none wrote:

I actually sat in on meeting where the use of the cellulose composite
material for mass record production was seriously considered, around
'76 or so. Call it what it was, cardboard with a very thin vinyl
acetate coating. Had horrible sound properties and could only be
played a dozen times or so before the needle totally destroyed it.
The reasons behind going with such a crap media was to put a halt to
cassette recording of records, which was killing record sales.

I don't understand this reasoning. If the record could only be played about
12 times, that would cause a massive upsurge in home taping so you could
actually listen to it several times..

--
JP Morris - aka DOUG the Eagle (Dragon) -=UDIC=-
Fun things to do with the Ultima games http://www.it-he.org
Reign of the Just - An Ultima clone http://rotj.it-he.org
d+++ e+ N+ T++ Om U1234!56!7'!S'!8!9!KAW u++ uC+++ uF+++ uG---- uLB----
uA--- nC+ nR---- nH+++ nP++ nI nPT nS nT wM- wC- y a(YEAR - 1976)

In article writes:

I don't understand this reasoning. If the record could only be played about
12 times, that would cause a massive upsurge in home taping so you could
actually listen to it several times..

No, it would cause the teenagers, who are the only ones who really want
to listen to a record that many times, to wear out the record and buy
another copy. This was back when "home taping" was the Webcor on the
dining room table, with the crystal mic, and there was only one reel
of tape in the house.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Ok, back to the original question. I have decided to (lossless) rip all
my CDs with EAC and FLAC. I did some research and came up with what I
believe are the settings that will give me the best possible results.
Nevertheless, I am a novice
with these programs so before I start my big rip job I would like to
have some input from you guys. The settings for FLAC a

--best -T "artist=%a" -T "title=%t" -T "album=%g" -T "date=%y" -T
"tracknumber=%n" -T "genre=%m" -T "comment=EAC 0.95beta2 / FLAC 1.1.2
--best" %s %d

The settings for EAC are he

http://xrl.us/ggcm

Any input is highly appreciated.

Regards,
Rob

Mike Rivers wrote:


In article
writes:

I don't understand this reasoning. If the record could only be played
about 12 times, that would cause a massive upsurge in home taping so you
could actually listen to it several times..

No, it would cause the teenagers, who are the only ones who really want
to listen to a record that many times, to wear out the record and buy
another copy. This was back when "home taping" was the Webcor on the
dining room table, with the crystal mic, and there was only one reel
of tape in the house.

Hmm? Are we talking about the same 1976? My father, and millions of others
were happily taping 'Selling England by the Pound' or 'Trick of the Tail'
onto their Akai 4000s. I think he was even using cassettes by then.

--
JP Morris - aka DOUG the Eagle (Dragon) -=UDIC=-
Fun things to do with the Ultima games http://www.it-he.org
Reign of the Just - An Ultima clone http://rotj.it-he.org
d+++ e+ N+ T++ Om U1234!56!7'!S'!8!9!KAW u++ uC+++ uF+++ uG---- uLB----
uA--- nC+ nR---- nH+++ nP++ nI nPT nS nT wM- wC- y a(YEAR - 1976)

In article writes:

Hmm? Are we talking about the same 1976?

Did someone say 1976? If so, sorry, I missed that. Yes, taping was
rampant in those days. I was thinking of 1956. That's when they
manufactured some really good records and some really dreadful
records.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

rob wrote:
I have decided to (lossless) rip all
my CDs with EAC and FLAC. I did some research and came up with what I
believe are the settings that will give me the best possible results.
Nevertheless, I am a novice
with these programs so before I start my big rip job I would like to
have some input from you guys. The settings for FLAC a

--best -T "artist=%a" -T "title=%t" -T "album=%g" -T "date=%y" -T
"tracknumber=%n" -T "genre=%m" -T "comment=EAC 0.95beta2 / FLAC 1.1.2
--best" %s %d

I have:

-T "artist=%a" -T "title=%t" -T "album=%g" -T "date=%y" -T
"tracknumber=%n" -T "genre=%m" -8 %s

for mine, works fine.

On 18 Jun 2005, Kurt Albershardt wrote in
:

(re. EAC and FLAC)

-T "artist=%a" -T "title=%t" -T "album=%g" -T "date=%y" -T
"tracknumber=%n" -T "genre=%m" -8 %s

for mine, works fine.

Are you sure? I find that when I rip a CD track and compress to FLAC
using EAC, the resultant FLAC file contains a wav file that is not
the same as the original extracted WAV file. Somehow, between EAC
and the FLAC codec, exactly 18,432 bytes of silence are being added
to the compressed WAV file. For example:

I Copy Selected Track, using FLAC.EXE as an external compressor.
What I get is:

33,066,812 01-Dear_John.wav
22,113,678 01-Dear_John.flac

When I decompress the FLAC, I should get a copy of the original WAV
file, but instead, I get:

33,085,244 01-Dear_John.wav

There are 14,432 bytes of silence apended to the wav file, compared to
the original. This is consistent and repeatable. This doesn't happen if
I compress to FLAC in a separate operation, without using EAC.

I've been asking around about this for a while, but nobody has
confirmed or denied my findings. You might want to check to make sure
that your reconstitued wav files are the same as the ones you started
out with. If you do, I'd be interested to know what you find.

Have a look at the first screenshot he

http://xrl.us/ggcm

Do you think what you observed has something to do with the first
option?

On 19 Jun 2005, "rob" wrote in
oups.com:

Have a look at the first screenshot he

http://xrl.us/ggcm

Do you think what you observed has something to do with the first
option?

I'll try changing it to see if it makes any difference, but I wonder if
it will help. I have turned off the Compression Option to delete the
wav after compressing, so I have the original file that EAC extracted
and then compressed. I would expect that FLAC would act on that file
and give me a perfect compressed version of it. But when I decompress
the resulting FLAC file, it gives me a file that's different from the
original by the addition of 14,432 bytes at the end. The corruption is
a problem because if you ever burn the compilation to CD-R again, it
introduces audible gaps between track of live or other continuous
sound.

It's not a huge problem, I don't mind doing the extraction and
compression in two stages if I have to, but it's a mystery I'm curious
to solve.

Have you tried it, by any chance? By the way, my compression options
a

-8 -V -T "artist=%a" -T "title=%t" -T "album=%g" -T "date=%y" -T
"tracknumber=%n" -T "genre=%m" %s