just seeing what others think :)

[Robert Ford <odinboy71 yahoo com>]

the purpose of my idea is to archive complete music
albums.

first) is the ripper, it begins by ripping the wavs
from the cd and generates a play-list like file. then
downloads the cd covers, song lyrics, band info, or
anything that is deemed useful. lastly it compresses
the wavs, images, info, play-list, and whatever else
into one single archive. this could be done with
either standard compressors like gz:bz2:rar or
something new, the standard compressors dont stack up
that well against something like ogg or mp3, but they
are standard compressors and rhythmbox will already
play music in a rar (maybe others too). the new
compressor could be designed new or is modified from
an already existing one to compress wav files as best
as possible, hopefully with in the ogg/mp3 rang.

second) is either a stand alone player or a plugin for
existing ones (like rhythmbox). this player (or
plugin) will load the play-list and display the cd
cover directly from the archive. it also will give the
option to see the song lyrics, and what ever else. and
of course play the music ;)

there have been a few questions about this already 

1) whats the difference between a directory and an
archive?

the player would have to scan each file in every
directory when building a song database. this can be
time consuming, rhythmbox can take a good long while
to build a database which has a lot of songs (multi
1,000's) from scratch. lets say each album has an
average of 10 songs, lets say you have a cd collection
of 100 to 1,000 albums. converting this to mp3/ogg
will produce 1,000 to 10,000 files. the media player
will have to scan each and every file when building
the song database. for my idea, only the archive
play-list would be scanned, which being only 100 to
1,000 file scans to build the database. thats a 9/10
savings of time.    

2) there are play-list for directories already, so
whats the difference here? 

well yes there are, but they to my knowledge are not
portable, such as a m3u. if you change the name of the
directory or move it, the play-list file becomes
broken. the play-list file in the archive is just a
list of its contents, where the archive is located
does not really matter to it.

3) why include the extra data in the archive, why not
just have the player download them?

if you share the archives between different user, each
user would need to download the extra data themselves.
having multiple copies of the same files is not a very
efficient use of storage space or bandwidth. if you
want to take the music to somewhere else, the extra
data would be left behind. including the extra data in
the archive just makes sense to me i guess.


just sharing an idea :)

Robert

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com