4.7G x 6 = much cooler than 700MB on a CD-R.

 

no

 

Your thread suggests "CD" and you ask for "DVD"... two different formats.

 

Don't know but my friend did this in his IS350, it worked but he quickly found out that with that many songs and no way to organize it was worse than having to change disks.

Personally I can't stand mp3 sound quality or lack thereof.

 

.MP3s are crap, but what you can do if you want is to use Adobeman's DVD-A burning software to burn yourself some DVD-Audio discs. The TL's stereo can read those, but you can't use .MP3s on the disc itself. Adobeman's software will convert them to .WAVs for you. Note that his software will create the DVD-A structure, but you then have to use disc-burning software (Roxio, etc.) to burn the actual DVD-A disc.

You can generally fit the equivalent of about six "Red Book" CDs on a single DVD-Audio if you're using two-channel .WAVs. ("Red Book" meaning normal CDs, not CDs with the music in a lossy compressed format like .MP3.) That means that if you have six such DVD-As in the player, you potentially have the equivalent of 36 CDs in your changer. That's a lot of music.

I won't try to go into detail about Adobeman's software because there are ample threads about it. Do a search and you'll be able to find them.

 

Adobeman's program is a terrific solution for getting high quality music onto a DVD. However, if you have a 2007 or newer TL, burning MP3 files to a CD-R is a simpler solution.

Notice I said "simpler", not better sounding. The tradeoff for lower resolution files is that the CD can be burned with whatever program you're familiar with and the TL supports displaying the tag info and offers better file and folder organization.

If you have higher bit rate MP3s (say 200 kbps or higher), then you may find the quality sufficient and worth the trade off because of the overall convenience.

 

I agree about the higher bit rate. Having used just about all the formats that our ELS system supports I can tell you that the absolute best sounding format is the DVD-A as you would expect. CD are OK but as you would expect a noticeable step down in sound quality.

On the convenience side I grew tired of fumbling around with the discs and invested in the the PXAMG and a 160 GB iPod. I've used both .wav and Apple Lossless formats and find that the sound is in every way equal to CD. When I fill my iPod (I'm up to 400 albums and I'm only 2/3s full) I'm going to compress my less favorite albums into 256k MP3s. This should handle everything I'm going to have for quite a while.

I really suggest the PXAMG & iPod interface.

 

I never knew there was a difference between quality in mp3's.. sounds the same to me haha

 

If you're referring to cd's burned with mp3's, you're right. DVD-A would be better quality, but any program that makes DVD-A files out of your mp3's or .wav files is simply reformatting the file to play off a DVD, for the purpose of fitting more on a single disk without decreasing the quality by using compression, but these programs do not increase the quality. Simply put, cd-quality audio converted to DVD-A is still cd-quality, if not minutely lower. There's no "upconvert" for audio. The only thing I'm aware of that's better quality sound than a cd is the oldschool SACD (super audio) which never really caught on, and almost no components supported, or DVD audio disks you buy yourself from vendors, because they were created using higher quality audio feeds than can be used on cds because of the large file sizes. I've run into the same sort of misunderstanding with people who think they can download divx movies online and then run them through some magical program to get them back to full dvd quality. Space saving formats are called "lossy" because of all that's been lost. As a general rule of thumb for all digital media, you can transform, filter, edit in any way, but anything you do degrades the original, even if by a very small undetectable amount. Sorry to ramble.

 

Haha, so I guess I'll preach some more. Someone earlier mentioned 320kb/s mp3's aren't so bad or something like that. If I remember right, the human ear can't tell the difference between full stream audio and 192 kb/s (assuming you used a good ripping program) so yeah anything above 192 is essentially just as good. You might lose a little bit of highs and lows but it doesn't sound blatently bad. Just like the individual still frames of film start to look like fluid motion at about 30 frames per second, your brain can't keep up, and anything even faster looks about the same. (although anyone who's seen blu-ray motion on a 120hz tv knows dvd frame rate isn't the gold standard anymore.)