maximum external HDD supported by DENON HD2500

[Grahame Case]

anyone know what the maximum permissible size for an external HDD for the denon HD2500 is? and is it possible to daisychain further drives through a USB hub?

so say have 2 2TB drives on 1 USB hub

[Tom]

The Denon will only read up to 50,000 tracks per hard drive, no matter how big the HD will be. :)

[Grahame Case]

The Denon will only read up to 50,000 tracks per hard drive, no matter how big the HD will be. :)

how lame :)

how many hard drvies can you have attached at once Tom?

[Tom]

how lame :)

how many hard drvies can you have attached at once Tom?

4 + a keyboard if I am correct.? If so thats 200,000 tracks which is more than plenty. lol

Also dont forget you can change the internal hard drive up to 160gb but this will void your warranty.

[Excalibur]

anyone know what the maximum permissible size for an external HDD for the denon HD2500 is? and is it possible to daisychain further drives through a USB hub?

so say have 2 2TB drives on 1 USB hub

Short answer, no. :( Long answer, why in the name of all that's holy do you need 4Tb of storage? WAV files? :confused:
My non travelling, stays at home, Master is 500Gb, and with 16,000 songs on at 320Kbps has only used 130Gb of storage.

I'm not that computer savvy, but wouldn't drives that size be slower to search? :confused:

Edit. Must type faster.

[Penfold42]

how lame :)

:eek: .....50,000 is plenty....how much music do you want to play....:D

[Grahame Case]

cheers, looking to go digital mid february - once i have enough cash for produb etc.


answered many questions!


i'm intending to rip in WAV format about 40-50mb per track

[Penfold42]

i'm intending to rip in WAV format about 40-50mb per track

Personally I wouldn't do it WAV...but that's just me. :)

[Grahame Case]

been reading around, lots of people recommending WAV over mp3 because it is cleaner. i'm an MP3 fan myself, but might be swayed to use wav because storage is so cheap.

[Jiggles]

The difference in quality is not really that much really.

[Excalibur]

cheers, looking to go digital mid february - once i have enough cash for produb etc.


answered many questions!


i'm intending to rip in WAV format about 40-50mb per track

I'm a psychic. ;) :D I'd have a trial run first, see how they compare, sound wise and search wise. The Cortex plays WAV, but the only time I do this is when I play a CD through the external drive. I must play identical tracks in both formats, and see if I can tell a difference.



;) My maths seem to indicate that 16,000 tracks that size would be less than
1Tb. ;)

[Grahame Case]

I'm a psychic. ;) :D I'd have a trial run first, see how they compare, sound wise and search wise.


i may or may not be doing that at the moment...

;)

[BeerFunk]

The difference in quality is not really that much really.Negligible through a PA system, certainly. A hi-fi setup is a different matter, but even then....

[Grahame Case]

another thing is i just don't trust mp3 codecs as far as i can throw them

[Excalibur]

Negligible through a PA system, certainly. A hi-fi setup is a different matter, but even then....

But Grahame's got a Hi Fi. :sofa:

[Grahame Case]

But Graham's got a Hi Fi. :sofa:

oi, get out from behind that Sofa, i have a glorified HiFi PA hybrid :p

[Tom]

I always saw it as a glorified dvd surround sound system. ;):D


Wav is good but I think MP3 would be your best bet. I think MP3's would load quicker from a HD to the Denon than WAV??

[Grahame Case]

i suppose it wouldn't hurt to rip originally to WAV (store masters this way) and then convert to MP3 for usage on the road?

[Twinspin]

I would rip them at 320kbps MP3

[Mark Wild]

I would rip them at 320kbps MP3

Me too, WAV is overkill on space regardless of how much storage is nowadays.

[Grahame Case]

I would rip them at 320kbps MP3


Me too, WAV is overkill on space regardless of how much storage is nowadays.

I have never got a perfect reproduction when ripping to MP3 - maybe it is just me. i'm a bit particular when it comes to sound

I would rather use Vorbis OGG but i know it is not supported by the player i intend to purchase when i go digital.

[Corabar Steve]

Why not find somebody with a HD2500 reasonably close & take your singing drainpipe for a visit. Rip the same track in both formats & do a direct comparison.

Personally, don't think there will be that much (if any) audible difference (but it would be nice to find out for sure. Although there is no noticeable difference between the 2 on my Yamaha / Class D set up, the Bose is theoretically a higher spec system & may show up any differences I don't notice through my set up)

[Shakermaker Promotions]

Most of the tracks on my Denon have been done at 320kbps. I have just short of 12,000 now (still missing loads of stuff). I do have some on there at 160kbps and even 128kbps and you can't really notice the difference. I have also noticed that there are a couple on there, and I don't understand this...but they show up as 48kbps but still sound great?

Wav files, in my opinion are only slightly better than 320kbps but take up much more space. I personally think that if you are using a 500gb external HD, in reality you should be getting everything on there that you need with ease and have a duplicate for back up. With reference to the internal HD on the system...I hardly use that but have it nearly full with stuff that is needed (The classics etc should the external go down but then again, I have a duplicate external HD so I am covered).

[Grahame Case]

definitely thinking that ripping to WAV is a good starter for master copies, then converting later to MP3 for transfer to portable HDD

will do some play tests on my BOSE through my current personal MP3 Player - i know its not a HD2500 - but it'll give an idea, both being digital sources.

[Penfold42]

Why not find somebody with a HD2500 reasonably close & take your singing drainpipe for a visit. Rip the same track in both formats & do a direct comparison.

LMFAO.........:D :D :D :D :D :D

:agree:.....you should get what you want. :)

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

definitely thinking that ripping to WAV is a good starter for master copies, then converting later to MP3 for transfer to portable HDD



Have you got a lot of time on your hands then?

[rob1963]

Have you got a lot of time on your hands then?

Probably not as much as ME!

:D

[Grahame Case]

yes, no bookings for 2009 so far, i have a lot of time on my hands, which is why i'm spending a lot of time after work each day researching.

[Vectis]

definitely thinking that ripping to WAV is a good starter for master copies, then converting later to MP3 for transfer to portable HDD.

:agree:

Mostly these days I buy downloads for new material, but if I stumble across an outstanding album (e.g.'s recently being Beyonce, Glasvegas & Grace Jones) I'll get a physical copy for ripping.

All my historical CD collection is ripped WAV and stored on a RAID SAN (for personal use mind, Mr ProDub... ;) ) but I then make a 256k mp3 from it for road use.

I've tried many permutations and systems and I can't for the life of me tell the difference between 256k and 320k. 192k - 256k is a very different animal and 128k is just total pants at high volumes.

In these days of 10 pence per gig, there's no reason to skimp on the quality. It's not something you want to go back and do again!!

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

yes, no bookings for 2009 so far, i have a lot of time on my hands, which is why i'm spending a lot of time after work each day researching.

The point I am trying to make is that it takes a great deal of time ripping CD and I can't see the point ripping to wav and then to Mp3s after that!

I have ripped my CDs 3 times now (for various reasons) and know how mind numbingly boring it is!

[One Vision]

Hya Grahame, if you rip them at 320 you wont hear any difference mate, that's a promise.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Hya Grahame, if you rip them at 320 you wont hear any difference mate, that's a promise.

How on earth can you 'promise' what someone else will hear? :confused:

[Grahame Case]

magic, he's a mind reader :p

[Vectis]

With the right software you don't have to rip twice.

Just once to wav, then point the program at the directory and it'll create mp3s based on them in batch.

Forget what I used... something-or-other-Gold I think. It was freeware so I'm sure there are plenty of alternatives.

[Grahame Case]

yes Martin, i was probably going to batch convert them. - leave it to get on with it and go do something else.

[Corabar Steve]

Right, I'll get in before anyone else does
In these days of 10 pence per gig,

I know people are dropping prices in order to get more work, but isn't this taking things a bit far?

[Grahame Case]

Right, I'll get in before anyone else does

I know people are dropping prices in order to get more work, but isn't this taking things a bit far?

have you not heard of "Ten Pence Tim?" - he brings his own ipod and dock

[Corabar Steve]

:zip: :sj:

[Vectis]

Right, I'll get in before anyone else does

I know people are dropping prices in order to get more work, but isn't this taking things a bit far?

PMSL

I knew the second I hit 'Submit' that someone would pick up on that... so I left it anyway :p :p

Isn't 10p the Rob James going rate for a pub quiz? ;) :D :D :D

[Corabar Steve]

:zip: :sj:

[One Vision]

How on earth can you 'promise' what someone else will hear? :confused:

Its a simple fact Darren, unless he is a dog with better than human hearing then he wont notice any difference, even at 192 its still very high quality with no noticeable difference.
Maybe promise is the wrong word but I would put a wager on it that he would be more than satisfied with the quality if he ripped them at 320.

[BeerFunk]

The point I am trying to make is that it takes a great deal of time ripping CD and I can't see the point ripping to wav and then to Mp3s after that!

I have ripped my CDs 3 times now (for various reasons) and know how mind numbingly boring it is!Technically, when you rip straight to MP3 there is a temp wav file made anyway for the MP3 encoding process, so I don't see why you shouldn't rip to wav, name the file then encode to MP3 in a second instance.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Its a simple fact Darren, unless he is a dog with better than human hearing then he wont notice any difference, even at 192 its still very high quality with no noticeable difference.


That's a very naive thing to say and you are only basing that on what you can hear - how on earth do you know what others hear?

Some people have better hearing that others for things like this. There are people called audiophiles that have acute hearing and can tell the difference.

I'm not one of them, but I know they are out there, so you can't possibly make a sweeping statement like that. It also depends on the kind of sound system you have.

[Grahame Case]

it all depends on your playback system,


those of us with "Singing Drainpipes" notice different things in the tracks from conventional PA systems

[Vectis]

Some people have better hearing that others for things like this. There are people called audiophiles that have acute hearing and can tell the difference.


Yep. And age / years DJing plays a big part. When I let my roadie EQ up it always sounds better than when I do it myself :o

[Mark Wild]

maybe it is just me. i'm a bit particular when it comes to sound

Its not just you ;)

[One Vision]

That's a very naive thing to say and you are only basing that on what you can hear - how on earth do you know what others hear?

Some people have better hearing that others for things like this. There are people called audiophiles that have acute hearing and can tell the difference.

I'm not one of them, but I know they are out there, so you can't possibly make a sweeping statement like that. It also depends on the kind of sound system you have.

Darren even the D2 manual states you would be hard pushed to notice any difference even at 192.
The only actual difference I have noticed is MP3 tends to be slightly lower in volume than the CD but even that can be rectified by ripping them at 320kbps and 44100hz stereo.
I have heard the tracks through 2 different systems, my baby system and my mates 4k system.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Darren even the D2 manual states you would be hard pushed to notice any difference even at 192.
The only actual difference I have noticed is MP3 tends to be slightly lower in volume than the CD but even that can be rectified by ripping them at 320kbps and 44100hz stereo.
I have heard the tracks through 2 different systems, my baby system and my mates 4k system.

And you are basing what you think other people's opinions are on a listen through 2 systems and what D2 say? And how on earth do Numark know what the playback system is?

Come on. Think about what you are saying.

There are many more refined systems and people with a more refined sense of hearing.

[One Vision]

I am just giving my personal opinion and based on a mobile disco environment.
I have good hearing and I personally would not say you can tell any difference if done at 320

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

I am just giving my personal opinion and based on a mobile disco environment.
I have good hearing and I personally would not say you can tell any difference if done at 320

That isn't what you said.

You said that others wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

[One Vision]

Your splitting hairs now Darren, as I said I would put a wager on it.
There is inevitable gonna be some difference as its compressed down but you will be hard pressed to notice, I don't reckon Graham would notice anything especially within a disco environment, in fact I reckon he would be quite surprised in how good they actually sound for such a small file.

[Corabar Steve]

Darren even the D2 manual states you would be hard pushed to notice any difference even at 192.

Yeah, but that is using a D2 :sj: (Read into that what you want)

[One Vision]

Swine :D

[Tom]

Using a higher bitrate will have better sound quality but using pa systems like what we use, I don't think you will notice the difference. Maby if you use touring grade pa speakers then you might hear a difference. I don't know.

If you are using super high end components, like what audiophiles use, then you will hear a difference.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Your splitting hairs now Darren,

No, I am not. I am disagreeing with a statement that you made. You cannot possibly know what other people hear.

That's what you said and that's what I disagree with. Read your posts back and stop trying to wriggle out of a ridiculous statement.

[DJMaxG]

been reading around, lots of people recommending WAV over mp3 because it is cleaner. i'm an MP3 fan myself, but might be swayed to use wav because storage is so cheap.

and I thought I was being a little over the top by ripping in WAV, but as storage is pretty cheap these days and my collection is only around 4,000 tracks - I could probably get it all on a pocket drive, and 1TB HDDs are fairly cheap ish these days too.


definitely thinking that ripping to WAV is a good starter for master copies, then converting later to MP3 for transfer to portable HDD

That is exactly what I have done. My Ipod is obviously for personal listening through earphones, so 320kbps will always be fine (especially with ear buds).

But it's nice to have the WAV Copy there for other uses.

It took me about (see below) for a few less than 4,000 tracks.
24 Hours = 4,000

and that was doing a bit each night for around 2 weeks, thank goodness my collection wasn't any larger.


The point I am trying to make is that it takes a great deal of time ripping CD and I can't see the point ripping to wav and then to Mp3s after that!

WAV for DJing (if you want 1411s) and MP3s for personal use.

ITunes does it just by selecting all the relevant tracks, right clicking, and
"Create MP3 Version" as Rob will know :beer1:




I have ripped my CDs 3 times now (for various reasons) and know how mind numbingly boring it is!

Have you had a PC Crash :eek:


it all depends on your playback system Indeed :approve:


Yep. And age / years DJing plays a big part. When I let my roadie EQ up it always sounds better than when I do it myself :o

and you're still in the Job :D

I have heard laptop DJs before, and I'd be very surprised if they used WAV Files, so guessing it's MP3s - sounded fine on a pair of Carlsbro Gammas, they were turned up incredibly loud though.


There will be a point in the future where you can fit your entire collection (without going into numbers here) on a USB Flash Drive.

[Corabar Steve]

How did I know before even clicking on this subject that it would have been resurected my Max practicing his thread necromancy again:bang: