On 02/04/2018 09:45 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > ... snip ... > > On Sun, 4 Feb 2018, David King wrote: > >> On 02/03/2018 05:03 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >>> for now, i was thinking of ripping just to .flac since that's >>> lossless and i can always decide later what further format to rip >>> to in order to save space. does that make sense? i just want to >>> avoid having to go back and rip everything all over again. >>> >> That's exactly what I did five years ago, ripped all my CDs to FLAC >> using the abcde tool... > i just did a quick test with abcde, ripping a CD to flac both with > and without the "-1" option (diff being ripping to a single FLAC file > versus individual FLAC files). the difference in final, total size is > negligible, both directories around 267M. > > is there any benefit to one strategy or the other? i assume that i > can rip a CD to a single FLAC file and, subsequently, break it into > pieces later when i decide how i want to organize CDs and individual > songs. > > all i want for now is to not rip in such a way that i regret it > later when i discover i inadvertantly left out some useful > meta-information from each CD I went with individual files for each track because all of my use cases involved playing / working with individual songs, not whole CDs. I think the choice is mostly about how you plan to use the files after ripping them. As far as metadata goes, FreeDB or MusicBrainz provide backup sources for anything that you forget or lose. You haven't said whether or not you plan to dispose of the physical CDs after you've finished the rips. Keeping them around would be the ultimate backup source. -- David King dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
