2. digital
  3. 1263758968

pc vs mac, eac vs itunes

Multi part question: (1) Thinking of going to a musicserver rather than a wall full of cds. I have not been a mac user and would lean toward a pc based system. However, I have not completely closed off the mac option. Main concern is not degrading or changing the data. I have heard that EAC is the best option to insure this and I am wondering if the mac options will ensure the same integrity. I am not concerned with cost of external drives, my plan is to store on a number of external drives and make backups to a spare set of external drives. Looking for feedback on comparison of EAC with a mac option (or is it possible to use EAC with a mac?). (2) Goal is to be able to access everything from sitting on the couch. Any suggestions - both pc and mac based - would be appreciated.
musicnoise
acurus
141 posts
 
EAC is a pain in the butt and offers no advantage whatsoever over DBpoweramp which uses the identical error correction program which is what makes EAC so good. DBpoweramp is very easy to use and you can rip to whatever format you like. I used FLAC as it was identical in every way to WAV (dont listen to those guys who say WAV is better, I spent hours upon hours of comparing WAV versus FLAC rips and they are IDENTICAL, absolutely, period, end of story!). WAV is pita and it does not hold tags and takes more space, there is no reason to use WAV for anything.

I would not rip using iTunes as it does not do error correction. If you want to use a MAC use DBPOWERAMP and rip to AIFF.....If you want to use a PC rip to FLAC.
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
4,449 posts
 
Acurus - If I remember correctly EAC reads offending sector up to 16 times and picks better 8. MAX (free application) uses CDParanoia error correction algorithm (reading CD as data CD) with option to specify number of attempts or set it to "no skip".

You are right about Itunes - it either doesn't correct at all or does it poorly. I found disks that are completely rejected by MAX in "no skip" mode (I need to lower iteration or polish them to pass) while I tunes rips them skipping over problem area. During playback I hear gaps.
sufentanil's avatar
sufentanil
782 posts
 
Kijanki,

RAID and JBOD (Just a Bunch Of Drives) is somewhat different. First, RAID (except RAID 0, which just mirrors drives) puts different pieces of the data on different drives. JBOD usually functions as multiple drives melded into one. So with RAID data could likely be spread across multiple drives, less typical with JBOD. When reading, this means that each drive can access different parts of that data and the controller pieces it all together, and could theoretically be faster. (There is a penalty, however, when writing.)

Your assertion that reliability is affected by RAID because "one drive fails, you lose both" is incorrect. First, if you only have 2 drives, you use RAID 1, which basically means that each drive is a mirror image of the other, so losing one means you still have an identical functioning copy. With 3+ drives you can use RAID 5, which spreads that data across all drives and also scatters redundant data such that effectively the total of one drive is used to store the redundant information. Now if you lose one drive it is completely reconstructable using the redundant information scattered across the remaining drives.

RAID's purpose (except for RAID level 0, which offers no redundancy) is to preserve data in the event of a drive failure. I repeatedly warn people, though, that it does not protect against other common causes of lost data, such as accidental deletion of files, user screwups, viruses, etc. That's what backups are for!

Michael
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
4,449 posts
 
Sufentanil

Raid level 0 (stripping mode) can and is often used with two drives to increase performance. My Dell computer at work is set at this mode and I used to have home built computer that had two drives in stripping mode. Striping increases speed both for Read and Write http://www.prepressure.com/library/technology/raid

Your assertion that Raid 0 is not used with 2 drives is incorrect. Here is standard Dell Aurora Desktop configured as default 2x500MB=1TB Raid 0 http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/desktops/alienware-aurora-alx/pd.aspx?refid=alienware-aurora-alx&s=dhs&cs=19&~oid=us~en~29~alienware-aurora-alx-anav-1~~

Another advantage of stripping is space. Putting drives in Mirroring wastes one disk. It becomes backup that can be damaged at any moment by OS or virus. In addition I don't see any need to backup data constantly. If there is any need to backup data constantly on MAC it is better to setup second drive as time machine for the other drive. I don't care much for Raid since I had many programs (like "Go TO") that refused to be installed on Raid drives.
musicnoise OP
377 posts
 
Sufentanil: As my music collection is too large for one 1TB drive I am considering using two such drives and saving copies of those two drives to two external 1TB drives as backup. Is there any reason that this is not feasible? Will playback software be able to automatically search across both drives to search for an item with or without having to tell the software which drive to look at? In other words, what do I gain or lose by having two drives - two partitions as opposed to one large partition?
More to discover