IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
How do I use CUETools to split FLAC?
php111
post Sep 21 2013, 18:25
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 26-September 07
Member No.: 47357



I honestly tried to keep searching Google for a short easy direct answers to use CUETools to split tracks using the CUE file, but I wasn't understanding how. I am that frustrated to figure this out so I gave up on searching and instead I am posting. How do I split a CUE file into tracks using CUETools?

Thank you,
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
korth
post Sep 21 2013, 22:48
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 560
Joined: 13-March 11
Member No.: 88969



You tried searching threads here?

I assume your input is image+cue. Output is flac tracks.

Input: Folder Browser (select the CUE file, not folder for best first-time results)
Output: your choice Browse, Manual or Template (I'm not going to guess what you want to do)
Action: Encode (Script: default)
Mode: Tracks
Audio Output: Lossless; flac; libflac (I'd start with libflac as it is the most common)
Go

If any popup windows appear, make selections as needed.

reference
reference


--------------------
korth
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
php111
post Sep 21 2013, 22:52
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 26-September 07
Member No.: 47357



Thank you so much! Would it be best to leave the Template on default?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
korth
post Sep 21 2013, 23:10
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 560
Joined: 13-March 11
Member No.: 88969



To be honest I don't remember which of the four default templates shows in the window.

[%directoryname%\]%filename%-new[%unique%].cue
will put the files in the same folder as the input. Be aware that files in use cannot be overwritten and will result in an error message.

[%directoryname%\]new[%unique%]\%filename%.cue
will put the files in a subfolder 'new' within the same folder as the input.

%music%\Converted\%artist%\[%year% - ]%album%[ '('disc %discnumberandname%')'][' ('%releasedateandlabel%')'][' ('%unique%')']\%artist% - %album%.cue
or
%music%\Converted\%artist%\[%year% - ]%album%[' ('%releasedateandlabel%')'][' ('%unique%')']\%artist% - %album%[ '('disc %discnumberandname%')'].cue
either of these will put files in your Windows Music folder in a subfolder 'Converted'.


--------------------
korth
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
php111
post Sep 21 2013, 23:30
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 26-September 07
Member No.: 47357



Thank you so much, korth!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
php111
post Sep 22 2013, 08:23
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 26-September 07
Member No.: 47357



I just tried doing this now. I get the following error. How do I fix this?

Exception: unable to locate the audio files
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
korth
post Sep 22 2013, 12:36
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 560
Joined: 13-March 11
Member No.: 88969



Did you rename the flac image and not correct the CUE file?

filename.CUE should be in same folder as the flac image filename.flac
The flac image filename.flac should match what's in the CUE file
FILE "filename.flac" WAVE

Note: CUETools can usually autocorrect for filename.wav in the CUE file.
Note2: There is a Correct filenames tool in CUETools
select CUE file
Action: Correct filenames
Mode: Locate files
that will try to find the file(s) and correct the existing CUE (when Overwrite button is highlighted) or create a new filename.flac.cue CUE file. [edit] this tool locates minor filename differences, not for completely renamed files

This post has been edited by korth: Sep 22 2013, 12:52


--------------------
korth
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
php111
post Sep 22 2013, 12:58
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 26-September 07
Member No.: 47357



I'll try that a little later. I didn't edit the FLAC image. It was the CUE file. The CUE is incorrect, first being my tracks are listed as 01 - the track name, and in the CUE sheet it's 201. Second being "track name.wav" WAVE, so, yes, I have to correct, and I did not know that before. Thank you!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
php111
post Sep 22 2013, 15:45
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 26-September 07
Member No.: 47357



I tried exactly that to correct it and it still cannot locate the audio files. I also deleted my FLAC tracks and then tried correcting it in notepad and correcting the file names in CUETools, but CUETools still gives the error exception: cannot locate the audio files.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
korth
post Sep 22 2013, 16:27
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 560
Joined: 13-March 11
Member No.: 88969



For every
FILE "filename.flac" WAVE
in the CUE file there has to be an audio file with that same name in the same folder as the CUE file.
Are you sure no audio file is missing or misnamed? No strange 'special characters' in the filename?

QUOTE (php111 @ Sep 22 2013, 12:58) *
I didn't edit the FLAC image. It was the CUE file. The CUE is incorrect, first being my tracks are listed as 01 - the track name, and in the CUE sheet it's 201.

How else did you edit the original CUE file? Could you post it (in a textbox)?

[edit: added 'audio' to describe 'file']

This post has been edited by korth: Sep 22 2013, 16:56


--------------------
korth
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
php111
post Sep 22 2013, 16:36
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 26-September 07
Member No.: 47357



CODE
REM GENRE Soundtrack
REM DATE 2002
REM DISCID 51123707
REM COMMENT "ExactAudioCopy v0.99pb5"
PERFORMER "Grateful Dead"
TITLE "View from the Vault III"
FILE "01 - China Cat Sunflower -].wav" WAVE
  TRACK 01 AUDIO
    TITLE "China Cat Sunflower ->"
    PERFORMER "Grateful Dead"
    INDEX 01 00:00:00
FILE "02 - I Know You Rider -].wav" WAVE
  TRACK 02 AUDIO
    TITLE "I Know You Rider ->"
    PERFORMER "Grateful Dead"
    INDEX 01 00:00:00
FILE "03 - We Can Run -].wav" WAVE
  TRACK 03 AUDIO
    TITLE "We Can Run"
    PERFORMER "Grateful Dead"
    INDEX 01 00:00:00
FILE "04 - Estimated Prophet -].wav" WAVE
  TRACK 04 AUDIO
    TITLE "Estimated Prophet ->"
    PERFORMER "Grateful Dead"
    INDEX 01 00:00:00
FILE "05 - Terrapin Station -].wav" WAVE
  TRACK 05 AUDIO
    TITLE "Terrapin Station ->"
    PERFORMER "Grateful Dead"
    INDEX 01 00:00:00
FILE "06 - Jam -].wav" WAVE
  TRACK 06 AUDIO
    TITLE "Jam ->"
    PERFORMER "Grateful Dead"
    INDEX 01 00:00:00
FILE "07 - Space -].wav" WAVE
  TRACK 07 AUDIO
    TITLE "Space ->"
    PERFORMER "Grateful Dead"
    INDEX 01 00:00:00


1.) I don't know how to use textbox.

2.) I deleted out the FLAC tracks, so I only have the one single CUE file with all tracks in one.

3.) I only used notepad to edit the CUE file.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
korth
post Sep 22 2013, 16:53
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 560
Joined: 13-March 11
Member No.: 88969



QUOTE
1.) I don't know how to use textbox.

Sorry I meant codebox.
QUOTE
2.) I deleted out the FLAC tracks, so I only have the one single CUE file with all tracks in one.

The CUE is only a text file used to provide information to a program about the audio files. The CUE contains no audio. If you deleted all the flac files and have nothing left but the CUE file, you have no audio files to process. That's why CUETools can't locate them.

Re-read this post.

This post has been edited by korth: Sep 22 2013, 16:58


--------------------
korth
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
UrbanSurfer
post Jan 27 2015, 15:32
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 27-January 15
Member No.: 118479



Joined the forum in order to express my Thanks. Was having the same frustration over single track FLAC/Cue music files and your solution was just-exactly-perfect. Concise, to the point and I had 100% success on the 1st try. And that was the 1st time I even encountered CUEtools at all. So, Thank You with my appreciation for the great assist.

QUOTE (korth @ Sep 21 2013, 23:48) *
You tried searching threads here?

I assume your input is image+cue. Output is flac tracks.

Input: Folder Browser (select the CUE file, not folder for best first-time results)
Output: your choice Browse, Manual or Template (I'm not going to guess what you want to do)
Action: Encode (Script: default)
Mode: Tracks
Audio Output: Lossless; flac; libflac (I'd start with libflac as it is the most common)
Go

If any popup windows appear, make selections as needed.

reference
reference

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jim12
post Feb 9 2015, 13:32
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 9-February 15
Member No.: 118593



Thank you for your helpful posts korth. If possible I'd like to ask something on the same topic:

I have single-file FLAC album which I want to split up in individual FLAC files for each track using CUE tools but without hurting the sound quality. Does the different encoder options (libFLAC, FLACCL etc) affect the sound quality? And most importantly, how should I handle the "Compression Level" bar? huh.gif

I ask this because I already tried to split a single-file FLAC album, but although the size of the original file is 340 MB, when split it with libFLAC encoder and the compression bar set to 0, the size of the split files is 397 MB in total, which means 57MB larger than the original single file.
However, when I split the same file with the compression level set to 8, the size of the split files is 340 MB in total (equal to the size of the original file).
Does this indicate that when you split a single FLAC file to several separate ones the total size of the separate files will always be larger or perhaps I did something wrong? unsure.gif

Thanks a lot for your time. smile.gif

This post has been edited by Jim12: Feb 9 2015, 13:42
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
julf
post Feb 9 2015, 14:36
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: 14-January 12
Member No.: 96426



QUOTE (Jim12 @ Feb 9 2015, 13:32) *
Does the different encoder options (libFLAC, FLACCL etc) affect the sound quality?


No.

QUOTE
Does this indicate that when you split a single FLAC file to several separate ones the total size of the separate files will always be larger or perhaps I did something wrong?


There is a certain bit of overhead with a FLAc file due to headers, metadata etc., so using the same quality setting, multiple files will take up more space than the single file due to duplicated headers.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
korth
post Feb 9 2015, 15:06
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 560
Joined: 13-March 11
Member No.: 88969



QUOTE (Jim12 @ Feb 9 2015, 13:32) *
And most importantly, how should I handle the "Compression Level" bar?

Lower numbers encode faster with less compression, higher numbers encode slower with more compression. Default for libFLAC is -5.
See CUETools FLAC encoders comparison for more info on the different FLAC encoders in CUETools.


--------------------
korth
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jim12
post Feb 9 2015, 16:27
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 9-February 15
Member No.: 118593



QUOTE (julf @ Feb 9 2015, 14:36) *
QUOTE (Jim12 @ Feb 9 2015, 13:32) *
Does the different encoder options (libFLAC, FLACCL etc) affect the sound quality?


No.

QUOTE
Does this indicate that when you split a single FLAC file to several separate ones the total size of the separate files will always be larger or perhaps I did something wrong?


There is a certain bit of overhead with a FLAc file due to headers, metadata etc., so using the same quality setting, multiple files will take up more space than the single file due to duplicated headers.


Makes sense. Which options would you recommend for splitting FLAC files without hurting the quality of the original file?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jim12
post Feb 9 2015, 16:32
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 9-February 15
Member No.: 118593



QUOTE (korth @ Feb 9 2015, 15:06) *
QUOTE (Jim12 @ Feb 9 2015, 13:32) *
And most importantly, how should I handle the "Compression Level" bar?

Lower numbers encode faster with less compression, higher numbers encode slower with more compression. Default for libFLAC is -5.
See CUETools FLAC encoders comparison for more info on the different FLAC encoders in CUETools.

On cuetools wiki it mentions:
libFLAC is a reference FLAC 1.3.1 - It's main advantage is that it's a standard implementation that almost everybody else uses, so it's less likely to cause any problems, but it's less efficient than other.

Since it is less efficient than the other encoders it probably reduces the quality of the tracks right?

QUOTE
Lower numbers encode faster with less compression, higher numbers encode slower with more compression. Default for libFLAC is -5.

So if understand correctly, the best option for optimal quality is 0 right?

Thanks. smile.gif

This post has been edited by Jim12: Feb 9 2015, 16:33
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Feb 9 2015, 16:56
Post #19





Group: Developer
Posts: 3712
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



So you didn't understand all the previous answers?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rick.hughes
post Feb 9 2015, 16:57
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 151
Joined: 16-February 07
Member No.: 40679



QUOTE (Jim12 @ Feb 9 2015, 10:32) *
So if understand correctly, the best option for optimal quality is 0 right?
Do you know what lossless means? No difference in quality regardless of setting.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
julf
post Feb 9 2015, 17:01
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: 14-January 12
Member No.: 96426



QUOTE (Jim12 @ Feb 9 2015, 16:27) *
Makes sense. Which options would you recommend for splitting FLAC files without hurting the quality of the original file?


This thread

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
julf
post Feb 9 2015, 17:05
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: 14-January 12
Member No.: 96426



QUOTE (Jim12 @ Feb 9 2015, 16:32) *
Since it is less efficient than the other encoders it probably reduces the quality of the tracks right?


No. "Less efficient" means either that the encoding takes a longer time, or that the result takes more space. It is still exactly the same audio data.

QUOTE
So if understand correctly, the best option for optimal quality is 0 right?


No. The settings only affect how long the encoding process takes, and the file size. It is still exactly the same audio data.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jim12
post Feb 10 2015, 23:55
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 9-February 15
Member No.: 118593



QUOTE (julf @ Feb 9 2015, 17:05) *
QUOTE (Jim12 @ Feb 9 2015, 16:32) *
Since it is less efficient than the other encoders it probably reduces the quality of the tracks right?


No. "Less efficient" means either that the encoding takes a longer time, or that the result takes more space. It is still exactly the same audio data.

QUOTE
So if understand correctly, the best option for optimal quality is 0 right?


No. The settings only affect how long the encoding process takes, and the file size. It is still exactly the same audio data.

So when using CUE tools to split a FLAC file it would be better to set the compression level to 8 since the size of the files will be smaller and the difference in the encoding time will only be a few seconds.

However, will the playback of those split files affect negatively the battery runtime of my portable player since the processor has more work to do reading highly compressed FLAC files in contrast to less compressed ones?

This post has been edited by Jim12: Feb 10 2015, 23:56
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mjb2006
post Feb 11 2015, 03:05
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 1004
Joined: 12-May 06
From: Colorado, USA
Member No.: 30694



QUOTE (Jim12 @ Feb 10 2015, 15:55) *
However, will the playback of those split files affect negatively the battery runtime of my portable player since the processor has more work to do reading highly compressed FLAC files in contrast to less compressed ones?


That was always the thought, but it turns out to be a non-issue. See posts 7 & 8 of this thread: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=107990

With this in mind, I use maximum compression now.

This post has been edited by mjb2006: Feb 11 2015, 03:06
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jim12
post Feb 11 2015, 08:34
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 9-February 15
Member No.: 118593



Very interesting, thanks for the input mjb2006.
The difference in the Decode time - Processor occupation is there, but slight indeed.

However, if there's no actual difference neither in the processor occupation nor in the sound quality, why would the option of lower compression level even exist since there are zero advantages to it practically? Just because of the fact that encoding process takes a few seconds less?
The difference in the encoding time is so negligible that it doesn't make complete sense to me. huh.gif

This post has been edited by Jim12: Feb 11 2015, 08:39
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st August 2015 - 12:54