Will this set up work with Media Center 9?

Wow Chris, you are inching ever closer to Resident Supreme Being of MC9-ness :D

Regarding #1 & #2, no problem. You can have your tunes on another drive and access them and upload them to the iPod. Works fine. I do it on an internal drive, but I've heard others do it w/external drives.

Chris is right on of course w/the other answers...

Adam

Ok:

1. You'll have to specify the path to your external HD. That's it. Shouldn't be a big deal; I'd try it myself if I had an external HD, but mine are internal...One way to do this would be to "import media", browse to the external HD, and from here on out, it will be your default for MC9.

2. ripping/encoding: not a fair comparison--you've got CDex set at a higher quality than you do MC9. To get comparable (or IMHO better) quality from MC:

Ripper: Go into Tools>Rip CD, then open options. Click on "advanced ripping settings" then in "copy mode" choose "digital secure" in the scroll down menu. Don't worry about the other stuff, the ripper is set.

Encoding: Click on the encoding icon on the left on the screen that comes up when you went into Tools>Rip CD. Choose MP3 encoder VBR, then click on custom. Now click on advanced--you should see --alt-preset fast standard in the window. Now its set.

Now, to change your file associations when you rip/encode so they go to your external HD, go into Tools>options, click on the file naming and location, anc set it up for your external HD--that ought to do it.

To get the --alt-preset fast standard setting, you have to change to "Custom" in the "quality" box, right beneath the box you use to choose the encoder--by default, it will go to --alt-preset fast standard--if you click on advanced, you'll see it. There shouldn't be anything about quality in there--if there is, you selected the wrong setting.

Don't change the digital secure--it has nothing to do with bitrate--I'd leave that alone. I'm not sure what corresponding bitrate you'll get with normal, but I suspect it's a 128 VBR or thereabouts.

My suspicion is all your ports are USB 2.0, it really wouldn't make sense any other way...

yes, er, yez, :) It should be set to Digital Secure. Regarding what you can type in the encoding Advanced section, change it to -alt preset standard. This is better quality than the -alt preset fast standard, but it's well, a little slower too. ;)

Ya know I just thought of one way to get your library moved over to your new HDD.

I'm guessing that you have all your tunes on your C:\ drive now right?

Well, you can just move them from w/in MC9, then you don't have to worry about re-importing or anything.

Just do this:

1. Highlight all your songs (if you have a ton, do this step in groups of like 500 songs or so)

2. Right-click, select Library Tools>Rename Files from Properties

3. A dialog will come up. The top portion let's you specify your Root directory (where you keep your music files). Change it to your new HDD. Then select a direcotor rule (like "Artist/Album"), then select a file naming convention.

4. Click OK. It will rename (essentially moving) all your files to the new HDD and the library will be updated w/their location automatically.

As a bonus, when it's done it will tell you that the operation has left empty folders on your C:\ drive and it'll even delete them for you if you'd like.

Adam

Thanks for the clarity (and the humor). I appreciate it!

A few more questions:

1. Using MC9, I compared two of the same songs ripped on different program. One I ripped with MC9 on the alt-preset standard setting. The other I ripped on EAC on the same standard, following the directions from the Chris website. MC9 ultimately encoded on a lower VBR of 191 vs. EAC's 197. I noticed that MC9 was fluctuating between 160 and 192 with the occasional 225 or 320, while EAC was fluctuating between 192 and 320 more often (with some 160's too). Ultimately, EAC encodes on a marginally higher bit-rate on alt-preset standard than MC9.

I'm testing to see if I can tell the difference (I can't crank up the music too loud right now).

In any event, please share your insight. Are you folks unphased by more moments of 160 kpbs in your standard VBR setting on MC9? I'm trying to decide that, if one of my aims is to archive at a fairly high standard (without doing wave or total 320 cbr), maybe I should use EAC and import into MC9.

Or perhaps you can convince me that the marginal difference of 10 or 20 kpbs average per song between MC9 and EAC is insignificant. Or maybe MC9 is more efficient than EAC, more confident that it can drop down to 160 rather than 192 and still capture the best audio quality. Or there's a setting on MC9 to bump up the encoding more toward the EAC standard.

What's the score?

2. So I'm enjoying the MC9 feel and am thinking of continuing my rip project with it. But I want to confirm the exit strategy and compatibility deal before I committ: Once I get my Ipod, I may want to use Ephod or Itune for Windows (assuming it comes out soon) or some other program.

Will MC9 interfere with these programs?

What if I want to uninstall MC9? Then do all my MP3 files lose the MC9 iconization and become straight MP3's?

Also, do I have total freedom to burn CD's as many times as I want with my MC9? No restrictions? Digital freedom for me and me collection? (The most annoying thing ever was having Windows Media Player lock me out of burning and transferring songs from MY OWN Cd's that I purchased because of 'license rights.')

So, with MC9, I can still use other programs, etc.?

3) When I rip a soundtrack with 'Various Artists,' is there an option on MC9 to keep the integrity of the CD and not split up the CD into different folders corresponding to the various artists?

4) Out of curiousity, where does MC9 fit in the spectrum of such software? How many people have it? Is it the only Tivo like program? Is it in the same league commercially speaking as RealOne or MusicMatch? It seems like there are programs like CDex and EAC on the Shareware side, and then the more commercial ones that you still get for free with your computer setup or with an MP3 player that you buy. MC9 seems somewhere in the middle. Have you always had to pay $40? Does that include access to future versions?

Chris,

1. Wow! Your solution is brilliant! I feel like we've come full circle. Now we get the best of both worlds. I also sense that on January 30 you had come to the same conclusion as I did: EAC/Lame encoded at a slightly higher VBR than MC9.

Nobody made the case to you back in Jan/Feb. that the MC9 VBR was better. But back then, based on the thread I read, MC9 did not have the presets in Custom, whereas now they do. Nevertheless, those presets still aren't as high a level as the EAC vbr.

One thing which got a bit confusing about that thread, though, was that some users were giving the destination line as the EAC.exe, not Lame.exe in the EAC folder.

2. So 3.90 is the industry standard, eh? I understand the argument against 3.93. But what about CDex's use of 3.92?

3. This ID tag business -- considering that I'm pre-Ipod and want to prepare appropriately, should I be using IDv1, v2, v3? Should I exclude one or the other?

Thanks, again. In a gradual process, you eventually revealed your excellent approach to getting the best out of MC9 and EAC. Thanks!

Originally posted by ashawley

Oh, and here's the super-secret setting to get WAV quality sound at a bitrate of 12:

--alt preset give adam everything you own, do it now and your music will sound better than anything you've ever heard and don't bother to listen to what that twit Chris tells you - standard :D :D

Adam [/B]

Darn it!! I used that preset Adam put up there--when will I ever learn!!! My house, cars, bikes, even my friggin' wife and kids--all gone, to Napa...Man this sucks, these presets are dangerous. That bitrate of 12 should have set off alarm bells, but I'm so gullible..

With regard to using LAME.exe or EAC.exe: I just let MC9 find it itself by browsing in MC9 using the (...) bar. It was soooo easy--didn't even have to type anything in, MC9 found it for me.

3.90.2 is the last LAME encoder where the major LAME guru was involved, and it's the last LAME encoder where all the presets have been tested and optimized. (This may account for the discrepancy you noted.) All version past 3.90.2 (which would obviously include 3.92), have been developed by others who have tried to carry on the torch, but not by the original audiophile mastermind who optimized LAME up through version 3.90.2. That, and the fact that the presets are not optimized past 3.90.2, are the reasons I have stuck with 3.90.2. The consensus is that 3.90.2 represents the best LAME encoder for the reasons I mentioned. It borders on the esoteric, and I can feel Kurt and Adam rolling their eyes when I write about this (thanks for letting me humor myself ;) :D ),but I think it makes a difference, although probably a very small one. So, you have come full circle, and if you want to rip/encode optimally in MC9 in a way that IMHO is identical in quality to EAC/LAME, and get the added benefits of audio analysis from MC9, and also not have to bother importing your tunes to MC9, this is as good as it gets. I didn't start with this off the bat, 'cause I didn't know how far you wanted to go with it; there is nothing wrong with using MC9's native LAME encoder, but this is a little better IMHO. You've pretty much gone through all the steps and rationale in a couple of days that took me MUCH longer to figure out on my own; the next time this comes up it's YOUR turn to walk someone through it:D !!

Adam: Whoa! And I thought my questions were tough!!!

I have another to add: Why is it that, two hours ago, our brand new Kenmore air conditioner blew its motor less than a minute after we turned it on? Why can't I just download the AC-guru's optimized Encoder for Kenmores and fix the problem over the net?

The AC fiasco was such a let-down after the smoothness in which we resolved the Encoder issue earlier today. But, hey, in another decade, software patches for faulty AC's probably will be available on the Internet for download directly to the window unit.

Alas, I have more questions about a piece of hardware that I hope works without hitch: My Western Digital 120 GB external hard-drive with USB 2.0 AND Firewire connectivity should arrive on Monday or Tuesday.

I thought about Adam's elegant suggestion for importing my existing C:\ music collection to the external through MC9. I like the way it sounds. I have a relatively small collection (500 songs -- this is pre-"the big rip" of 500-600 CD's), so the transfer should go by fast. But these are my questions:

1. In the solution that Adam proposed, I understand that MC9 will organize the songs by Artist/Album/Song file structure within the MC9 database (if I so specify), but will it also retain the folder system already in use in C:\My Music? Or will My Music just be a folder with 500, unfoldered songs that are organized by album and artist within MC9, but a mess, albeit alphabetical, in Windows Explorer?

I read Adam's directions a few time and extrapolate that MC9 WILL produce a carbon copy of the My Music folder structure. Correct?

2) So my Dell Dimension has USB 2.0, no Firewire. I'll be connecting my new harddrive using the USB 2.0. Once I get my Ipod in a month or so, I assumed I would also hook it up USB 2.0 into one of my six ports (I called Dell to confirm that all ports on machine are USB 2.0).

But I thought about another possibility: The Western Digital 120GB external harddrive that I ordered has BOTH USB 2.0 and Firewire connectors. I got this model and paid the extra $30 rather than get the straight USB 2.0 model because I will one day get a computer with both connectors and want to be flexible. So, here's the thought: Can I hook up my Ipod via Firewire to the external harddrive while the hard-drive is connected to the PC via USB 2.0 (again my computer does not have Firewire)? -- you know, that Daisy Chain theory of harddrives that I always hear about, but have never had reason to do. I envision a direct connection between the Ipod and the external hard-drive.

Even if this were possible, does this get me anything? An advantage in getting the Ipod to run smoothly? Or it's the same outcomes as hooking up the Ipod via USB 2.0 to the Dell -- no net gain?

Originally posted by ashawley
Yeah Yez, now it's our turn for some questions:

1. If I'm driving southbound in a northbound lane will I get there faster than if I was driving in the eastbound lane going up?

2. Why is it that in the western US all the vegetation is brown in the summer and green in the winter, but in the midwest & east, things are green in the summer but brown in the winter? I mean, why was it set up that way eh?

3. Why are the things we use to type on our computers called keyboards, I mean they aren't keys, they're buttons? Shouldn't they be called "buttonboards"?

4. How come chili peppers don't grow up north where folks could use the heat? Heck, have you been to Central/South America? They don't need the extra heat. And let's not even talk about India. :D

;)

Adam

1. Ok, it depends on the situation. For example, the fastest way to get to the driving school for the dyslexic it to go northbound in the southbound lane...

2. Actually, the vegetation is green out west year round. It only cycles in the midwest. But us midwesterners get together every year on May 31, go out west, and in the evening we paint everything brown, for two reasons: 1. We don't vacation on the West Coast until winter time anyway 2. We think EVERYONE should share in our misery of seasonal browness. And if you Keep complaining, we'll have a meeting and decide to expand YOUR brown season even further..

3. They are called buttonboards. We've been playing a little trick on you since birth; everyone who knows you has been told to call them keyboards around you--the rest of the time we call them buttonboards...You wouldn't believe how ridiculous you look...:D Wish you wouldn't have figured that out now, next you'll figure out that it should be "overwear" instead of "underwear"...

4. Can't help you on the pepper thing. That's got me stumped too. Maybe Kurt knows..

LOL! :D

OK, Chris, thanks for clearing those up. Keyboards indeed!! ;)

Hey Yez:

OK, the Rename Files From Properties will work as long as you set it up to mirror the way you have your tunes organized.

Here's how I have mine:

All music is in E:\My Music, this is known in MC9 as your "Base Path"

In the folder I have "Artist\Album" subfolders. So I'll have a folder for "The Beatles", in the folder will be folders for "Let It Be", "The White Album" etc. This is known as the "Directory Rule" in MC9.

In the Album folders are the files themselves. I use the Artist - Album - Track# - Track Name.mp3 naming convention. This is know as your "File Name" rule.

So, highlight all your tunes, right-click, select "Library Tools>Rename Files From Properties". You'll get this screen (http://www.home.earthlink.net/~ashawley01/images/2.gif). See how it has Base Path, Directory Rule and Naming Convention? Just set those up to be the way you want, there are pre-defined ones created for you, the one I use is in there.

It will then move your files based on those rules.

Remember now, it's going to do this based on the information you have for each song in MC9. So, make sure Artist, Album, Track #, Track Name are all completed in MC9, otherwise things won't work. But you've only got 500 songs, that'll be a piece of cake.

Adam

"So, make sure Artist, Album, Track #, Track Name are all completed in MC9, otherwise things won't work. But you've only got 500 songs, that'll be a piece of cake."

Adam, what about the scattered mp3 downloads that I have in my library? I think that all my ripped CD's have complete tags, but the various songs and old-time radio files that I've downloaded may not have complete tags. Should I go in, using MC9, and create an ARTIST:ALBUM structure for each one of these "unassigned" songs or old-time radio shows? Or should I create a "various" file or an "old time radio" file (I've done that in My Music, but I'm not sure that MC9 recognized that. I don't htink it was impressed with my OTR Folder.)

Again, I have about 500 mp3's at this point. Most of them come from my CD's, but about 100 are random "orphans." Should I clean those up first before doing the "rename" feature to move My Music to the external hard drive (which should arrive at my office tomorrow!)?

I concur my partner in MC9 Crime--Chris. :D

New Question: After ripping my Jurassic Park CD, I inserted a Chet Baker CD for ripping. MC9, however, did not explicitly recognize the tracks from the YADB (sp) database. Instead, it grafted the tags of Jurassic Park onto my Chet Baker CD. Is this standard? If the database doesn't know the CD, isn't it standard that the program list the CD in terms of Track 1, Track 2, etc..?

Chris, Both CD-ex and WMP recognize the Chet Baker CD, while MC9 insists on referring to it as Jurassic Park. Is there a way for me to get MC9 to learn the proper tags from CDex or WMP while still ripping the CD through MC9?

I mean, if WMP or Freedb/CDex has done all the work already on my computer, why should I have to reinvent the wheel?

Adam -- Done! I contributed my Chet Baker CD info to the community.

Another question: In the Renaming plan that you have so generously outlined for me as I prepare to transfer my files to an external hard drive, I wonder about folders without track numbers. In other words, per your instructions, I've gone through all 500 files and made sure they have Album/Artist/Song, but the Audio Drama/Old Time Radio structure has 80 radio plays none of which have track numbers per se. Do I need to artificially create track numbers for them? Or MC9 will basically retain the Audio Drama/Old Time Radio/files structure (Audio Drama=Artist, OTR=Album) in My Music and in the Media Library, just like it will keep the Chet Baker/Pacific Jazz Collection/songs structure intact?

Thanks Adam.

I just got my 120 GB Western Digital external hard drive. It's a real beauty! I'm gearing up to do the file transfer through MC9. I'm going to add track numbers to the old time radio file.

In the "rename" process, does it matter which list I "select all'? In other words, do I use the "All Music" AutoPlaylist as my base from whcih to select all and rename? Will that get all the files, tags, and supporting materials? Which list ought I be in to maximize the best results? Or do use "Media Library" as my base, which includes listings for folders and album art? Does it matter?

Thanks.

Yep. The only place you don't want to try to change tags is in the ipod view (when viewing the files on your ipod, which you can only do with your ipod plugged in). You can try it, but it won't work, and then you'll post it, and then we'll have to reply to it, when it could have been prevented in the first place if I just had remembered to post this. Oh, yeah I did. Man, I'm feeling like that blue fish in "Finding Nemo" today...

Just leave the temp and album art directories where they are, no need to change them.

The 3.90.2 with --alt-preset standard was optimized by some of the most anally retentive obsessive compulsive audiophiles you'll ever come across. These guys are truly incredible. It, IMHO, simply can't be "tuned up" any better than what it is--no need to worry there. The spikes are dependent on how "complex" the music is at a given point--low complexity, you don't need 320 kb/s--it's just a waste of file space. So it might go down to 128 here. High complexity, well you'll hit the higher kb/s so you don't loose anything.

Try an old mono recording, such as jazz, and you'll see much lower kb/s than for say a rock recording done recently in digital--the LAME encoder recognizes the difference and encodes accordingly.

Extreme will increase the kb/s, but I can't tell the difference between extreme and standard. You can go a step higher to insane, which is CBR 320 kb/s, which is the maximum you can encode using compression. Bigtime overkill IMHO.

I think there is a major difference between 128 CBR and the LAME encoder the way you have it configured. Remember, the audiophiles who came up with --alt-preset standard where trying to come up with the smallest file size that gave quality as close to indistinguishable from CD quality as possible. What you have configured at present is as good as it gets, IMHO.

Yes, your songs will be in the correct order in the "album" view.

You're fine how you've got MC9 configured--it's perfect, don't change anything.

Adam has a tutorial for smartlists--check it out--it's the best place to get started. And yes, you have to make smartlists, it's the law...