Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater I think I finally found the right solution

Hmmm... well now I'm all confused. Looking through my library on Windows Media Player, when I click properties on 'Dancing Nancies' by Dave Matthews, it comes up,

Length : 06:05
Bit Rate : 969 kbps
Size : 42.33 mb
Type : WMA
Audio Codec : Windows Media Audio 9.1 Lossless
VBR Quality 100, 44 kHz, 2 channel 16 bit 1-pas

So 969 kbps is the zip file size then?

But then he'd have to use iTunes.

Doh, wait, I can't make fun of iTunes anymore.
Well, I can continue to not like it, even if I have to use it, right?

Ouch, who just nailed me win the head with a Cortland.

I am avoiding iTunes because it does not play nicely with multiple libraries . I live mostly on my work laptop and therefore tap into different music sources - my NAS at home, an external drive at my office and a small local library when traveling. I use the sharing feature in iTunes to get around this. Of course iTunes won't let me convert 'shared' files.

Media Monkey - I will check it out. Thanks!

Thanks for the info.
For all i know about computers, I've never really delved much into the software and file variances, typically stuck with playing with hardware.

I have MediaMonkey already installed, usually use Winamp as a player, but had yet to decide on what to convert cds into for around the house and iPod (or other) playback.

I am not yet convinced to go FLAC vs. WAV. The big drawback in the past really was hd space more than anything. WAV is a bit more universal and as Club says, with a file name and no tag, most players will display that name.
What more do i need?

I'd argue that FLAC is the better choice over WAV. Especially since storage space is a concern for you. In short, you get the same audio quality as a ripped wav file (the data is identical once it's converted by your player), It may not compress as deep as an MP3 but there is no data loss and the amount it does compress adds up to a huge difference over WAV in bigger song libraries.

FLAC can be converted to any other current format and in a worst case scenario, you can convert it back to a WAV file. Lets face it, a new audio format that is so much better that it gains universal domination is likely to either a.) quickly have flac to "newtech" converters developed by hobbyists or b.) it will come with a tool that requires or is quicker to reconvert all your CDs again making WAV just barely better or not at all.

On the basis of tags. I used to think like you. A well thought out naming structure is all I needed. However, if you are like me and enjoy an oddly large spectrum of music styles, then you will find yourself wanting to someday filter by genre.

Case in point, I love almost all music from heavy metal to classical and I almost always have my player on random so I get an mixture of rock, blues, jazz, indie, whatever really. However, despite an enjoyment of classical, it is just so radically different from the above that it just didn't seem to fit in together and vice versa. I normally have "classical, and more the more classical or varied styles (flamenco, world, etc.) " filtered out when I listen to 'rock and more modern styles' and I have "rock and modern styles' filtered out when I listen to the classical set.

This is done easiest if you have tags. Also, sometimes you do get in a mood. You feel like playing a bunch of random punk or a bunch of jazz, maybe even a certain kind of jazz. Also easier done, if you have tags. Album info is also surprisingly interesting when people ask "what is that from?"

Just my thoughts, certainly not a rule.

Ok so i'm going back the other way now, pulling a Harper and doing the opposite of what i said i would do.

FLAC it is!!

See, now you're going to be more popular than ever!

I like having all my music as FLAc files, sounds like the cds to me, just hate having to keep a 2nd library for i-Tunes.