IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
what do i miss without a cue file in flac?
leland
post Jan 14 2006, 23:12
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 17-March 03
Member No.: 5549



If I rip an album to multiple flac files and don't have a cue, what am I missing?

Since play is gapless I'm really not missing anything, right?

One song = one file seems easier for all the new toys (Sonos, Squeezebox) to handle. I would want those things double-counting the .cue and the .image. Just seems more versatile. New stuff might support cue files, but they'll always support a single file.

Would appreciate knowing what I'm missing out on.


--------------------
Guinness for strength!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Jan 14 2006, 23:47
Post #2





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



As far as I understand it, when ripping to tracks, there are three things to consider:
  1. Retaining gaps
  2. INDEX 00 (and 02+, but I've never seen any) entries
  3. TRACK 01 INDEX 00 entries
1. Retaining gaps
If you don't retain gaps you can't recreated the source CD exactly

2. INDEX 00/02+ entries
If you don't have a cuesheet you don't record when these occur, if indeed they do, therefore you can't recreated the source CD exactly.

3. TRACK 01 INDEX 00 entries
If the source CD was one of the few that has a TRACK 01 INDEX 00 track then you have lost this audio data by ripping to tracks. A cuesheet wouldn't save you though.

So, in conclusion, as long as you retained the gaps when ripping then the only benefit would be to record INDEX 00 entries (if you see your CD player count up from a negative number to the start of a track - that's an INDEX 00 entry).


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Crissaegrim
post Jan 15 2006, 00:00
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 164
Joined: 8-July 05
Member No.: 23198



Bah, I just don't worry about cue sheets. Horray for gapless play. I'm purely interseted in archiving the songs on hard drives. If you're anal about retaining gaps, cue sheet is for you! But then you're anal enough ripping to FLAC, now, aren't you? tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Martin H
post Jan 15 2006, 07:04
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 857
Joined: 5-March 05
From: Denmark
Member No.: 20365



I know Synthetic Soul allready has answered the question, but i would like to exlain my preference in this area...

I rip my CDs to separate tracks(WavPack) and i also don't make cuesheet's. When ripping this way, then the gaps will be perfectly extracted(exept hidden tracks in track one's pre-gap), but they will just not be marked when burned to disc(INDEX 00). Like Synthetic Soul explained, this will have the effect that their won't be displayed a negative countdown in the CD players display between tracks(if their is a pre-gap present). Another minor thing that will occure is that when playing the tracks in random order(programmed play), then the pre-gaps are played, even though they actually should be skipped. These two things isn't enough of a reason for me to make cuesheet's. I rip many scratched CDs and when a track fails EAC's secure mode, then i just go back and rerip that single track untill error-free(if possible). Now if i made images, then i would have to rip the entire album again(and maybe do it multiple times). If their is a hidden track in the pre-gap of track one, then it is only extracted if making an image(or separate tracks with the pre-gap appended to the correct track). Now when i have a CD with a hidden track, then i rip the album to separate tracks(as usual), but then i extract track one's pre-gap into a separate file also(the part after the first 2 seconds). That separate file i name with a track number
that's one digit higher than the last track. Now i will hear that hidden track always as
the last track of the album, instead of only being able to hear it when holding the rewind button down at the start of track one. Many people say that it's "neater" to have a single file that represents the album, instead of many separate track files. I can see this point if one is having all the separate tracks of all albums in the same folder, but if i create a single folder for each album, then i really don't see the big difference. Finally i prefer the separate tracks approach for the flexibility of metadata, and also for general compatibility reasons.

This post has been edited by Martin H: Jan 15 2006, 07:06
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kirby54925
post Jan 15 2006, 07:28
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 22-July 05
Member No.: 23461



I agree with Crissaegrim. For me, the music content is much more important than the exact placement of the gaps. As for those weird tracks with TRACK 01 INDEX 00, screw those and complain to the artist for being stupid and putting hidden tracks like that.

I have already archived my entire CD collection into separate tracks using FLAC onto a 300 GB hard drive, taking care to preserve the artist-album hierarchy through the use of folders, e.g. have a folder named "Kelly Clarkson" in the root folder (the drive) and a subfolder within that named "Breakaway" that contains the tracks from her CD. Easy, simple, and painless.

The point I'm trying to make is that ripping to separate tracks is much more straightforward and less of a hassle in most cases (with some very rare exceptions). But as they say, "To each their own." laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Jan 15 2006, 09:44
Post #6





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



I think one of the main deciding factors is whether you are archiving, or ripping.

I archive to image. Once I have the image I don't use it - it is solely there in case I need to make a copy one day, or I recreate my whole lossy collection. In this case, the fact that my process lets me not worry about points 1-3, I think makes it a lot easier.

However, if you rip - i.e.: you play your lossless files regularly - then I would say tracks may be best. As Martin H stated, you have more flexability and better tagging abilities.

I don't agree with Kirby54925, and various other track users, who say that using images is more complicated. I totally believe the opposite. I just don't have to worry about gaps, indexes, hidden tracks, etc. (now I have my Plextor and EAC set up correctly).


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kirby54925
post Jan 15 2006, 23:59
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 22-July 05
Member No.: 23461



Question then: Does dbpowerAMP support the conversion of lossless images to individual lossy files? Just wondering. I know, I can just use foobar2000 to convert, but dbpowerAMP makes it so much easier.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
leland
post Jan 16 2006, 00:23
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 17-March 03
Member No.: 5549



QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Jan 15 2006, 12:44 AM)
However, if you rip - i.e.: you play your lossless files regularly - then I would say tracks may be best.  As Martin H stated, you have more flexability and better tagging abilities.

I don't agree with Kirby54925, and various other track users, who say that using images is more complicated.  I totally believe the opposite.  I just don't have to worry about gaps, indexes, hidden tracks, etc. (now I have my Plextor and EAC set up correctly).
*


Ah, I think the first paragraph I quoted is where the difference is, good analysis. I'm "ripping" these to play. I want to play my lossless files via a squeezebox, sonos, or something. The tracks just seem easier to deal with.

Of course, while doing that, I want to have them "archived" although I'm not sure I'm losing that much with the gaps. To be honest, I don't care whether the Rolling Stones wants 1 or 2 seconds between their songs wink.gif And if it's classical, live, or anything else then there ought to be no gaps.

One other issue that drives me away from images, aside from playability (which isn't all that hard) is compatability/future-proofing. If I rip something, I want to play it in as many places as possible, and in as many programs as possible. Cue + image is well-spread, but not everywhere (Sonos, for example). When you add tagging to it, or RG info, then it's less well-spread. Then when you get to the next level of embedded cuesheets and custom tags, you really need foobar otherwise it may not read the info (or worse, work).

I understand you can always convert (hey, it's lossless, right?), but to me tracks in flac (or whatever one you go with) seems like it's the most playable, compatible and future-proof.

Downside is losing that info presented in the early posts (great detail - thanks). As for hidden tracks, well, I'll deal with that when it comes up. I can't think of any album I own with that setup, except for enhanced stuff.

Aside: I was happy to see this topic on the front page.


--------------------
Guinness for strength!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
smz
post Jan 16 2006, 00:33
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 601
Joined: 15-February 04
From: Venezia, Italia
Member No.: 12025



You can always rip by tracks and keep a cuesheet of that, just in case for the future.

In this case I think you're only loosing material hidden in the first track pregap.

Hint: change the extension of the cuesheet from .cue to .cue.txt so that foobar and others don't see it as a "playlist" when you drag a folder in them.


Sergio


--------------------
Sergio
Revox B150 + (JBL 4301B | Sennheiser HD430)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
scooley
post Apr 21 2006, 09:58
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 31-March 06
Member No.: 29027



I think that martin and synthetic already said this, but I'd like to make sure that it is understood. If you create individual tracks, and then you need to burn the cd again, there will be NO differences in the gaps, because the gaps are recorded as well in the individual tracks. Therefore when you need to burn to disc again, there will be NO difference in the way the cd sounds. The gaps will be Exactly the same. The only difference is that the display on your cd player won't count backward. I personally don't see the value in that. To each his own though.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Apr 21 2006, 10:52
Post #11





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



Yes, that's right, as long as you don't choose "Leave Out Gaps" in EAC.

QUOTE (Martin H @ Jan 15 2006, 06:04 AM) *
When ripping this way, then the gaps will be perfectly extracted(exept hidden tracks in track one's pre-gap), but they will just not be marked when burned to disc(INDEX 00). Like Synthetic Soul explained, this will have the effect that their won't be displayed a negative countdown in the CD players display between tracks(if their is a pre-gap present).
QUOTE (Martin H @ Jan 15 2006, 06:04 AM) *
If their is a hidden track in the pre-gap of track one, then it is only extracted if making an image(or separate tracks with the pre-gap appended to the correct track). Now when i have a CD with a hidden track, then i rip the album to separate tracks(as usual), but then i extract track one's pre-gap into a separate file also(the part after the first 2 seconds). That separate file i name with a track number that's one digit higher than the last track. Now i will hear that hidden track always as
the last track of the album, instead of only being able to hear it when holding the rewind button down at the start of track one.


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jaybeee
post Apr 21 2006, 12:18
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 410
Joined: 20-October 04
From: UK
Member No.: 17750



QUOTE (Martin H @ Jan 15 2006, 07:04 AM) *
Now when i have a CD with a hidden track, then i rip the album to separate tracks(as usual), but then i extract track one's pre-gap into a separate file also(the part after the first 2 seconds). That separate file i name with a track number that's one digit higher than the last track. Now i will hear that hidden track always as the last track of the album, instead of only being able to hear it when holding the rewind button down at the start of track one.
Why not give it the track number of '00'. It'll get played back first then, right?


--------------------
http://www.health4ni.com/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
keytotime
post Apr 22 2006, 02:54
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: 22-December 05
Member No.: 26582



I embed my cuesheet into my files and use Foobar media library to create the archive. I view it kind of like a digital album archive. That way Foobar let's me select the indivdual tracks and still maintain the Cd image. IMHO WavPack is a little better at the embedded cue, due to the fact that the encoder has the ability to directly embedded the cuesheet and does not require 3rd party software.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
landy
post Apr 24 2006, 10:38
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 3-January 05
Member No.: 18805



i would like to point out that if there is a hidden track at the start of a cd then the cue reader that foobar 0.8.1 used only seemed to read first unhidden track (unless i am missing some option in eac) and it requires an annoying ammount of manual editing to the cuesheet to get the 00 index in as a normal track. maybe it has been fixed for 0.9/0.9.1 but i dont really use it any more.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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: 22nd September 2014 - 18:43