Originally posted by The_Fiend:

---

Ok, let me rephrase the question, seems you might have misinterpreted *and possibly mistaken me for someone who knows little about computers* :
I am fully aware of how RAID works, i am already running a RAID0 data server *two sets of RAID0, one serving as backup*, i'm wondering why you would say it would be more efficient,
because from my understanding, the SATA II drives i use already enable me to get top performance out of the system in their normal state.

Maybe our only problem is the terminology. A single RAID 0 array is striping with no backup. You said you have a RAID0 backing up a RAID 0. That sounds like RAID 1+0 or 0+1. That's a RAID 0 with another RAID 0 for backup. If you check around, 2 drives in a RAID 0 configuration handle data faster than a single drive. If you use 10,000 RPM drives, that's even better.

As for 2GB's of RAM being enough, you'd be surprised at the amounts of software i use all at once, if i tell you i use 3 screens to multi task, would that clarify matters a bit ;-) ?

What does your taskmanager show about the RAM usage?

---

Originally posted by The_Fiend:

---

Indeed, different terminology seems to be the issue, i tend to overexplain things the wrong way it seems.
And indeed, after a quick google i realised that this might indeed speed things up even more.

As for RAM usage, right now i'm at about 1700 MB usage *fluctuates a bit, as i'm using Gordian Knot ATM*, i'd estimate in "normal" daily use i use about 1500 MB's *i should mention at this point i also use a lot of widgets, and some other things to make things look nicer than they are*

---

Originally posted by PacMan777:

---

It's an old discussion. Had you used the search function and done some reading, you could have read it elsewhere. Some people don't pay attention to things like mosquito noise, pixelation, and loss of clarity, others do.

---

Originally posted by The_Fiend:

---

@Vurbal : but isn't that part of the fun of this, being able to tell subtle differences between encodes, just so you can brag to your friends that your choice of software is "the best" ? ;-)

---

Originally posted by Mort81:

---

tj,
I can encode an average size movie with the extras (no previews, adverts, or warning screens), around 6.5gb's in about 40 minutes.

...

I've encoded many folders requiring almost 50% compression and the quality was unbelievable. Almost indistinguishable from the original on my 52" HDTV.

---

Originally posted by Mort81:

---

maxxjulie,

you are entitled to your opinions and preferances. I started out using DVD Shrink and have also tried and own many other transcoding utilities as well. each utility has it's own purpose and place. if you will notice I did say that at 20% compression or less, there wasn't much difference between RB/CCE and most transcoding utilities.

almost all the backups I make, the folder is between 6.0gb and 7.0gb because I save everything except the previews, adverts, and warning screens. there is absolutely no way a transcoding utility could compress a 7.0gb folder without substantial video quality loss. RB/CCE can encode folders this size with minimal loss in video quality. why would I make this up? I do watch every backup I make.

also as I mentioned previously, I have a very fast pc, faster than the average, so time is of no concern to me since I can encode with RB/CCE faster than the average person can transcode with DVD Shrink with advanced analysis and using hqaec. oh and btw, I have 20/20 vision and if you compress to much with a transcoding utility, it can cause irratic playback (skipping and freezing).

look around and you will see that most of the addicts and senior members and people like myself that prefer the best possible video quality (without spending big bucks for profesional software) will recommend RB/CCE for projects that requires more than 20% compression.

if you choose not to use RB/CCE, that is your prerogative. you obviously are not as much of a perfectionest or as particular about video quality as I.

---