IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

103 Pages V  « < 99 100 101 102 103 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
CUETools versions 1.9.5 through 2.1.5 (current), AccurateRip support & more
thores
post May 26 2014, 18:27
Post #2501





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 26-May 14
Member No.: 116226



QUOTE (Wombat @ May 26 2014, 17:06) *
You may spend some time checking how the HDCD decodes. Many only shift bit 1-16 to 2-17 without changing the audio and leave the upper 6dB unused. These are surely not worth to keep at higher bitrate.

Can you determine by looking at the CueTools log which albums are worth converting to 24-bit? What should I look for? What is not important?

On the other hand, the resulting FLAC files seem to be only 10% bigger, so if I could only ditch the 16-bit files (if there was a solution to re-create them) I could do with that small increase in file size.
-
@d125q: Thanks for the suggestion. I know there are alternate ways to go but I'm looking for a solution that works on many platforms (as future proofed as possible).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wombat
post May 26 2014, 19:57
Post #2502





Group: Members
Posts: 1041
Joined: 7-October 01
Member No.: 235



Sory, no idea how to see it with CUEtools. When i decode HDCD from command, Peak Extend is never enabled and maximum level is below -6.02dB it must be one that has no point being stored with higher bit depth.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thores
post Jun 3 2014, 11:54
Post #2503





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 26-May 14
Member No.: 116226



Would it be possible to show EAC peaks at db.cuetools.net? The same peaks are also in the CueTools log.

Quite often I am trying to figure out the remastering year and it would help to see if two different disc ID's of the same album have the same peaks - then they most probably are the same remaster. And sometimes, if one of them can be multiplied by a factor to have the same peaks as the other they would probably be the same remaster.

It's very common to re-issue an album without any remastering done to it, and the record label usually doesn't give any information on the album itself. You have to be your own detective, and CTDB could really help out with this.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bigi
post Jun 3 2014, 15:08
Post #2504





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 3-June 14
Member No.: 116300



I'm just trying to rip my 1000+ cd collection and having some problems with a few of them...even resorting to buying a JFJ Easy Pro to fix some! In an effort to read the more "challenging" discs I've managed to get hold of a couple of 2004-2005 CD Roms Drives that are NOS. The HP/Samsung drive is detected by CueRipper fine, but the other one gives me the "Failed to autodetect read command" error when starting the rip and just fails. It works perfectly in EAC, but i prefer CueRipper! Any way i can either get support added in or add it myself somehow - It's a Liteon LTN-529S?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
plugs13amp
post Jun 27 2014, 15:40
Post #2505





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 11-April 14
Member No.: 115467



QUOTE (plugs13amp @ May 12 2014, 11:50) *
QUOTE (Gregory S. Chudov @ May 12 2014, 01:43) *
QUOTE (plugs13amp @ May 11 2014, 03:40) *
The offending .dll appears to be created dynamically with a different filename on each run by both CueTools and CueRipper, so you can't simply exclude the file

I just uploaded a new build of 2.1.5. Can you please check it has the same problem? I just removed CSScriptLibrary.v1.1.dll (which was probably the one causing the false-positive) from the package. So CUETools no longer supports custom scripts, which is sad but almost nobody was using them anyway.


Yes, thats fixed it. maybe Avast will get round to sorting it one day and you can re-instate the custom scripts support, you shouldn't have had to remove functionality from your product to get round someone elses problems. If they do fix it, I'll report back.

Thanks for responding so quickly, its a great little app


Just to let you know that Avast now seems to be happy with CueTools v2.1.4 Don't know when they fixed it, been using 2.1.5, but ran the old version by mistake this morning and no complaints from Avast. So I guess the scripting can go back into .15
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lazlo Nibble
post Jun 30 2014, 00:15
Post #2506





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 7-February 08
Member No.: 51095



QUOTE (thores @ Jun 3 2014, 04:54) *
Would it be possible to show EAC peaks at db.cuetools.net? The same peaks are also in the CueTools log.

Something I just noticed recently: CUETools and EAC don't calculate peak values the same way. All other things being equal, CUETools will return a peak value of 100.0 if a track contains a max sample value of +7FFF or a min sample value of -8000 -- whereas EAC returns a peak value of 100.0% if a track contains a max sample value of +7FFF or a min sample value of -8000 or -7FFF.

The most common disc I've found so far that shows this difference is the South Park Bigger, Longer and Uncut soundtrack:

EAC rip log (v1.0b3, but I've confirmed v0.99pb3 returns the same peaks):

CODE
     Track  1
         Filename G:\tmp\testrip2\01 The People of South Park - Mountain Town.wav
         Peak level 100.0 %
           Extraction speed 10.3 X
           Test CRC EFE9C48B
           Accurately ripped (confidence 24)  [12AB2BF3]  (AR v2)
           Copy finished
                          
       Track  2
           Filename G:\tmp\testrip2\02 Terrance & Phillip - Uncle Fucka.wav
         Peak level 100.0 %
         Extraction speed 17.7 X
         Test CRC 4AAC8A07
         Accurately ripped (confidence 24)  [C2B6672D]  (AR v2)
         Copy OK
                          
       Track  3
         Filename G:\tmp\testrip2\03 Mr Mackey - It's Easy, Mmmkay.wav
         Peak level 100.0 %
         Extraction speed 18.5 X
         Test CRC 95CF979A
         Accurately ripped (confidence 24)  [A4228687]  (AR v2)
         Copy OK

CUETools log:

CODE
       Track Peak [ CRC32  ] [W/O NULL] [  LOG   ]
       --   99.9 [684C677E] [A4F04842]  W/O NULL
       01   99.9 [EFE9C48B] [D180B7B0]          
       02   99.9 [4AAC8A07] [8B7B00A1]          
       03   99.9 [95CF979A] [2F03A86F]

Actual sample values (returned by SoX):

CODE
       Trk  Length    EACpk%   LMin  LMax   RMin  RMax  LRMSdB RRMSdB  Indicies
         T01  04:27:38  100.0%  -7FFF +7FFE  -7FFF +7FFE  -14.62 -14.86  00:00:00 00:00:32
         T02  01:06:00  100.0%  -7FFF +7FFE  -7FFF +7FFE  -12.36 -13.14  04:26:57 04:27:70
         T03  01:54:37  100.0%  -7FFF +7FFE  -7FFF +7FFE  -14.23 -14.40  05:33:17 05:33:70

-7FFF really isn't the maximum negative value so of the two apps I think CUETools is doing the correct thing technically (100% - 1 isn't 100%), but it does call into question any comparisons between EAC-generated peak values and CUETools-generated peak values. (From what I've been able to tell they seem to agree about the difference between 99.8% and 99.9% but I haven't dug that deeply. I really wish EAC just reported max/min sample values per channel instead of boiling to down to a much-less-accurate percentage.)

This post has been edited by Lazlo Nibble: Jun 30 2014, 00:26
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sorgum
post Jul 24 2014, 12:12
Post #2507





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 24-July 14
Member No.: 116791



I have a wav file and cue file created with EAC that I want to verify but I can't connect to to CTDB, I get "database access error: Forbidden.". I've tried both 2.1.4 and 2.1.5.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gregory S. Chudo...
post Jul 24 2014, 15:08
Post #2508





Group: Developer
Posts: 699
Joined: 2-October 08
From: Ottawa
Member No.: 59035



The only thing i can think of is you might have invalid proxy settings or something


--------------------
CUETools 2.1.4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sorgum
post Jul 25 2014, 18:35
Post #2509





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 24-July 14
Member No.: 116791



QUOTE (Gregory S. Chudov @ Jul 24 2014, 10:08) *
The only thing i can think of is you might have invalid proxy settings or something


Well it was the proxy at first, that caused a timeout error, once I set the proxy correctly I get the Forbidden error. I guess I'm the only one, it's working for everyone else?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sorgum
post Jul 25 2014, 18:40
Post #2510





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 24-July 14
Member No.: 116791



QUOTE (sorgum @ Jul 25 2014, 13:35) *
QUOTE (Gregory S. Chudov @ Jul 24 2014, 10:08) *
The only thing i can think of is you might have invalid proxy settings or something


Well it was the proxy at first, that caused a timeout error, once I set the proxy correctly I get the Forbidden error. I guess I'm the only one, it's working for everyone else?


UPDATE: Now I get: database access error: The underlying connection was closed: An unexpected error occurred on a receive.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wombat
post Jul 25 2014, 19:10
Post #2511





Group: Members
Posts: 1041
Joined: 7-October 01
Member No.: 235



Works nicely here from germany.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sorgum
post Jul 28 2014, 19:27
Post #2512





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 24-July 14
Member No.: 116791



QUOTE (Wombat @ Jul 25 2014, 14:10) *
Works nicely here from germany.


So over the weekend I tried it at home, and it works there. So as Gregory said, it's the proxy that is messing things up. I can connect to AccurateRip just fine through the proxy, so I think there is a problem with the ctdb web site....

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
maxim7191
post Aug 1 2014, 00:04
Post #2513





Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 13-March 14
Member No.: 114978



I have an issue
There are album date in my cover art filenames.
in settings > advanced > cover art files. I'm trying to add string "%artist% - %year% - %album%.png" I want it to accept this image for example "Muse - 2003 - Absolution.png". But it does not see the image."%artist% - %date% - %album%.png" doesn't work too.
"%artist% - %album%.png" works fine with "Muse - Absolution.png"
What template should I use for it to work with my cover art filenames?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
korth
post Aug 1 2014, 03:24
Post #2514





Group: Members
Posts: 438
Joined: 13-March 11
Member No.: 88969



I can only find %album% and %artist% in the source code so I don't think %year% is possible for local Cover Art File search.

This post has been edited by korth: Aug 1 2014, 04:00


--------------------
korth
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ChronoSphere
post Aug 4 2014, 21:09
Post #2515





Group: Members
Posts: 499
Joined: 11-March 07
Member No.: 41384



Is there an artificial limit on how many tracks a CD must have for CUETools to see it? I have this CD which only has two tracks. CUETools doesn't see the ripped files (file browser shows folder as empty)

edit: Ah, apologies. I had a space character in one of the album's tracks tags by mistake, so CUETools saw two one-track albums -> separate files, and decided to ignore them.

This post has been edited by ChronoSphere: Aug 4 2014, 21:36
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pidgeon
post Aug 8 2014, 15:44
Post #2516





Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 27-April 10
Member No.: 80211



I've been successfully using CUETools 2.1.4 since it had been released, anyway I notice that version 2.1.5 is out, so I was wondering if I could upgrade to the 2.1.5 version, or it isn't stable enough?

This post has been edited by Pidgeon: Aug 8 2014, 15:49
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mjb2006
post Aug 8 2014, 16:18
Post #2517





Group: Members
Posts: 811
Joined: 12-May 06
From: Colorado, USA
Member No.: 30694



2.1.5 works great!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
korth
post Aug 8 2014, 16:29
Post #2518





Group: Members
Posts: 438
Joined: 13-March 11
Member No.: 88969



2.1.5 is stable enough. I barely use 2.1.4 at all (unless I'm trying to duplicate someone's issue).
Grigory, might you consider bumping the version number and adding future fixes and improvements to 2.1.6?


--------------------
korth
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gregory S. Chudo...
post Aug 8 2014, 17:47
Post #2519





Group: Developer
Posts: 699
Joined: 2-October 08
From: Ottawa
Member No.: 59035



Ok


--------------------
CUETools 2.1.4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pidgeon
post Aug 8 2014, 18:33
Post #2520





Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 27-April 10
Member No.: 80211



Thank you Gregory for the hard work, these are great news. I've suggested CUETools to friends and I've spread the word over the web for years, this tool really deserves some attention. Long live CUETools! Beware of the sacrilegious Medieval CUE Splitter! biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by Pidgeon: Aug 8 2014, 18:34
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pidgeon
post Aug 8 2014, 18:55
Post #2521





Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 27-April 10
Member No.: 80211



Wow. I've just noticed that, given the same conditions (same album, read first time then read again to maximize speed), the 2.1.5 version is much faster than 2.1.4 in verifying the CD rips! For example, it went from 530x to 630x! Strangely this seems to happen only with flac files, but I'm impressed nonetheless!

EDIT: I've just have a look at the changelog:

"CUETools: CUETools FLAC decoder optimized; verification now works around 50% faster when not limited by I/O"

This post has been edited by Pidgeon: Aug 8 2014, 19:09
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rankxerox
post Aug 12 2014, 09:24
Post #2522





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 12-August 14
Member No.: 116949



Good morning to all of you. I have this problem with cuetools v2.1.4, from about a week:



My OS run Win 7 Pro original, .Net Framework 2, 3, 4 & 4.5 updated and MVisual C++ 2008 x86 and x64. I tried to install several times .Net Framework 2 (SP2) but does not accept it [also with UAC and antivirus disabled]. I've tried everything that my knowledge allows me to, but I can not solve the problem.
Can anyone give me a hand? headbang.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
korth
post Aug 12 2014, 11:26
Post #2523





Group: Members
Posts: 438
Joined: 13-March 11
Member No.: 88969



This known problem can happen when you change the size of the text in Win7 display to something other than 'default' (under Control Panel\Hardware and Sound\Display). It was fixed in 2.1.5.

This post has been edited by korth: Aug 12 2014, 11:42


--------------------
korth
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rankxerox
post Aug 12 2014, 11:42
Post #2524





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 12-August 14
Member No.: 116949



Thanks you were great and fast. It's true given that the resolution of my notebook is very push [1920x1080] with a display of 13". I ​​enlarged the characters in "Medium 125%", because even with glasses, I was struggling. Appearance then that version 2.1. 5 is operational.
Have you a good day.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pidgeon
post Aug 13 2014, 13:54
Post #2525





Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 27-April 10
Member No.: 80211



I would like to report a similar bug using version 2.1.5:





I'm using a custom Windows text zoom set to 138%. My desktop resolution is 1920x1080.


This post has been edited by Pidgeon: Aug 13 2014, 13:54
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

103 Pages V  « < 99 100 101 102 103 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd September 2014 - 10:59