to it when away from PC. When prices of in-dash MP3 capable car stereo's drop to reasonable levels (portable MP3 CD players have dropped sharply), I will convert them in MP3 for in car listening. I wish Rio Volt portable (firmware downloadable) players start supporting APE, then we can place twice as many songs on a CD and listen to CD quality music.

[BigMike]

Thanks joe mamma, I will give those settings a try.

[BigMike]

I know some of you people have HUGE amounts of CD's ripped to APE format, and are using large hardrives to store them all. It's a good idea, since APE is a lossless format. But what happens when the hardrive eventually bellys up on you, like hardrives often do? That's a lot of work to have to do over again. You can store a lot of MP3's on a CD, but lossless encoders is another story. Unless your lucky enough to have enough money to afford two huge drivers, I guess you take your chances, and hope for the best.

[Vlad]

BigMike,

I'm pinning my hopes on a RAID-5 array.  I'm using software raid (Windows 2000 Server) on a dedicated file server.  It's just a crappy old P233MMX (with 256Meg of RAM). It has an 8Gig boot disk and an array of 3 40Gig disks for music.  This gives 80Gig of fault tolerant storage.  Any one of the 3 disks can fail without loss of data.  Of course if more than one disk fails simultaneously or Mr. Virus comes to visit, you're stuffed.

At this stage it's just a prototype setup, but the results look good so far.  I haven't been able to find the limit of clients it can serve music to.  It works flawlessly with 3 clients all listening to different music which is enough for me.  Having such a small CPU limits the write throughput to 2.5-3.5 Mb/min (a little slower if it's serving music at the same time) but I can live with that.

The next step will be to add a 3x80Gig array for my music and use the 3x40 array for backups (not music).  This will give me 160Gig of fault tolerant Music storage.  Enough for about 500 CDs in APE format.

I figure that by late next year, a slow 160Gig drive should cost around the same as a fast 80Gig does today.  I'll then set one up as a removeable drive to give me a virus-proof backup as well.

[MmmmJoel]

I'm APE all the way too. In fact, Media Jukebox's solid APE support is the reason I plan to buy this program. In other words, Matt deserves a raise -- I'm sure I'm not the only one who uses Media Jukebox for it's solid APE support.

[BigMike]

That's a pretty good idea VLAD. I think the odds of both drives going belly up at the same time are slim. I have a raid board also, and I am now thinking about doing the same thing.

[PhatPhreddy]

APE all the way with 4 160GB Maxtors in a RAID box hanging off my network simply for media files....

[joe mama]

Can anyone suggest any links or other info on putting together and setting up a RAID.  I've tried a few searches on Google, but haven't really found anything for those of us that aren't that hardware savvy.

Thanks.

[Vlad]

BigMike,

I think you may have missed my point a little.  I'm NOT using a RAID card but a software (OS) implementation of RAID-5.  I just need enough IDE controllers to support the disks.  There are not 2 drives but 3 (striping plus parity) and the useable capacity is 2/3 the total instead of 1/2 for straight striping, so more bang for the buck.

The down side is that you are relying on the CPU to calculate parity bits whenever you a writing to the array and each write requires multiple I/Os.  This would be a problem if working with video, but the required bandwidth for audio is so low it doesn't matter.

[BigMike]

Thanks for explaining VLAD.

[scodan]

APE (Monkey's Audio) is THE way to go.

Storage is cheaper and more abundant than ever.  I just bought a great Western Digital 120-GB drive for $185 (bringing my total capacity to ~570 GB).  I simply don't worry about media file size anymore.  Well, not really.

Go with Monkey's Audio, and you can do ANYTHING you want later on.  Buy a portable, want WMA files?  Convert, and keep the APE files.  Want moderate-sized MP3s?  Convert, and keep the APE files.  Want perfect-sounding files for at-desk listening?  Just listen to the APE files!  It's awesome.

[traveler]

joe mama,

Thanks for the overview on AAC. What I should have said instead of "multiple tracks" is "multiple channels", as in 5.1 for ultimately ripping from DVD or SACD. Can you verify this?

So, if the hype is true, and the resultant conversion from cd/dvd/sacd to AAC is a smaller file which is indistinguishable from the original, why wouldn't I use it?

Also, I've heard no one mention either wma or mp3pro; why? I understand "Corona" (wma9) also supports multiple channels. Can anyone verify?

Next to finally, my system configuration is a Creative Audigy Platinum ex (Soon to be extigy), and my speakers are Cambridge 4.1 (I'm considering 5.1, but for no real reason). I rip and convert to wma8. I download to a Creative Jukebox 3. I replaced my RioRiot to the JB3 due to my frustration with battery life and usb download limitation. I think Creative needs to tweak their eax settings, or do as advertised and provide a parametric equalizer. I also hear rumors that they will release an AAC codec next.

Finally Joe, I know quite a bit about RAID systems, building them, the various raid levels and when to use which ( I do this for a living ). So I will be more than happy to answer any questions you have on this topic.

[mountainman]

One of the reasons I ripped my entire CD collection to my computer is to archive the CD's.  CD's can last as little as 15 years before the chemicals used begin deteriorating giving you music with glitches.  Like everyone else, I am not interested in re-purchasing my music.  So, I definitely want to store everything in a lossless format.  This seems to narrow the choices to APE or WAV.

In my case I can store everything with a 4-disk 300GB RAID array in WAV format.  My opinion is that WAV is more likely to be a widely supported computer file format 5-10 years from now than APE.  Both could easily be around for many years.  However, compression of even 50% will not make sense (for most home music collections) even one year from now to meet the archiving requirement.  Yes, you can convert APE to anything with no loss which is an advantage for folks that have a music collection pushing the limits of their available storage today.

My comments obviously do not apply to streaming audio via typical internet connections or portable music players where every single bit counts.

[joe|PLS|mama]

traveler wrote:

"Thanks for the overview on AAC. What I should have said instead of "multiple tracks" is "multiple channels", as in 5.1 for ultimately ripping from DVD or SACD. Can you verify this?"

No problem. Regarding the multiple channels, I think that is the case, but I really don't know. The whole 5.1 thing is an area of audio I know absolutely nothing about and I have done no research on. I'm sure there is a lot of stuff about it going on over at the HA forums.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=
Also, try this site for info. http://www.audiocoding.com/phorum/list.php?f=1

"Also, I've heard no one mention either wma or mp3pro; why?"

Those to formats aren't really considered viable for archiving audio. Generally, they are used only for creating small files (say 96kbps birates or less) for use on portables. Also, from what I've read, among the many issues with MP3pro, it is fairly expensive to license, so there is very little software or hardware support for it. Again, alot of info on this over at HA forums.

"I know quite a bit about RAID systems, building them, the various raid levels and when to use which ( I do this for a living ). So I will be more than happy to answer any questions you have on this topic."

Thanks for the offer. Unfortunately, I know so little about it, I'm not really sure what questions to ask. I'm gonna try to do some research and see if I can't figure it out.


mountainman wrote:

"This seems to narrow the choices to APE or WAV."

There are quite a few lossless compressors out there (APE, FLAC, LPAC, WavPack Shorten), but from what I've read it generally seems to be a choice between APE and FLAC.
http://flac.sourceforge.net/
Although, the taping/trading community tends to use Shorten, I believe. Here is a good thread from HA forums discussing the pros/cons of various lossless formats.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1188&highlight=lossless wav%2A

"In my case I can store everything with a 4-disk 300GB RAID array in WAV format."

Again, from what I've read, storing your audio in wav format is not a good idea, as it is easier for the data to become corrupt. APE, FLAC and other lossless formats have error checking features that make it easier to know if a file is bad (I know I probably didn't explain that quite right). Also, an added benefit of using APE is that you can tag your files with no worry of corrupting them, unlike wav.

"My opinion is that WAV is more likely to be a widely supported computer file format 5-10 years from now than APE. Both could easily be around for many years."

This is true, but as long as you have a copy of the decoder this really shouldn't be an issue. This is also one of the reasons that some people advocate using open source encoders like FLAC.

[Matt]

In my case I can store everything with a 4-disk 300GB RAID array in WAV format. My opinion is that WAV is more likely to be a widely supported computer file format 5-10 years from now than APE.

WAV doesn't offer tagging or built-in CRC checking.  And remember, you can always go back to WAV at any time if you have the APE files.

This is true, but as long as you have a copy of the decoder this really shouldn't be an issue. This is also one of the reasons that some people advocate using open source encoders like FLAC.

Monkey's Audio is open source, and has non restrictive licensing.  There's no reason to choose FLAC on that account... ( http://www.monkeysaudio.com/files/MAC_SDK_397.zip )

[Trelane]

Now, I don't want to spoil anyone's dreams of RAID, but I think I owe everyone this bit of knowledge (it's an IT fortune cookie ): if you rely soley on RAID for backups, you will get burned. RAID is great, but many times it offers a false sense of security.

Here are two scenarios I've witnessed first hand. In one of these instances, the amount of data lost was enough to put the company under:
1) It is completely possible (and not unlikely) for multiple disks in a RAID system to fail.
2) Suppose you forget to hook up your surge protector and you get a power surge...

Just be careful and you'll be fine (i.e. don't do something dumb like forget to connect your surge protector, try to make traditional backups, etc.)

Good luck, and have fun with your shiny new RAID storage system!

[Matt]

My backup solution: get a cheap second hard drive, put my favorite APE files on it, and take it to work.  

And for those of you that are nicer than me and also want to backup your wife's stuff, better make that two cheap hard drives

[BigMike]

Hey Trelane, yes it is possible for two hardrives to go bad at exactly the same time, but the odds are extremely low. So low in fact, that I don't think it is worth worrying about. I still think backing up your favorite rips to CDs is your best answer. With blank CDs costing next to nothing, and with burners being so fast nowadays, I think its the only sure way not to lose your songs in case of a mechanical malfunction. I also use norton ghost to backup my hardrive to a different hardrive. Nothing is foolproof, but these methods do work pretty well.

[mountainman]

Trelane,

I couldn't agree with you more on not relying on RAID as your sole method of backup.  If you really want to do it right (I haven't), you should buy the disks you need for a RAID system and also backup disks to use as replacements.  It seems very likely that the disks you buy today will not be available for purchase in a couple of years.  Mixing various types/sizes of disks in a RAID array is asking for trouble.

I would also like an off-line backup of my music.  This protects against viruses and fire (put it in a fireproof safe).  This is where I run into trouble.  Tape backups are too expensive (for me - thousands) for hundreds of GB's.  The solution I have been looking at is multiple 1394 drives daisy chained (RAID spanning or JBOD - I don't care).  I haven't spend the time investigating if Windows 2000 can make several drives appear as one huge drive on a 1394 port.  If so, these could easily be disconnected and stored in a safe for much less cost than tapes and a tape drive.

Until 400 GB drives are available (predicted by the end of 2003), I will probably consider my CD's as my "backup" for now.  If my disks crash, I could re-rip everything even though it would be painful.  Some of my CD's are probably 16-18 years old, so I hope to get a truely good backup in the next year or so.

[joe|PLS|mama]

"I haven't spend the time investigating if Windows 2000 can make several drives appear as one huge drive on a 1394 port."

I was Googling around last night and came across a couple of interesting firewire raid options.

http://www.firewiredirect.com/firewire/products/RAIDHSB.shtml
http://www.firewire-1394.com/pyro-dv-raid.htm
http://www.raidtoolbox.com/products/rtbdatasheet.html

[mountainman]

joe|PLS|mama,

Very cool.  I haven't looked around in about 6 months, but I try to keep up with what FirewireDirect is offering.  It looks like the technology is there.  So for $999, you can get 320GB of fast, portable storage and it might be even cheaper if you buy separate hard disk enclosures and put disks in yourself.  It seems like this will eventually force the tape drive companies to charge less for their products.

Thanks for the pointers.