• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

1000 CDs- how much hard disc space?

I would avoid MP3 and avoid ALAC, and use FLAC files, as this is a universal lossless format as there is, and supported across multiple platforms, also FLAC has tag support which .wav files do not (broadcast wav files do support tagging). Local storage over the cloud, especially for those with hard data limits.
 
Being lossless is a major reason for me choosing FLAC. The other major reason is metadata. Having to jump through hoops to get metadata imbedded as you do with wav files doesn't work for me. MP3 files are out of the question unless that's the only available type.
 
dewdude said:
But one thing FLAC has over WAV is the fact that a corrupted stream can be easily detected and output stopped.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm missing a plug-in, but I don't see how to fix a damaged FLAC file in audacity. Damaged WAV file, I can delete the damaged parts and save the rest.
In fact I don't think any of my DAW software or mastering software even outputs in FLAC. So I have never used it. I'm not sure I'm missing anything.
 
ic-racer said:
Maybe I'm missing a plug-in, but I don't see how to fix a damaged FLAC file in audacity. Damaged WAV file, I can delete the damaged parts and save the rest.
Click to expand...

You can't fix a damaged FLAC...but deleting corrupted chunks of a WAV file doesn't seem like a good solution since you'd be cutting out sections of audio.

Data loss is data loss. If you're deleting damaged parts of the WAV you still have an incomplete WAV.
 
WAV is easy to work with and will take metadata no problem. This is 2020 not 2002. I have a HDD full of WAV files. If there is any benefit of going to FLAC it would be easy enough to do. A few keystrokes, walk away and everything will be converted to FLAC overnight.

Don't bother fixing a WAV file. I'll just re-rip it from the original source, which is typically CD.

Both formats are good. Use whatever you're most comfortable with.
 
dewdude said:
You can't fix a damaged FLAC...but deleting corrupted chunks of a WAV file doesn't seem like a good solution since you'd be cutting out sections of audio.

Data loss is data loss. If you're deleting damaged parts of the WAV you still have an incomplete WAV.
Click to expand...
What good is a corrupted and/or incomplete music file of any type?
 
This decade old thread is interesting, so I'll continue the necroposting trend....

I have never had so much file corruption and lost data as when I used hardware RAID. Hardware RAID provides approximately two orders of magnitude less reliability than a single, backed up, disk would.

Most file systems can suffer significant bit-rot without the file system or user noticing. They have no mechanism to detect or alert on this.

I haven't lost a byte since using a copy-on-write file system. Everything is check-summed up the ying-yang and they are notoriously slow but they are the most safe file system in existence. When a file becomes corrupt, it notifies of the problem.

I've been using ZFS at home for 15 years. I switched form Solaris to Linux about 8 years ago, when the zfsonlinux project became semi-stable. It's brilliant.

These days, there is also the option of BTRFS on Linux that does CoW and extensive check-summing.
 
TomB19 said:
This decade old thread is interesting, so I'll continue the necroposting trend....

I have never had so much file corruption and lost data as when I used hardware RAID. Hardware RAID provides approximately two orders of magnitude less reliability than a single, backed up, disk would.

Most file systems can suffer significant bit-rot without the file system or user noticing. They have no mechanism to detect or alert on this.

I haven't lost a byte since using a copy-on-write file system. Everything is check-summed up the ying-yang and they are notoriously slow but they are the most safe file system in existence. When a file becomes corrupt, it notifies of the problem.

I've been using ZFS at home for 15 years. I switched form Solaris to Linux about 8 years ago, when the zfsonlinux project became semi-stable. It's brilliant.

These days, there is also the option of BTRFS on Linux that does CoW and extensive check-summing.
Click to expand...

I can count major data loss of my collection on one hand:

2002 - FAT32 corruption. Lost 60% of data on disk. Recovered some off optical backup. Switched to NTFS.

2004 - switched to Linux fileserver. Had issues with converting to ext2 along with MBR table corruption. Lost 2% of data and bad to restore from optical backup with 8.3 filenames (oops).

2009 - external HDD failed. This one still screws me up. The drive's very last breath was copying all its data to another drive. Total amount of corruption unknown as it's a little like extreme bitrot and I still encounter older files with corruption. Switched to ext4 storage after recovery. Stopped buying cheap HDDs.

I haven't had a lot of issues since then; the collection has been transferred to larger drives as I upgraded. It now lives on three hard drives stashed around my house.

I want to build a good RAID system but the reality is, my HDD issues have been relatively minor, my recovery efforts have improved, and I keep redundant copies of everything now.
 
EXT4 will not do anything to help with corruption. In fact, quite the contrary. It's just a journal to allow the filesystem to run more asynchronously.

It's a speed optimization designed for platters but isn't appropriate on SSDs, IMO. I run EXT2 on SSDs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom