Need to reformat my 1 tb SSD drive - how?

[Mike]

Hi - I just purchased a 420BG SSD Brennan B2 and am trying to finish installation of a new 1TB SSD drive, I realize I have to reformat it to work, but can't bring it up in the HDD reformat in the maintenance menu. What do I do?

Thanks.

[Mike]

Sorry - just figured it out - and I still get "6 GB" . Is there some reason this unit won't take an upgraded SSD? If so do I need to return it and get one with a regular drive, then convert it?

[Mike]

I looked at the Brennan website and it says it can't upgrade an "SD". Is this suppose to mean "SSD"? - just above it it talks about SD card replacement. So why is this written in abbreviation, and why is it so confusing? Am I not hip enough to realize that "SD" is the same as "SSD" (except that the word "card" needs td differentiate it? And why the heck can't a solid state drive be upgraded - why doesn't Martin talk about it? And I can't find 500GB standard drive versions anymore, if that's what I need to buy and then upgrade. I love my Brennans - I already have two for different locations, So frustrating! A 480GB SSD is too small for my uncompressed collection. Only a 1TB works,

[Daniel Taylor]

SD and SSD can be confusing, and they are not the same thing.  The mirco SD card is the little card inside the unit that holds the operating system software.  SSD stands for Solid State Drive.  The SSD or HDD are where the music is stored.  When the website talks about replacing the SD card, that's not the same as replacing the SDD disk.  For your purposes, where you want to see SDD, look for HDD - because the newer SDD drives are replacements for the old HDD.

The 420 GB disk that came in your B2 can be replaced with a 1 TB disk.  I did a similar swap when I put a 2TB disk in my 500 GB B2.

The HDD (or SDD, not SD) disk MUST be formatted as FAT32.

I formatted the new disk with my computer.  Then I copied everything that was on the B2's HDD to the new disk.  Then I did the hardware swap.

If your computer does not give you the option to format a disk as FAT32, then you can download a program that will do it.  Use Google to find an appropriate program.

[PMB]

Hi Mike,

If you are seeing "6 GB" after fitting the SSD then it sounds like you B2 has switched to SD Card mode. The scrolling text at the Home screen (the one showing the clock) will indicate which mode the B2 is in i.e. 'Source: Hard Disk' or 'Source: SD Card'. If the the latter go to Settings > Maintenance > Use HDD - the B2 should reboot to HDD mode.

You should then be able to 'Format HDD'.

Paul

Brennan Support.

[Mike]

Than you, Daniel.

Yes, I suspected "SD" refers only to the card. The information about upgrading on the website is still confusing in the way it is written. This can be found in the lower left just before it details upgrading to a solid state hard drive from a 500GB standard drive.

A previous writer had mentioned on the forum that one could find "Format HDD" after accessing "Maintenance" in the "Settings" menu. So this was the first reason I wrote.

I couldn't find it!

Then I found that he left out "Advanced" to bring up "Format HDD". I found this by accident.

So I "Format(ted) HDD" - and still ended up with "6 GB" (referring to the SD card)! After a few minutes I tried it again. Still, it had the same result. No "b2 1000GB" as I'd hoped.

Then I just shut the Brennan off - and I posted again on the website. I waited for a response.

Hours later I saw Daniel's post. After reading I wondered why the Brennan didn't reformat its own hard drive correctly. Then I wondered, would I have to remove the drive again and then reformat it in FAT 32 - on my laptop - and would I need to buy an enclosure to connect it to the laptop via the USB, to do this?

So, as I was about to ask this question on the forum, I then powered up the Brennan. It was quite cold.

Now, after hours off, and in turning on the Brennan to write correctly about the menu items, it now says "b2 1000GB". A miracle (apparenly) of no electricity - or unpowering and repowering! Just what I wanted!

So this is what the next person needs to do. That is, if he is lucky enough to word his question in the search engine exactly to match mine (also frustrating, and good luck)

"Hello new person who wants to upgrade his 420 GB SSD drive to a 1TB SSD drive! Congratulations!! You will now have enough drive space to store about 3,000 uncompressed CD's from your collection. Each will have precisely the same data that was on each of your original CD's, with no difference, whether you can hear it or not. And by the way, so you avoid the heartbreak of finding out that your transfers were occasionally not perfect after using a high speed Blu-ray writer, an external drive and a computer to record the lot, and then having to redo that whole first 500 of them as I did later- because you never know which of them has a glitch in it - get "db poweramp ripper" on the internet, as I did! Each CD transfer will have a readout of each cue that tells you if it was a successful transfer, and you won't wonder if a cue inside any of this is bad later. (You never know - even with new CD's!) But I digress!

So new person, you must first replace the drive using the directions found on the link in the Brennan website under "techy stuff". After you've done this. turn on your Brennan. Do you xpect it to read "b2 1000GB"? Well, sorry! It will read, "b2 6GB", referring to the tiny SD card inside the Brennan. But do not freak out!! Your drive still has to be reformatted to run with the Brennan hardware using the FAT 32 format (you don't even have to know the part about whether it's FAT 32 format or not. It does this on its own. But yes, it still needs to be reformatted!)

So here's what you have to do.

You have to access "Settings" in the menu. Then go to "Maintenance". Then "Advanced". Then "Format HDD". Then you will see the dreaded "Are you sure?" And hoping you didn't have anything you wanted to save on it (do you?), press it!  Did your unit suddenly go dead? (Only kidding!)

Now, look at the readout again. It will say... "b2 6GB" (!) (What?)  Here's the secret: do not worry! Simply turn the machine off for a few hours (or maybe it's really just powering off and then powering on?). But when the machine comes on again - wholla! - the readout suddenly becomes "b2 1000GB"!

You are now done - and you ready to go!

[Daniel Taylor]

Sometimes a reboot will get you back to Source: HDD.  But if that doesn't do it, do the Use HDD command (Settings > Maintenance) as Paul described.

Mike mentioned that a 1TB drive has "enough drive space to store about 3,000 uncompressed CDs."  However, compressing to FLAC will enable you to fit twice as many CDs.  FLAC is not like MP3.  FLAC does not reduce the amount of data, it merely stores it more efficiently, with the exact same resolution as the native CD format.

[Mike]

Thank you, Paul. The machine is wonderful by the way; every music collector should have one.

I think I figured it out. Please see my response to Daniel.

It was apparently solved when I powered off and then powered on again. This must have been it, just a reboot. I don't know if hours off had anything to do with it, but that's how I discovered it.

It is kind that Martin allows upgrades. Thanks very much for this. If the instructions were only a tad clearer I would appreciate it.

I have no idea what is best for the company, it's probably best if upgrading is somewhat of a hunt. This must be what is fair.

A question: do you think I should create a thread about the db poweramp ripper? I discovered it only out of frustration, after discovering bad cues. I then started searching.for a way that made the work in transferring the CDs secure. I have only found one error. After hundreds of CDs one entire CD recorded, but there was no audio heard on playback. Otherwise it has worked like a charm. No more worries about bad cues.

But I am very much a fan of the company and of the B2. Thank you.

[Mike]

Hi again Daniel.

Yes I understand that FLAC is a more efficient method of storage. But this is just me. I work in restoration. What if I decide to use the data later and re-work it? This is why I'd prefer not to have compression as an artifact. I collect original soundtrack CDs and many are in varied states, some need restoration coming from decades before (they start from acetate in the 1930's, and some have funky EQ). So again, this is me. I found that even with uncompressed CDs that all the data can be collected on a smaller hard drive space than I once anticipated. So ITB is fine for my purposes. It's really more storage than 3,000 CD's, and is probably more like 4,000. But 2TB, I found, really is overkill. What would that be, still uncompressed? Maybe 8,000 CDs? And compressed, maybe 16,000?

[Daniel Taylor]

You are certainly welcome to keep your files uncompressed.

Just to illustrate my point a bit more clearly.  Convert a WAV file to FLAC.  Then convert that FLAC file back to WAV.  You will find that the before and after WAV files are bit for bit identical.

[Fatally Wanderer]

...or put another way - there is no compression artifact with FLAC, or any other lossless compression format.

[PMB]

Hi Mike,

Thank you for the step by step and humorous guide to formatting a new HDD/SSD....!

Paul

Brennan Support.

[Mike]

Thanks Daniel.

Converting back and forth has no visible artifacts? Ok. Did you know if you copy CDs they aren't supposed to have artifacts either, from generation to generation? But have you ever listened to a sixth generation, copied CD? Does this sound exactly the same to your ears? Also, recordable CD blanks are supposed to copy identically, but always have differences in the way they sound, from manufacturer to manufacturer. (Try it and see if one has, say, a greater high frequency bias, than another.) But on a graph they will look identical, bit by bit. So, rather than worrying about it one way or the other, I'd rather not. The files are so small anyway, it's not worth being troubled. That said, yes, if I was a regular consumer, and I was buying a smaller unit, I'd consider it.

But just as an experiment, though, I'd like to convert a sample small concert piece back and forth, say thirty or forty times, in a computer, and see. If it comes out sounding exactly the same as the original, I might have more confidence.

I just don't. I have greater confidence if I take my original CD and copy it directly to a drive, without any compression at all, and being archival. I will feel easier selling or losing my original, than if I convert it to a compressed format, and then lose access to the original. That said, I also have much more confidence going to a drive, anyway. rather than to a CD-R. This, though they look the same, bit for bit, on a graph. One wonders, still, if FLAC is so accepted, why aren't original CDs made and sold that way? It would certainly save a lot of money in creating a multi-CD set.

Still, for amusement, try copying to a CD-R, to a drive. Compress and uncompress it. Then go the other way. Then once more (I'm tempted to say, "set aside" while the oven preheats). Then play it back. How's that sound ta yer ears?

[Daniel Taylor]

Mike,

Most people do not find themselves in your situation.  And for them, efficient use of available space is important.  We could debate all day on why different ways of recording a CD, or on different types of disc, might sound different.  But that will be of no value to most of the readers of this forum.

I can see that we are not going to convice each other of our respective points of view.  So best we go our separate ways.

[Mike]

You're right. Most people don't find themselves in the same situation archiving, as I've said, Most don't care that much.

But everything I've written in my response is true. Just for example, just buy three or four different brands of CD-R. Most are made by Taiyo-uden, but some aren't. All will give you the same graph, bit by bit. Now play them back on an okay home stereo stereo system - not an expensive one. And honestly, what do you hear? That's right - a slightly different bias in the sound from one to another. Some as I've said will produce a richer sound, some won't. Some will have a more high-frequency bias, some won't.

What I am trying to say is it's a myth to assume a graph immediately tells all. And no, I'm not a naysayer. I do not believe in "fake news", nor in the terror of the deep state, nor that global warming is false; it is unpleasantly real to me. But in most audio discussions, somehow, the way CD-R discs SOUND has been avoided.This might sound off-topic but it isn't, but it's an example of what we hear about  what we accept. About CD-Rs: have you heard, but do not write on the back of your CD-R discs with a Sharpie or any other form of oil-based ink, including oil-based printer ink. This eats through the plastic in time, and most CD-R's labeled that way will become unplayable or hard to play in ten years. Well, sorry to say, this is true. Now, why water-based markers aren't more readily-available in stores, I don't know - I think it is because they dry out quickly and won't render as solid a line - so that must be it. But do I understand why this important information is not readily available to the public. Is it important? I think it is. It may be because it's a pain in the butt to release the info to the general public. Maybe it's a corporate decision, because this is an item considered disposable. (To anyone interested, as a last resort, you can safely use the small clear area just inside, near the hole, to identify contents. This applies to DVD-Rs too. You have to letter it using small lettering, and a fine-tipped Sharpie. But this is okay. The point is, has anyone reading this ever heard of this issue before?)

As I've said, most people don't care about possible artifacts. It's just me. But I do find that CD-R duplications in time will begin to sound "steely"after generation to generation copying. It might be that in time the graph DOES show tiny variations that are not easily noticed, perhaps in the faintest variations. Maybe it's the media used, the surface solutions used, or the kinds of plastic base used. Who knows? I'd just prefer avoiding artifacts.(And no, I do not know of artifacts in DVD-Rs. It's just CD-Rs I'm talking about, and they seem to be going away, anyway).

In any case as I've said, archivally, I don't want to copy my precious CD original to anything other than a drive. And yes, I feel pretty safe with at least some generations from one drive to another. What I do NOT feel safe with is making that first transfer in a compression format. Perhaps it is completely lossless. I would like to believe it is. And most people won't care as you've said. But personally I feel safer going simply one to one, compression-less. But importantly,  for the novice, if you want to archive without compression, there is a compression setting in the menu on the Brennan that must be turned "off". Otherwise your transfers will all begin to be converted.

[Mike]

Whoops, left something out: Again, archivally, I would not feel safe converting from one format to another, such as going from WAV to FLAC and going back to WAV again, to end up with something truly identical. Maybe it's very minor. But I suggested an experiment going FLAC to WAV and back again, in multiples of say about thirty or forty times in a computer to see what you get. But I have no idea what that would be. Bizarre volume artifacts, weird phase-sounding, who knows? It's hard to believe after this it would be nothing. I suspect whatever it would be, by the end, would be exaggerated.

[Fatally Wanderer]

Hi Mike, at the risk of repeating ... it would be the same, by defintion. FLAC is a lossless compression ...
Tim

[Mike]

Hi Tim,

Yes, I understand it's seen that way. But at the risk of digression (and Daniel is right. We really should stop here), I've personally seen too many issues over the years where methods are considered "safe" but aren't. It seems tiny bugs in the system start coming out after multiple "repeats". Just by example, I was once trying to fix part of a rare record I cared about, removing ticks in one small spot by computer. Each time I finished a level of repairs I saved the file. Without knowing it there was a bug in the system - it might have been in one of the programs, or even in the computer itself - but after maybe fifty "saves" - something really awful was happening to the quality of the audio - and I'm talking about the audio OUTSIDE the repairs. It was becoming brittle. Each "save" was doing something. I didn't realize it until I played the original again. And with that discovery, so much of the work and time had been rendered useless. What I did learn from the experience was not to trust even what experts say. That is why I suggested an experiment of even forty or fifty conversions in the computer, back and forth from WAV to lossless FLAC, and then back to WAV again, and see what you get. Will it sound exactly the same? I seriously doubt it. Things just happen in time in the computer, just repeating the same conversions.

That's why I just want to go one to one. It's easy and I feel safer. And transferring from one drive to another, never back to a CD-R, and then to a drive.

If you say once again, "but it's lossless", yes, I know. It's like Wimpy, after all of Popeye's protests to defend his identity. And Wimpy simply says, "But... I'm Popeye". So okay. I won't fight it. You win, You're Popeye.

But try that test of CD-Rs I mentioned: Three or four discs from different manufacturers, All of them are supposed to have identical results, identical bits for bits, with the original. But... does each sound the same to your ears?

[Mark Fishman]

I will say right now that if you have experienced it, then it happened. I do not dispute that. And it is certainly true that we cannot measure everything that matters, nor does everything that we can measure make a difference in the listening. Our ears are neither microphones nor oscilloscopes.

But (you knew that was coming, yes?) parts of your explanations really do not make sense, so I suspect that there is probably something else (other than bit-perfect copies producing different sounds through the same equipment) going on.

Here are some possibilities:
- Red Book CDs have no sector headers and much less error-correction information than data CDs. Reading them often produces soft errors, i.e., a second read might return different bits.
- mismatches between media formulations and drives means that burning a CD-R often creates a significant number of marginal bits, guaranteeing some soft errors; only some of these can be corrected by the drive firmware. Playing the disc allows even hard errors to be concealed; ripping is NOT playing.
- most of the sonic differences in both recording and playback occur in the analog circuitry, in the conversion to or from digits, or when converting electrical signals to mechanical motion. No two playback chains will sound exactly alike.
- any process that modifies the actual bits will change the sound; the purpose of your restoration work is to change the sound, and your tools are complex.

By comparison, FLAC is very simple: remove redundancy and create a table that lets you reconstruct the original. Not "approximate", reconstruct. It's zip for waveforms instead of text.

Here's an experiment: take any document you have, and zip/unzip it fifty times. If no errors are reported, the zip files were not corrupted, and the final output will be the same as the first input.

FLAC does the same thing for digitized sound files. Your playback chain should be time-independent: if you put the same bits in tomorrow that you put in today, you will get the same sound out tomorrow that you got today. If a FLAC file gives you the same WAV back again tomorrow that you put in today, and you use the same playback chain in the same functional condition, it will sound the same.

Whatever is happening to give you different sound is not the FLAC step.

Cheers -- m.

[Mike]

 Thanks, Mark, for your patient, detailed explanation.

 

After this I will look at FLAC differently. I am still not clear why commercially made CDs aren’t currently made available in FLAC instead of WAV. I suppose it's that FLAC is not decodable in some players. As mentioned, multiple CD soundtrack sets are the default method when the running time of music goes over 80 minutes.

 

About CDRs, perhaps it's because of less-stringent Redbook standards that different CDR-brand discs - copied identically - sound different from each other. At one time I relied on favorite brands because of the detectable equalization-differences. Now I avoid this by copying directly onto drives.

 

My professional background was in pre-digital film restoration, but I have seen many changes in the time with many brand-name "upgrades" in technology that ended up being huge set-backs. Some were just wonderful - but many times "the way to go", sometimes just wasn't.  The concern is that there is a huge amount of work involved for anyone transferring these discs. In order to feel "safe" one should of course back everything up in multiple copies. In dealing with FLAC, this just one adds one more issue. In order to be truly archival, it must also be truly retrievable. But the difference and expense in this kind of storage is so small - my question is, "Do I need to go that step, to make it even smaller?"

 

It's probably no big deal; it's just me. Someday everything will be much more miniaturized anyway. CDs will be copied with devices that will scan discs from pointers at long distances.

 

In the meantime, thanks, Mark. I really appreciate your wisdom and knowledge-base.

 

Now if someone would just invent a method of removing wow and flutter from music that doesn't read it as "vibratto"..