IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Another EAC guide with substandard advice
greynol
post Sep 3 2008, 23:28
Post #1





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



There was a request to start a discussion about an off-topic comment I made in this thread about uberstandard.org:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=586239

It is clear that this site is going with the one-size-fits-all approach to EAC which I have refuted many times on this forum. I figure that I'll just put up the key points that I have issues with, taking them in order.

Exact Audio Copy version 0.95b4 (EAC.exe)
Note: There are newer versions available, but newer doesn't mean better. Stay with these until we say otherwise.
V0.99pb4 is better than V0.95b4. There have been bug fixes and enhanced AccurateRip support. The ripping engine has not changed.

No use of null samples for CRC calculations
This should not be checked; otherwise inconsistent errors can go undetected.

Skip track extraction on read or sync errors
It's still possible for the track to be error-free even though EAC reports an error. The two settings after this one aren't necessary either.

Error recovery quality: High
This increases the chances that a consistent error will go unreported. Low is actually the most sensitive setting. I personally recommend the default of Medium.

Retrieve UPC / ISRC codes in CUE sheet generation
This does not work correctly with some drives.

Use CD-Text information in CUE sheet generation
Many (most?) CDs don't actually contain CD-Text, though I personally don't have a problem with adding it.

Use 1 simultaneous external compressor thread(s)
It's ok to increase this number on multi-core/multi-processor/hyper-threading systems.

Native Win32 interface for Win NT/2000/XP
This doesn't always work.

Secure modes...
Quite a few issues here. I'll touch on them briefly. Cache flushing with non-caching drives is a waste. I need to look over some test data, but I think I've seen situations where this setting is responsible for consistent errors. C2 error information is safe to use when combined with a positive AR result or T&C. For drives that cache audio data and discs in good to very good condition, burst is actually a more attractive alternative than secure. The point is that these settings are really dependent on the drive and the discs being ripped. I've seen an example where de-selecting the Accurate Stream option has delivered a track from a defective disc more quickly than selecting the option, for example. The last point I'd like to make is for non-defective discs, burst mode when combined with T&C is more likely to detect errors than using secure mode.

Autodetect read command
Click the button below this setting to find the right read command avoid unnecessary delay on all future rips. It's a one-time setting. The rest of the items on the drive tab are drive dependent. It's irresponsible to tell people to "Make it look like this."

Gap Detection
Again, these are drive-dependent. For a site that claims perfect rips, recommending setting the Detection accuracy to Inaccurate seems a bit odd. huh.gif

Writer tab
I have a drive that will create coasters if I don't tick the UPC/ISRC and CD-Text options.

Waveform tab
It's pretty funny to say "Make it look like this" when on the next tab the very next setting, Use external program for compression, makes them irrelevant. laugh.gif

Steps 31-33 seem pretty silly considering the site tells you to configure EAC to do this automatically.

Many of the other settings such as filename creation are a matter of personal preference. Perhaps it just rubs me the wrong way, but I have a problem telling people to "Make it look like this".

This post has been edited by greynol: Sep 4 2008, 05:56


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Axon
post Sep 4 2008, 00:33
Post #2





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1984
Joined: 4-January 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 10933



News flash: Incompetent, insecure, warezing elitists give incorrect and damaging information. Film at 11.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
brailmaster
post Sep 4 2008, 01:47
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 31-August 08
Member No.: 57751



It is clear that this site is going with the one-size-fits-all approach to EAC which I have refuted many times on this forum.


I'm a little surprised at the overall tone you took here. I was hoping for a civil discussion, but for some reason you insisted on pulling your claws out early. I guess I shouldn't have expected any better, this is the internet after all.

Refuted hu? That's like saying that you've refuted green as the best color, and established red as the only way to go. This is more complicated than who is right and who is wrong; there are pros and cons and opinions other than yours that may be at least as valid. A one-size-fits-all approach, as you put it, means not squeezing ever ounce of speed out of EAC. But, the 31-flavors of customization that you encourage means that many, dare I say most, people will either get it egregiously wrong, or decide that it's too complicated and go running to the first quick-fix install-and-go ripper out there - A worst of both worlds outcome. The wiki info here is good for a small priesthood of audio gurus but I believe that most normal audio enthusiasts don't want to bother with exhaustive tests on their equipment or with endless research on how to custom tailor their setup. Most people want a turn-key how-to standard that will produce transparent quality with minimal research involved, even if that means sacrificing a little bit of rip speed. That's why we have the UberStandard. You don't have to agree, but to calling it "substandard advice" is dishonest.

Exact Audio Copy version 0.95b4 (EAC.exe)
Note: There are newer versions available, but newer doesn't mean better. Stay with these until we say otherwise.
V0.99pb4 is better than V0.95b4. There have been bug fixes and enhanced AccurateRip support. The ripping engine has not changed.


My position is that people should go with the most recent official release ignoring the bleeding edge pre-betas, rather than uninstalling and reinstalling every time the folks at exactaudiocopy.org change a line of code. Additionally, I find it interesting that the recommended version right here in the hydrogenaudio wiki is v.95b4. In any case, the real question is whether or not the latest pre-beta produces superior results. In terms of speed and more importantly, rip quality, I think the answer has to be no. As for sticking with current versions, we don't know what the future holds, but we DO know that the current recommended version works very well, so it's best to stick with that rather than "upgrade" ever time the opportunity presents itself. Most software development happens in fits and starts with many backward steps along the way. It really is OK to stick with an older release until there's a clear cut justification for upgrading.

No use of null samples for CRC calculationsThis should not be checked; otherwise inconsistent errors can go undetected."


So long as the drive read offset value is correct or left at 0, it will not be a problem.

Skip track extraction on read or sync errorsIt's still possible for the track to be error-free even though EAC reports an error. The two settings after this one aren't necessary either."


Still possible to be error-free yes, but if we're to make a mistake in tuning, it should be on the side of quality. Better to delete a few good good rips than to accept a few defective ones IMHO. The best option is to clean the disc or obtain a better CD rather than let EAC grind away at one sector for 15 minutes. The cool-off period is important to avoid overheating the drive. You say it's not necessary, fine, it's for the safety of your drive, not mine. I won't make you wear your seat belt either.

Error recovery quality: HighThis increases the chances that an consistent error will go unreported. Low is actually the most sensitive setting. I personally recommend the default of Medium.


I'm unaware of this, and would be happy to recommend a change to the UberStandard if a compelling argument could be made. Would you like to cite a source for that information? It's a little hard to accept your subjective opinion without supporting evidence considering the counter-intuitive nature of what you're suggesting.

Retrieve UPC / ISRC codes in CUE sheet generationThis does not work correctly with some drives.


I'm aware of no issues with UPC codes, but I'll look into that.

Native Win32 interface for Win NT/2000/XPThis doesn't always work.


Any windows installation since XP should work fine. The issue here is that neither one will lead to a bad rip. It either works or doesn't. And in the exceedingly rare case that it doesn't. There's an explanation on how to install wnaspi32.dll, deeper in the uberstandard site.

Secure modes...Quite a few issues here. I'll touch on them briefly. Cache flushing with non-caching drives is a waste. I need to look over some test data, but I think I've seen situations where this setting is responsible for consistent errors. C2 error information is safe to use when combined with a positive AR result or T&C. For drives that cache audio data and discs in good to very good condition, burst is actually a more attractive alternative than secure. The point is that these settings are really dependent on the drive and the discs being ripped. I've seen an example where de-selecting the Accurate Stream option has delivered a track from a defective disc more quickly than selecting the option, for example. The last point I'd like to make is for non-defective discs, burst mode when combined with T&C is more likely to detect errors than using secure mode.


As I said earlier, the safe bet is to leave "drive caches audio data" checked. If it's unchecked, some drives will return data from their cache rather than re-reading the disc for secure reading. Better to leave it checked and sacrifice speed than uncheck it and run the risk of bad rips. If you want to do tests on your drive find out definitively, go for it, most people don't. Same with the C2 error information, better to not trust in the drive unless you know for sure.

Then you said something pretty nubish, if I maybe be so bold. If you know that the disc is clean, then burst mode is better.. Well yeah but how would you ever know it's clean without ripping in secure mode first? It's like saying that if you know you won't get in a car accident, it's better to not buy insurance. Duh, but there's no way to know that until you've already made your choice. Hindsight is 20/20, but you don't have hindsight until it's too late for it to do any good. I'm sorry but even using the words "burst" and "mode" together in a friendly way makes your opinion automatically less credible.

Autodetect read commandClick the button below this setting to find the right read command avoid unnecessary delay on all future rips. It's a one-time setting. The rest of the items on the drive tab are drive dependent. It's irresponsible to tell people to "Make it look like this."


I agree with you here. I'll suggest that this be changed.

Gap DetectionAgain, these are drive-dependent. For a site that claims perfect rips, recommending setting the Detection accuracy to Inaccurate seems a bit odd. huh.gif


The term "inaccurate" is a little misleading here. It shouldn't have any effect whatsoever on the listening experience.

Writer tabI have a drive that will create coasters if I don't tick the UPC/ISRC and CD-Text options.


Since the UberStanard is for ripping and not burning, we keep the default values. If you have a reason for changing them, you know who you are.

Waveform tabIt's pretty funny to say "Make it look like this" when on the next tab the very next setting, Use external program for compression, makes them irrelevant. laugh.gif


You can lol yourself into a coma if you want to... It's just for the consistency of the walk-through. It makes perfect sense for a walk-through to show a consistent picture of what a reader would see.

Steps 31-33 seem pretty silly considering the site tells you to configure EAC to do this automatically.


If there was a CD in the drive before beginning the setup, as there should have been a-la step 3, then step 31 and 32 are necessary. This is pretty obvious and we think the users will get the idea.

Many of the other settings such as filename creation are a matter of personal preference. Perhaps it just rubs me the wrong way, but I have a problem telling people to "Make it look like this".


Some configurations lead to much better organization than others. But as a matter of a fact, there are lots of possibilities detailed in the UberStandard specifications deeper in the site. The file name creation settings in the guide are just the recommended ones. If the guide had every possibility that's acceptable, it would get bloated and overcomplicated and no one would read it. Most people would prefer a here-it-is walk through that works, and they'll then custom tailor it to their own tastes later if they so desire.

In summation: I wish you had been a little more polite and discussed this with me rather than resort to ad-hominems right off the bat. I'm genuinely open to a reasonable discussion, and would love to have my mind changed if I really am objectively wrong. Please turn it down a few notches so we can talk about this. I think having a simple walk-through for people interested in a cut-and-paste solution (like the person who I originally responded to) is a valuable tool. The small minority of people who want to tweak and configure to their hearts content will do so anyway. I think you can at least agree with me there.

QUOTE (Axon @ Sep 3 2008, 19:33) *
News flash: Incompetent, insecure, warezing elitists give incorrect and damaging information. Film at 11.


You know next to nothing about UberStandard.org and the people responsible, yet you feel inclined to make some sweeping generalizations about their personalities and behavior. Your post is a breathtaking piece of ignorance. In the future, I suggest that you abstain from using logical fallacies as obvious as this.

Best of luck to you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soap
post Sep 4 2008, 02:35
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 1013
Joined: 19-November 06
Member No.: 37767



QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 20:47) *
QUOTE (Axon @ Sep 3 2008, 19:33) *

News flash: Incompetent, insecure, warezing elitists give incorrect and damaging information. Film at 11.


You know next to nothing about UberStandard.org
You know next to nothing about what he does or does not know.
QUOTE
and the people responsible, yet you feel inclined to make some sweeping generalizations about their personalities and behavior.

Pot, meet kettle.



It is pretty clear from your discussion with Greynol that differing goals are at play.
Greynol's suggestion for EAC setup assume you can trust the ripper. I hope anyone who is ripping for their own personal use can trust themselves.

The Uberstandard's EAC setup is all about not trusting the ripper. It is (in many places) about forcing worst-case scenarios on users so that their behavior can be verified by script.
This, in a nutshell, is why it is not the best guide to be pointing (assumed) non-UberClub people at.


--------------------
Creature of habit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 4 2008, 02:52
Post #5





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 17:47) *
In any case, the real question is whether or not the latest pre-beta produces superior results. In terms of speed and more importantly, rip quality, I think the answer has to be no.
I told you the ripping engine has not changed save for some bug fixes, so if anything the quality is better with the latest prebeta. It would appear that our wiki needs updating. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. smile.gif

QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 17:47) *
It really is OK to stick with an older release until there's a clear cut justification for upgrading.
There is clear-cut justification: better accurate rip support (including for ranges, images and alternate gap handling).

QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 17:47) *
No use of null samples for CRC calculationsThis should not be checked; otherwise inconsistent errors can go undetected."
So long as the drive read offset value is correct or left at 0, it will not be a problem.
It's clear that don't understand what you're talking about, but that's ok. smile.gif

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....mp;#entry520664

QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 17:47) *
Skip track extraction on read or sync errorsIt's still possible for the track to be error-free even though EAC reports an error. The two settings after this one aren't necessary either."
Still possible to be error-free yes, but if we're to make a mistake in tuning, it should be on the side of quality. Better to delete a few good good rips than to accept a few defective ones IMHO.
As if the results aren't available from the log file. Supposing the rip would have finished with AR verification, it would seem that it was worth keeping, no? I have no idea why you would use use word "tuning", though.

QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 17:47) *
The best option is to clean the disc or obtain a better CD rather than let EAC grind away at one sector for 15 minutes.
...or hit cancel.

QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 17:47) *
The cool-off period is important to avoid overheating the drive. You say it's not necessary, fine, it's for the safety of your drive, not mine. I won't make you wear your seat belt either.
Yes, I know what the setting is for. While I think it's been pretty well shown that seatbelts save lives, I haven't seen much evidence of cooling-down saving drives and doubt that you have either. I don't doubt that it's possible, mind you, just that cancel is an option when things don't seem to be going right.

QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 17:47) *
Error recovery quality: HighThis increases the chances that an consistent error will go unreported. Low is actually the most sensitive setting. I personally recommend the default of Medium.

Would you like to cite a source for that information? It's a little hard to accept your subjective opinion without supporting evidence considering the counter-intuitive nature of what you're suggesting.
It's an objective fact based on how the program works, the nature of consistent errors and secure ripping; not a subjective opinion. Feel free to search the forum for the information.

QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 17:47) *
Then you said something pretty nubish, if I maybe be so bold. If you know that the disc is clean, then burst mode is better.. Well yeah but how would you ever know it's clean without ripping in secure mode first?
By looking at it?

QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 17:47) *
But, the 31-flavors of customization that you encourage means that many, dare I say most, people will either get it egregiously wrong, or decide that it's too complicated and go running to the first quick-fix install-and-go ripper out there - A worst of both worlds outcome.
There are really some simple rules to follow. Nowhere near as complicated as you like to make it out as being. If you choose a ripping mode that doesn't automatically compare two reads (secure w/C2 or burst), you need to rely on AccurateRip or T&C. To know if your drive caches audio, simply run EAC's test and refrain from multitasking while it is running.

QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 17:47) *
I'm sorry but even using the words "burst" and "mode" together in a friendly way makes your opinion automatically less credible.
On what do you base this nonsense?

http://www.digital-inn.de/exact-audio-copy...ive-answer.html

Let me offer that your apparent lack of understanding about consistent errors and how EAC works hinders your credibility, not mine.

Humor me by answering the following...
Suppose I have a caching drive but tell EAC that it doesn't cache. Assuming no use of C2 pointers, if I rip a disc and get 100% track quality for each of the tracks, were there any errors?

BTW, what does hu mean? I think you mean "huh" but thought I'd ask. It's strange to look at.

This post has been edited by greynol: Sep 4 2008, 07:19


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
brailmaster
post Sep 4 2008, 03:02
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 31-August 08
Member No.: 57751



Yeah, I somewhat agree with that Soap, differing goals are at play. I don't think it's so much an issue of trusting the ripper though, we all of course can "trust" ourselves, the uberstandard is based more on the fact that we can't be sure that a disc has scratches on it or not. It's not a matter of trust as much as it is of confidence. I'm not so confident in any of my CD's that I'd be comfortable giving up secure mode with most of the settings discussed, and I'm skeptical that anyone can *know* the integrity of their discs without following those procedures.

As for Axon, I DO know that he has no idea who I am or any of the people involved with UberStandard.org. Yet, he threw out some completely irrelevant ad-hominems. I don't know where you're going with the whole pot is calling the kettle black thing.. Because I certainly didn't insult him, and if you re-read his post it's pretty crude, insulting and unproductive. Then if you read mine, you'll see that I'm really trying to get at the heart of the issue without slinging insults.

I think the assumed worst-case scenario is exactly why the UberStandard IS good for most people.. They're not going to go to the effort involved in testing their equipment to determine the *ideal* settings for their equipment. At least most aren't. Can we agree on that?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fandango
post Sep 4 2008, 03:02
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 1548
Joined: 13-August 03
Member No.: 8353



Isn't it "über"?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soap
post Sep 4 2008, 03:11
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 1013
Joined: 19-November 06
Member No.: 37767



QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 22:02) *
I think the assumed worst-case scenario is exactly why the UberStandard IS good for most people.. They're not going to go to the effort involved in testing their equipment to determine the *ideal* settings for their equipment. At least most aren't. Can we agree on that?

We can agree that might be true - but we can also (hopefully) agree to the old adage "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

The sole point of the UberStandard was to create a set of verifiable criteria so that people sharing music could be ensured that all members were playing by the same rules.

Once we accept that we don't give a flying f*&^ if Joe Schmoe fails to properly determine the "ideal" settings for his rips, as he is only harming himself, we can see that teaching him the complexities of doing it right is far better for him than treating him like an idiot and teaching him overly strict rules which appear (based on Greynol's citations) to be at least partially based on since disproven ideas.

It is nice (?) to see the Uberstandard finally updated itself beyond 3.90.3.
Perhaps one day it will also accept the current thinking in how to rip accurately.


--------------------
Creature of habit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
brailmaster
post Sep 4 2008, 03:14
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 31-August 08
Member No.: 57751



When you have to resort to a dislike for the word "tuning" and pointing out spelling mistakes like hu vs huh I think it's clear that you know your case is flimsy. I could ask you why you put "and get" twice, but I won't belabor the point. You ask me to cite references for everything but when I did that to you, all you could say was "it's an objective fact" or "look it up for yourself." So I guess I'm justified in answer your questions that way. I think it's clear that I'm not going to get a civil discussion out of you, so I won't both with you any further.

"Let me offer that your apparent lack of understanding about consistent errors and how EAC works hinders your credibility, not mine."

That's a thinly disguised way of saying "you're stupid anyway." I could say the same to you, but it would be just as fallacious as when you said it. Good luck.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Axon
post Sep 4 2008, 03:17
Post #10





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1984
Joined: 4-January 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 10933



I apologize for what I said. It was quite deliberately inflammatory and rather unwise, and brailmaster is likely correct that I have much less knowledge about the Uberstandard/Ubernet than I should to comment on this. (In my head Uberstandard was sort of equated with 192CBR, which as far as I now know hasn't been true for a very long time, if ever. And that's not exactly relevant to the discussion.)

That said, I think that the fundamental point here is that the Uberstandard is trying to simplify a situation that naturally can't be simplified. These prescriptions guarantee a minimum level of quality relative to the source CD, but as greynol points out, do not guarantee the maximum quality, or even guarantee the highest speed at the same (or higher) quality.

But even beyond that, even if the guide were changed, aren't things changing sufficiently quickly in the ripping world that any standard written today would be considered obsolete in 3 years?

This post has been edited by Axon: Sep 4 2008, 03:18
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
brailmaster
post Sep 4 2008, 03:27
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 31-August 08
Member No.: 57751



QUOTE (Soap @ Sep 3 2008, 22:11) *
We can agree that might be true - but we can also (hopefully) agree to the old adage "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

The sole point of the UberStandard was to create a set of verifiable criteria so that people sharing music could be ensured that all members were playing by the same rules.

Once we accept that we don't give a flying f*&^ if Joe Schmoe fails to properly determine the "ideal" settings for his rips, as he is only harming himself, we can see that teaching him the complexities of doing it right is far better for him than treating him like an idiot and teaching him overly strict rules which appear (based on Greynol's citations) to be at least partially based on since disproven ideas.

It is nice (?) to see the Uberstandard finally updated itself beyond 3.90.3.
Perhaps one day it will also accept the current thinking in how to rip accurately.


I can appreciate that somewhat, but I think characterizing your way as being the *right* way is oversimplifying the situation. To me, *right* means resulting files of high quality. If they invest the time in testing everything, they'll gain rip speed, but nothing else. You also said or implied that failing to go the long way to obtain slight reductions in rip time is tantamount to treating the reader like an idiot. Isn't that overly harsh? Treating them like an idiot would look like this: 1)install iTunes. 2)insert CD. 3)Click the rip button. The UberStandard is a far cry from that. It has stricter rules because otherwise, most people would end up with poor quality rips.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 4 2008, 03:33
Post #12





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 19:14) *
When you have to resort to a dislike for the word "tuning"
It would appear that you have chosen the word to make yourself sound like you know what you're talking about.

QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 19:14) *
and pointing out spelling mistakes like hu vs huh
I was actually interested since you did it twice. I apologize for sounding insulting.

QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 19:14) *
I think it's clear that you know your case is flimsy.
Not really. If you would even bother to search from the thousands of posts I've made on the subject you will find what you need to know. I don't feel a need to prove myself to you, quite honestly.

QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 19:14) *
I could ask you why you put "and get" twice, but I won't belabor the point.
Fixed, thanks. Now would you be so kind as to answer the question?
QUOTE
Suppose I have a caching drive but tell EAC that it doesn't cache. Assuming no use of C2 pointers, if I rip a disc and get 100% track quality for each of the tracks, were there any errors?


This post has been edited by greynol: Sep 4 2008, 07:19


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
brailmaster
post Sep 4 2008, 03:35
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 31-August 08
Member No.: 57751



QUOTE (Axon @ Sep 3 2008, 22:17) *
I apologize for what I said. It was quite deliberately inflammatory and rather unwise, and brailmaster is likely correct that I have much less knowledge about the Uberstandard/Ubernet than I should to comment on this. (In my head Uberstandard was sort of equated with 192CBR, which as far as I now know hasn't been true for a very long time, if ever. And that's not exactly relevant to the discussion.)

That said, I think that the fundamental point here is that the Uberstandard is trying to simplify a situation that naturally can't be simplified. These prescriptions guarantee a minimum level of quality relative to the source CD, but as greynol points out, do not guarantee the maximum quality, or even guarantee the highest speed at the same (or higher) quality.

But even beyond that, even if the guide were changed, aren't things changing sufficiently quickly in the ripping world that any standard written today would be considered obsolete in 3 years?


I appreciate your apology. Thank you.

The Uberstandard hasn't said anything about 192CBR as long as I've been around it, maybe it did before, I don't know.

And you're absolutely right that the ripping world is changing, and the standards and software and encoders of today won't be the best in 3 years (or less maybe). As the ripping world changes, the UberStandard will change to reflect what we believe to be the best-practice. Just like the wiki guides here are "standards" of their own, the uberstandard is also subject to change.

It was indeed made to guarantee a minimum level of quality. But in what way does it not achieve maximum level of quality relative to the source CD? It may take longer than doing all of the tests advocated in the hydrogenaudio wiki, but the output files should not have any differences.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 4 2008, 03:38
Post #14





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 19:27) *
You also said or implied that failing to go the long way to obtain slight reductions in rip time is tantamount to treating the reader like an idiot.
Nice use of the straw man, btw. wink.gif


QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 19:35) *
It was indeed made to guarantee a minimum level of quality. But in what way does it not achieve maximum level of quality relative to the source CD?
Research consistent errors and you may find your answer.
QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 19:35) *
It may take longer than doing all of the tests advocated in the hydrogenaudio wiki, but the output files should not have any differences.
You cannot know this.


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soap
post Sep 4 2008, 03:41
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 1013
Joined: 19-November 06
Member No.: 37767



QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 22:27) *
I can appreciate that somewhat, but I think characterizing your way as being the *right* way is oversimplifying the situation.

Perhaps I was unclear. I was not claiming any way was "right" as in "the only way" or even "the best way".
QUOTE
To me, *right* means resulting files of high quality.
Which greynol addresses. The Uberstandard does not address the issue of consistent errors. It is not only a matter that the Uberstandard is (often / sometimes) slower, it is also a matter that the Uberstandard is (often / sometimes) wrong.

QUOTE
If they invest the time in testing everything, they'll gain rip speed, but nothing else.

Again - read greynol's links or search the forums here on consistent errors.
QUOTE
You also said or implied that failing to go the long way to obtain slight reductions in rip time is tantamount to treating the reader like an idiot. Isn't that overly harsh?

No.
Telling them "Check box 1, don't check box 2, do this don't do that" without telling them why - without explaining to them that the purpose of half these settings is to make a verifiable log to prove to others they didn't cut corners - that is IMHO clearly treating the audience as idiots.
QUOTE
Treating them like an idiot would look like this: 1)install iTunes. 2)insert CD. 3)Click the rip button. The UberStandard is a far cry from that. It has stricter rules because otherwise, most people would end up with poor quality rips.

That is one way to treat someone like an idiot - but I think clearly not the only way.

There is plenty of information on HA.org on how to rip. Pointing a newbie to an filesharing club's outdated guide (which while updated is not updated to all current accepted best practices) is beyond unhelpful - it is possibly harmful.
You've already admitted that UberGleeClub has different goals when it comes to rips than NonSharingJoe.
Read up on greynol's arguments and I think you'll also agree that UberGleeClub also has outdated beliefs.


--------------------
Creature of habit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
brailmaster
post Sep 4 2008, 03:44
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 31-August 08
Member No.: 57751



QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 3 2008, 22:37) *
QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 19:27) *
You also said or implied that failing to go the long way to obtain slight reductions in rip time is tantamount to treating the reader like an idiot.
Nice use of the straw man, btw. ;)


It's not a straw man, read what he said for yourself.

Anyhow, I'm done with you greynol. You're not interested in having an amiable conversation, and I think you're just trolling me now. It sounds like some of these other people are interested in talking rather than having a pissing contest, so I'll be ignoring you now. Peace.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fandango
post Sep 4 2008, 03:45
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 1548
Joined: 13-August 03
Member No.: 8353



I've seen EAC failing to detect errors using similar drive settings to those in the Überstandard on my own drive. If it wasn't for AccurateRip trusting such oversimplifying guides would leave me in the ill believe everything's perfect when actually I can't know. It's says "secure mode" so it must be secure, right?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
m0rbidini
post Sep 4 2008, 03:53
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 212
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Lisbon, Portugal
Member No.: 127



QUOTE
ÜberStandard 3.2 Specification revision 1, written 2003-2008 by the ÜberStandard High Council. The IFPI "Copy Control" logo is a trademark of the IFPI. This standard may be freely copied, adopted and attributed, but as it is a standard, it should not be changed without prior committee agreement from the ÜberStandard High Council. Thank You - enjoy.

Major snobs. The steps presented in that guide are a just a collection of old EAC guides that didn't call themselves Übersomething. I have much more respect for an old guide like the now extinct SatCP's "The Coaster Factory" cause at least it gave a much more deep explanation of why something was or wasn't recommended, instead of simple settings dictated by some trading "council".
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 4 2008, 03:54
Post #19





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 19:44) *
It's not a straw man, read what he said for yourself.
I did and it looks like the only person claiming my methods reveal only "slight" speed increases is you.

QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 19:44) *
I think you're just trolling me now.
If pointing out your lack of understanding is trolling, then so be it. I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath awaiting an answer to my question. Hopefully you'll still ponder it as the answer is quite simple.


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soap
post Sep 4 2008, 03:54
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 1013
Joined: 19-November 06
Member No.: 37767



QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 22:44) *
QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 3 2008, 22:37) *

QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 19:27) *
You also said or implied that failing to go the long way to obtain slight reductions in rip time is tantamount to treating the reader like an idiot.
Nice use of the straw man, btw. wink.gif

It's not a straw man, read what he said for yourself.

You put the words "slight reduction(s) in rip time" in my mouth.
I addressed other issues.
Reducing my argument to one about rip times (which I wasn't talking about) is what makes it a straw man.

EDIT: Ok, greynol and I need to stop posting at (almost) the same time.

This post has been edited by Soap: Sep 4 2008, 03:55


--------------------
Creature of habit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
brailmaster
post Sep 4 2008, 03:58
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 31-August 08
Member No.: 57751



QUOTE (Soap @ Sep 3 2008, 22:41) *
QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 22:27) *

I can appreciate that somewhat, but I think characterizing your way as being the *right* way is oversimplifying the situation.

Perhaps I was unclear. I was not claiming any way was "right" as in "the only way" or even "the best way".
QUOTE
To me, *right* means resulting files of high quality.
Which greynol addresses. The Uberstandard does not address the issue of consistent errors. It is not only a matter that the Uberstandard is (often / sometimes) slower, it is also a matter that the Uberstandard is (often / sometimes) wrong.

QUOTE
If they invest the time in testing everything, they'll gain rip speed, but nothing else.

Again - read greynol's links or search the forums here on consistent errors.
QUOTE
You also said or implied that failing to go the long way to obtain slight reductions in rip time is tantamount to treating the reader like an idiot. Isn't that overly harsh?

No.
Telling them "Check box 1, don't check box 2, do this don't do that" without telling them why - without explaining to them that the purpose of half these settings is to make a verifiable log to prove to others they didn't cut corners - that is IMHO clearly treating the audience as idiots.
QUOTE
Treating them like an idiot would look like this: 1)install iTunes. 2)insert CD. 3)Click the rip button. The UberStandard is a far cry from that. It has stricter rules because otherwise, most people would end up with poor quality rips.

That is one way to treat someone like an idiot - but I think clearly not the only way.

There is plenty of information on HA.org on how to rip. Pointing a newbie to an filesharing club's outdated guide (which while updated is not updated to all current accepted best practices) is beyond unhelpful - it is possibly harmful.
You've already admitted that UberGleeClub has different goals when it comes to rips than NonSharingJoe.
Read up on greynol's arguments and I think you'll also agree that UberGleeClub also has outdated beliefs.


I would like to discuss what in particular leads to consistent errors in the uberstandard guide. Just not with greynol, even if he has valid points to make, he's proven himself incapable of having an adult conversation about it.

"without explaining to them that the purpose of half these settings is to make a verifiable log to prove to others they didn't cut corners - that is IMHO clearly treating the audience as idiots."

I can't agree with you here. I don't think it's insulting someones intelligence to give them simplified instructions. People are fully *capable* of going the long way, so to speak, but the reality is that in an A.D.D. world, they probably won't. Only a small minority even of audio enthusiasts will do that. Most will probably read half way through one of the pages in the HO wiki guide, get bored and go elsewhere.

Just to set the record straight. To my knowledge, there's nothing at uberstandard.org that has anything to do with distributing music for other people's benefit. The guide is there for people to digitize their own CDs in a format that's of reliable quality.

I can tell that you (and maybe most of the community here) has a pre-disposition against walk through guides, and perhaps we'll never see eye to eye on that. But maybe we can discuss what a "check this box" type walk-through, if we have to have one, should look like.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
twostar
post Sep 4 2008, 03:58
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 487
Joined: 5-August 02
From: Manila
Member No.: 2939



QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 4 2008, 08:47) *
The wiki info here is good for a small priesthood of audio gurus but I believe that most normal audio enthusiasts don't want to bother with exhaustive tests on their equipment or with endless research on how to custom tailor their setup. Most people want a turn-key how-to standard that will produce transparent quality with minimal research involved, even if that means sacrificing a little bit of rip speed. That's why we have the UberStandard.

I don't think "exhaustive tests on their equipment" and "endless research" is an appropriate description to the wiki EAC guide. From what I've read (correct me if I'm wrong) you just use the configuration wizard then change 3 options from their defaults: No use of null samples for CRC calculations, Retrieve UPC/ISRC codes in CUE sheet generation, and Automatically write status report after extraction.

As for the drive options, trust EAC's detection of accurate stream. Don't trust it's detection of C2. You can trust its detection of caching if it says yes. If it says no, you just have to follow this tip: "If you're concerned that your drive caches audio data even though EAC is saying otherwise, try ripping a scratched disc (one known to produce errors easily). Make sure you uncheck the "Drive caches audio data" setting AND uncheck the "Drive is capable of retrieving C2 error information" setting. Make sure you also set the error recovery quality to "Low". If EAC is capable of displaying a read error then cache flushing isn't necessary."

Is it really a lot more complicated than the uberstandard guide?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 4 2008, 03:58
Post #23





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Soap @ Sep 3 2008, 19:54) *
Reducing my argument to one about rip times (which I wasn't talking about) is what makes it a straw man.

EDIT: Ok, greynol and I need to stop posting at (almost) the same time.
No, it's ok. This thread is moving quite fast. I'm trying to keep up with what everyone is saying but it's hard.


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
brailmaster
post Sep 4 2008, 04:02
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 31-August 08
Member No.: 57751



QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 3 2008, 22:54) *
QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 19:44) *
It's not a straw man, read what he said for yourself.
I did and it looks like the only person claiming my methods reveal only "slight" speed increases is you.

QUOTE (brailmaster @ Sep 3 2008, 19:44) *
I think you're just trolling me now.
If pointing out your lack of understanding is trolling, then so be it. I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath awaiting an answer to my question. Hopefully you'll still ponder it as the answer is quite simple.


And I'm still waiting on common courtesy from you, so it looks like we'll both be waiting for a long time. From the very start you weren't interested in talking, but would rather just pull out your cat claws and start scratching. Thanks but I'll pass.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 4 2008, 04:08
Post #25





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (twostar @ Sep 3 2008, 19:58) *
From what I've read (correct me if I'm wrong) you just use the configuration wizard then change 3 options from their defaults: No use of null samples for CRC calculations, Retrieve UPC/ISRC codes in CUE sheet generation, and Automatically write status report after extraction.
That's right.

QUOTE (twostar @ Sep 3 2008, 19:58) *
As for the drive options, trust EAC's detection of accurate stream. Don't trust it's detection of C2. You can trust its detection of caching if it says yes. If it says no, you just have to follow this tip: "If you're concerned that your drive caches audio data even though EAC is saying otherwise, try ripping a scratched disc (one known to produce errors easily)....
Actually, you can trust all of the results provided you don't multi-task. For those who are paranoid about the results, the test can be repeated or further testing can be done (as you quoted). C2 isn't bad unless you get inconsistent results in areas where EAC doesn't perform re-reads (those with older NEC drives or Sony drives are more likely to see this than those with Plextor-designed drives). The key is to treat C2 rips just as you treat burst rips (or switch over to dBpoweramp, but that's a different discussion wink.gif).


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 30th July 2014 - 03:01