Transferring music laptop to laptop

To many ads? Support ODJT and see no ads!
dunlopj

dunlopj

Mac Daddy DJ
Aug 14, 2008
6,443
8,191
67
Belair MD
I took the plunge and bought a new Dell laptop with an illuminated keyboard.

I know there's a cable that will allow me to transfer my music from my former main laptop to my new main laptop.

Anyone know what it is or what it's called?

This would be easier since my main music library - of which I have multiple backups - has ALL my music which is way more than I use for DJ purposes.
.
 
dunlopj said:
I took the plunge and bought a new Dell laptop with an illuminated keyboard.

I know there's a cable that will allow me to transfer my music from my former main laptop to my new main laptop.

Anyone know what it is or what it's called?

This would be easier since my main music library - of which I have multiple backups - has ALL my music which is way more than I use for DJ purposes.
.
Click to expand...
Why don't you just use one of the backups to transfer the music to the new Laptop?
 
dunlopj said:
I took the plunge and bought a new Dell laptop with an illuminated keyboard.

I know there's a cable that will allow me to transfer my music from my former main laptop to my new main laptop.

Anyone know what it is or what it's called?

This would be easier since my main music library - of which I have multiple backups - has ALL my music which is way more than I use for DJ purposes.
.
Click to expand...

Just take one of your externals; create a folder on it; transfer from your old to external and then to new....
 
ahoustondj said:
Why don't you just use one of the backups to transfer the music to the new Laptop?
Click to expand...

...because my backups contain ALL my music - tons of country, swing, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, comedy, ALL the Beatles albums - stuff I don't need while at any event but stuff I love to listen to on my Zune during my almost 3 hour round-trip daily commute.

If I used the backups, I'd have to go into most genre folders and delete all the music I don't need.

With that special cable, it's much easier.
 
I use an external drive for this.
FWIW I use itunes.

I use Alway Sync to sync everything including iTunes library database to the drive, then sync to the lappy. Check the box that says to overwrite everything. Once the transfer is done you have a perfectly replicated library on the new machine complete with playlists.
 
jtnichol said:
I use an external drive for this...
I use Alway Sync to sync everything... Check the box that says to overwrite everything. Once the transfer is done you have a perfectly replicated library on the new machine complete with playlists.
Click to expand...
Always Sync user here as well.
 
dunlopj said:
...because my backups contain ALL my music - tons of country, swing, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, comedy, ALL the Beatles albums - stuff I don't need while at any event but stuff I love to listen to on my Zune during my almost 3 hour round-trip daily commute.

If I used the backups, I'd have to go into most genre folders and delete all the music I don't need.

With that special cable, it's much easier.
Click to expand...
Dude, that does not make sense. What is the point in having a complete library at home or elsewhere when you can have it on your Laptop/external at the gig. This is not about carrying Vinyl in crates where you have to just carry the best of the best.:trirolleyes:
 
ahoustondj said:
Dude, that does not make sense. What is the point in having a complete library at home or elsewhere when you can have it on your Laptop/external at the gig. This is not about carrying Vinyl in crates where you have to just carry the best of the best.:trirolleyes:
Click to expand...

He's like me -- we cherry pick what songs we need to the working drive. Everything runs faster that way. Try loading say 5,000 songs and doing a sort, then do it with 75,000 songs, and do a speed comparison and CPU usage comparison.


Jim,

I recommend the way LeBlanc mentioned, unless you have a network at home -- doesn't everyone have a network these days...?

If so, just plug the new computer into it, and copy them over.
 
SoftJock Rick said:
He's like me -- we cherry pick what songs we need to the working drive. Everything runs faster that way. Try loading say 5,000 songs and doing a sort, then do it with 75,000 songs, and do a speed comparison and CPU usage comparison.


Jim,

I recommend the way LeBlanc mentioned, unless you have a network at home -- doesn't everyone have a network these days...?

If so, just plug the new computer into it, and copy them over.
Click to expand...

How long does it take to Cherry pick? Seems like my computer can read tag data and copy about 18,000 songs in 2 hours...Import to itunes then read tag data with DJ program in 2 hours. So 6 hours worst case scenario...It's an overnight thing but still faster than cherry picking one by one or thinking of search query words etc.

Dang...did I use the words "cherry pick" in the shrimp thread too!? lol
 
SoftJock Rick said:
He's like me -- we cherry pick what songs we need to the working drive. Everything runs faster that way. Try loading say 5,000 songs and doing a sort, then do it with 75,000 songs, and do a speed comparison and CPU usage comparison.


Jim,

I recommend the way LeBlanc mentioned, unless you have a network at home -- doesn't everyone have a network these days...?

If so, just plug the new computer into it, and copy them over.
Click to expand...

What speed are you talking about. I pick a song I load it, it plays, what more speed is there to be had? Its not like I have to wait minutes for the song to load. As a matter of fact, if I was doing a search, as soon as I start typing the name, the results start popping up. With the last letter typed, the song is there. Even before that it is already included in the search.
 
jtnichol said:
How long does it take to Cherry pick? Seems like my computer can read tag data and copy about 18,000 songs in 2 hours...Import to itunes then read tag data with DJ program in 2 hours. So 6 hours worst case scenario...It's an overnight thing but still faster than cherry picking one by one or thinking of search query words etc.
Click to expand...

I've been doing this for long time Jeremiah -- I have a working MP3 folder that was built many moons ago. If something new comes out that I like, I add it, and sync all drives. There was obviously an initial investment of time -- but it's sorta like going to college or learning a trade.;)



ahoustondj said:
What speed are you talking about. I pick a song I load it, it plays, what more speed is there to be had? Its not like I have to wait minutes for the song to load. As a matter of fact, if I was doing a search, as soon as I start typing the name, the results start popping up. With the last letter typed, the song is there. Even before that it is already included in the search.
Click to expand...

You don't comprehend (been wanting to say that to you for some time for S&G)... xf:D

I test sorting and search algorithms all the time -- that's my job. If I click on a column header to sort by say Artist, the time difference is very substantial between 5k versus 75k. There's a zillion compares happening during a sort process, and the CPU spikes. So, the difference in how long the CPU spikes, can make a big difference in how your software runs (and can result in a blip in the music playing currently).

There is simple math to this whole thing. Sorting or searching through 75k, is going to take 15 times longer than 5k. So, for example purposes, let's say sorting 5k = 300ms, that means that 75k = 4500ms. During that time, your CPU will spike close to 100%. So, there's a huge difference.

So essentially, the leaner you keep your working library, the better your software will perform. I don't think you need all those Lief Garret songs anyway... :)
 
SoftJock Rick said:
I've been doing this for long time Jeremiah -- I have a working MP3 folder that was built many moons ago. If something new comes out that I like, I add it, and sync all drives. There was obviously an initial investment of time -- but it's sorta like going to college or learning a trade.;)





You don't comprehend (been wanting to say that to you for some time for S&G)... xf:D

I test sorting and search algorithms all the time -- that's my job. If I click on a column header to sort by say Artist, the time difference is very substantial between 5k versus 75k. There's a zillion compares happening during a sort process, and the CPU spikes. So, the difference in how long the CPU spikes, can make a big difference in how your software runs (and can result in a blip in the music playing currently).

There is simple math to this whole thing. Sorting or searching through 75k, is going to take 15 times longer than 5k. So, for example purposes, let's say sorting 5k = 300ms, that means that 75k = 4500ms. During that time, your CPU will spike close to 100%. So, there's a huge difference.

So essentially, the leaner you keep your working library, the better your software will perform. I don't think you need all those Lief Garret songs anyway... :)
Click to expand...


no one said you were allowed to use math on this board!!!! my head hurts now :)
 
LOL sightsandsounds....

Rick...Yes I totally get what you are saying. But I'm just thinking the primary one time transfer is the only time that should be invested. 75,000 is a ton of tracks but todays processors on a brand new Dell aught to have no problem especially with (hopefully) 8 GB ram for the initial data set.

Maybe 75,000 tags is a CPU constraint when searching but I sure hope not. I never want to manage 2 libraries on a computer with a dual processor setup. It's gonna be a long time before I have that many tracks. I buy everything and have no interest from here on out to go buy tons of used discs and rip em or whatever it takes to get to 40,000+ tracks.
 
SoftJock Rick said:
I've been doing this for long time Jeremiah -- I have a working MP3 folder that was built many moons ago. If something new comes out that I like, I add it, and sync all drives. There was obviously an initial investment of time -- but it's sorta like going to college or learning a trade.;)





You don't comprehend (been wanting to say that to you for some time for S&G)... xf:D

I test sorting and search algorithms all the time -- that's my job. If I click on a column header to sort by say Artist, the time difference is very substantial between 5k versus 75k. There's a zillion compares happening during a sort process, and the CPU spikes. So, the difference in how long the CPU spikes, can make a big difference in how your software runs (and can result in a blip in the music playing currently).

There is simple math to this whole thing. Sorting or searching through 75k, is going to take 15 times longer than 5k. So, for example purposes, let's say sorting 5k = 300ms, that means that 75k = 4500ms. During that time, your CPU will spike close to 100%. So, there's a huge difference.

So essentially, the leaner you keep your working library, the better your software will perform. I don't think you need all those Lief Garret songs anyway... :)
Click to expand...
We may be talking about two different types of sorting. I am referring to doing a search from scratch in my library. Someone requests a song, I type it in the search and voila it is there immediately. I don't care if there is a nanosecond delay between one option and another. Fact is that it is there for immediate play. Where does sorting come about when you have to pick a song?
 
In the IT world we call this a disaster recovery drill and you take advantage of it whenever possible. How would you recover from a failed hard drive? This is your chance to test that process and improve on it. If your process is to use a network cable and transfer the library from another PC, do it. If that process is to restore from a backup, do that. If you don't know what you would do, use this as a real life example and figure it out now before it is a real live problem!
 
SoftJock Rick said:
I don't think you need all those Lief Garret songs anyway... :)
Click to expand...

Ummm...I only have three Lief Garret tracks... (but d*mn that was funny)

I don't want to have ALL my music at events because that's way more to go through when thinking of a track to play. I'm doing the KISS rule here.

And if I need an obscure track, I always can hook up my Zune to mixer channel 4.

But I've never had to do that as I carry 12.000 tracks.

So Rick, will the DAC 3 play nice with RockIt? I need to decide between that and an HC 4500.
 
jtnichol said:
You must point the library location in iTunes preferences to the folder with the newly synced music library database file otherwise itunes will show tag info but won't play the song.
Click to expand...

Stop with all the I Tunes talk. It has no use for me!:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back