PDA

View Full Version : Hardware to get 100cds per hour?



riptastic
10-20-2008, 04:19 PM
Hi there,

I wonder if the forum could give me some advice. My objective is: to have a decent balance of speed, accuracy and file size, so I've decided that I would like to rip mp3s at 192kpbs with accuraterip enabled and would like to rip, on average, about 100 CDs per hour.

what I'm trying to figure out is what hardware will I need to achieve those objectives:

1) ON A MANUAL LOADER BASIS
- Having looked around the forum, i'm guessing that a quad core machine with several drives might be an option for the manual loader option? I have seen that people have been taking up to about 6 drives in one machine. I would be interested to know if anyone has any feedback on speed performance for such a set up (in terms of how many CDs on average per hour can be done with some kind of error checking enabled). Like I said, my main objective here is to get 100CDs per hour (ideally from one machine, but any ideas on a multi-PC set up would be much appreciated). Any input that you have on the cost of doing this would also be useful


2) ON AN AUTOMATED BASIS
- I know there are quite a few robots out there to chose from. However, although there are stats on how many CDs they can hold, i'm finding it hard to discover how fast they are! I'm guessing to meet the 100 CDs per hour with my ripping criteria, it's more than likely that more than one machine is going to be needed. Any ideas on which individual robot or combo of robots would meet the grade?

I realise that this is all about averages because obviously things will take more time if error correction/re-reads are necessary. I'm just trying to get a reasonably good benchmark though so that I can make a good decision on the hardware... so thanks for any pointers you can give.

LtData
10-20-2008, 07:48 PM
Moved to the Batch Ripper section.

bhoar
10-21-2008, 07:42 AM
Hi there,

Is that you, chuck?

I have some thoughts on this, but I need to get them organized.

-brendan

riptastic
10-21-2008, 12:43 PM
nope, sorry this isn't Chuck :smile2: just plain old Tony here!