Null Testing Between CD Rippers - iTunes, WMP, and Fairstars

[[email protected]]

I ripped WAVS of a popular '80s synth-pop tune via the three programs in my Subject.


Since I have had the most luck with and use iTUnes to import CDs to WAV, MP3, and so forth, I decided to null the other two against it.

When I inverted and nulled the Fairstars rip, I heard nothing.

When I inverted and nulled the Windows Media Player rip, I should have heard something.


Can you solve the riddle?

[Gary Eickmeier]

> wrote in message
...
>I ripped WAVS of a popular '80s synth-pop tune via the three programs in my
>Subject.
>
>
> Since I have had the most luck with and use iTUnes to import CDs to WAV,
> MP3, and so forth, I decided to null the other two against it.
>
> When I inverted and nulled the Fairstars rip, I heard nothing.
>
> When I inverted and nulled the Windows Media Player rip, I should have
> heard something.
>
>
> Can you solve the riddle?

Are you ripping the exact same track? Off a disc? What is "three programs in
my Subject"? You're talking riddles.

Gary Eickmeier

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >I ripped WAVS of a popular '80s synth-pop tune via the three programs in my
> >Subject.
> >
> >
> > Since I have had the most luck with and use iTUnes to import CDs to WAV,
> > MP3, and so forth, I decided to null the other two against it.
> >
> > When I inverted and nulled the Fairstars rip, I heard nothing.
> >
> > When I inverted and nulled the Windows Media Player rip, I should have
> > heard something.
> >
> >
> > Can you solve the riddle?
>
> Are you ripping the exact same track? Off a disc? What is "three programs in
> my Subject"? You're talking riddles.

The answer to that particular riddle is in the subject line of the post.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[geoff]

wrote:
> I ripped WAVS of a popular '80s synth-pop tune via the three programs
> in my Subject.
>
>
> Since I have had the most luck with and use iTUnes to import CDs to
> WAV, MP3, and so forth, I decided to null the other two against it.
>
> When I inverted and nulled the Fairstars rip, I heard nothing.
>
> When I inverted and nulled the Windows Media Player rip, I should
> have heard something.
>
>
> Can you solve the riddle?

Too much of a riddle for me - insufficient and inconcise information
supplied.

"... nulled the WMP rip ....." . You mean inverted it and added it to itself
in an audio editor ? Of course you heard nothing, whether you are referring
to WAV, MP3, or whatever ! +1 minus -1 + zero no matter how crappy the "1"
is.

Or do you mean your ripped in each of the 3 programs to MP3 and compared it
to a WAV extraction, in which case you should hear something ( or at least
see something in the editor), though it may well be low-level ?

geoff

[Sean Conolly]

> wrote in message
...
>I ripped WAVS of a popular '80s synth-pop tune via the three programs in my
>Subject.
>
>
> Since I have had the most luck with and use iTUnes to import CDs to WAV,
> MP3, and so forth, I decided to null the other two against it.
>
> When I inverted and nulled the Fairstars rip, I heard nothing.
>
> When I inverted and nulled the Windows Media Player rip, I should have
> heard something.
>
>
> Can you solve the riddle?

There's no techincal reason I can think of that would cause any of them to
have less than bit perfect copies to PCM files, at least if using the same
hardware. However, any differences should be so minute that you will never
be able to hear a result when inverted and summed. If you can, then then
there's a big problem somewhere.

At this level it's all just data, so you can fairly easily compare the data
in the two files - for instance using 'od' to dump the data to text files
and then running a diff on them will give you the number of 16 bit words
that are different between the files.

Sean

[[email protected]]

Okay obviously none of you were born knowing English:

I ripped the same CD track to WAV in Fairstars, Windows Media Player, and iTunes.

I then dropped them in my DAW, and inverted them to perform null tests to check the quality of the rips in the three aforementioned programs.

The reason I think I should have heard *something* from the inverted Windows media player rip is because it defaults to JOINT STEREO and cannot be changed from that setting.

NOW do you guys get it?

[Sean Conolly]

> wrote in message
...
> Okay obviously none of you were born knowing English:
>
> I ripped the same CD track to WAV in Fairstars, Windows Media Player, and
> iTunes.
>
> I then dropped them in my DAW, and inverted them to perform null tests to
> check the quality of the rips in the three aforementioned programs.
>
> The reason I think I should have heard *something* from the inverted
> Windows media player rip is because it defaults to JOINT STEREO and cannot
> be changed from that setting.
>
> NOW do you guys get it?

Now, what does "joint stereo" mean with a PCM wave file?

Sean

[Nil]

On 18 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> Okay obviously none of you were born knowing English:
>
> I ripped the same CD track to WAV in Fairstars, Windows Media
> Player, and iTunes.
>
> I then dropped them in my DAW, and inverted them to perform null
> tests to check the quality of the rips in the three aforementioned
> programs.
>
> The reason I think I should have heard *something* from the
> inverted Windows media player rip is because it defaults to JOINT
> STEREO and cannot be changed from that setting.
>
> NOW do you guys get it?

If you, too, would like to know English, you should read (if possible)
up on the term, "JOINT STEREO."

[John Williamson]

wrote:
> Okay obviously none of you were born knowing English:
>
> I ripped the same CD track to WAV in Fairstars, Windows Media Player, and iTunes.
>
> I then dropped them in my DAW, and inverted them to perform null tests to check the quality of the rips in the three aforementioned programs.
>
> The reason I think I should have heard *something* from the inverted Windows media player rip is because it defaults to JOINT STEREO and cannot be changed from that setting.
>
> NOW do you guys get it?

Yeah, we get it. You used a number of programs to convert a CD track to
a .wav file, and are surprised that they all did the job correctly.

Personally. I would have been surprised by any other result. If, on the
other hand, you'd converted them all to compressed formats, and compared
the output files, I'd have been surprised if they *had* all nulled out...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...

> Okay obviously none of you were born knowing English:
> I ripped the same CD track to WAV in Fairstars, Windows
> Media Player, and iTunes.
> I then dropped them in my DAW, and inverted them to perform
> null tests to check the quality of the rips in the three
> aforementioned programs.

> The reason I think I should have heard *something* from the
> inverted Windows media player rip is because it defaults to
> JOINT STEREO and cannot be changed from that setting.

> NOW do you guys get it?


I don't (and I'm always complaining about people not being able to read plain
English).

One (this one, anyway) assumes WAV files are lossless, and they're never
processed in a lossy fashion. Assuming the Windows Media Player's default form
of Joint Stereo for WAV files is a simple M/S transform, without any other
changes, then one would expect a comparison with the original to reveal no
changes whatsoever.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Okay obviously none of you were born knowing English:
>
>I ripped the same CD track to WAV in Fairstars, Windows Media Player, and iTunes.
>
>I then dropped them in my DAW, and inverted them to perform null tests to check the quality of the rips in the three aforementioned programs.
>
>The reason I think I should have heard *something* from the inverted Windows media player rip is because it defaults to JOINT STEREO and cannot be changed from that setting.
>
>NOW do you guys get it?

No, not at all. What does an encoding setting have to do with anything if
you are ripping to an unencoded format? If you are copying a 16 bit 44.1
disc to a 16 bit 44.1 file, unless there are Type II errors and interpolation
is going on, there should be no difference in the numbers or the sound.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Nil > wrote:

> On 18 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>
> > Okay obviously none of you were born knowing English:
> >
> > I ripped the same CD track to WAV in Fairstars, Windows Media
> > Player, and iTunes.
> >
> > I then dropped them in my DAW, and inverted them to perform null
> > tests to check the quality of the rips in the three aforementioned
> > programs.
> >
> > The reason I think I should have heard *something* from the
> > inverted Windows media player rip is because it defaults to JOINT
> > STEREO and cannot be changed from that setting.
> >
> > NOW do you guys get it?
>
> If you, too, would like to know English, you should read (if possible)
> up on the term, "JOINT STEREO."

You ask much! <g>

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
>> Okay obviously none of you were born knowing English:
>>
>> I ripped the same CD track to WAV in Fairstars, Windows Media
>> Player, and iTunes.
>>
>> I then dropped them in my DAW, and inverted them to perform null
>> tests to check the quality of the rips in the three aforementioned
>> programs.
>>
>> The reason I think I should have heard *something* from the inverted
>> Windows media player rip is because it defaults to JOINT STEREO and
>> cannot be changed from that setting.
>>
>> NOW do you guys get it?
>
> No, not at all. What does an encoding setting have to do with
> anything if you are ripping to an unencoded format? If you are
> copying a 16 bit 44.1 disc to a 16 bit 44.1 file, unless there are
> Type II errors and interpolation is going on, there should be no
> difference in the numbers or the sound. --scott

Well, maybe not quite, but probably. Unless the errors on reading the disc
were exectly the same on each pass.

Whatever the variables (dust, new fingerprints,etc, between reads), the
'ripping' software is not one of them, rocketman, unless there was something
actually broken in applications. They simply accept the data presented to
them.

Unless a *highly* rooted CD with significantly different data extracted each
time, any differences would likely be very low-level, more 'seen but not
heard'.

geoff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> One (this one, anyway) assumes WAV files are lossless, and they're
> never processed in a lossy fashion. Assuming the Windows Media
> Player's default form of Joint Stereo for WAV files is a simple M/S
> transform, without any other changes, then one would expect a
> comparison with the original to reveal no changes whatsoever.

Joint stereo is always MS-encouding and never a problem - it a good choice
for encoding stereo mp3's, what is a problem is pure intensity encoding in
the treble in mp3 enconding, something that is a selectable encoder
parameter.

It is also left undefined what settings the original poster used with
windows media player, it has lossless and lossy encoding options.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

Peter Larsen wrote "It is also left undefined what settings the original poster used with
windows media player, it has lossless and lossy encoding options. "

As stated numerous times in this thread, ALL rips were 16bit, 44.1kHz wav.

I simply thought that the joint stereo default in WMP would produce audible artifacts in a null test, that's all.

I guess the joint stereo mandate applies only to mp3s in WMP.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

wrote:

> Peter Larsen wrote "It is also left undefined what settings the
> original poster used with
> windows media player, it has lossless and lossy encoding options. "

> As stated numerous times in this thread, ALL rips were 16bit, 44.1kHz
> wav.

> I simply thought that the joint stereo default in WMP would produce
> audible artifacts in a null test, that's all.

> I guess the joint stereo mandate applies only to mp3s in WMP.

That would make sense and fits the finding.

Anything audio that comes with windows is woefully undocumented.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Phil W[_3_]]

Peter Larsen:
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> One (this one, anyway) assumes WAV files are lossless,

.... as long as there´s PCM in the WAV file container, yes.

>> and they're never processed in a lossy fashion.

Well, WAV is a container format, so it might contain "anything".
Usually, that´s not the case, but it is not technically impossible. Ever had
a 16 bit WAV inside a 24 bit WAV file? That can happen easily. ;-)

>> Assuming the Windows Media
>> Player's default form of Joint Stereo for WAV files is a simple M/S
>> transform, without any other changes, then one would expect a
>> comparison with the original to reveal no changes whatsoever.
>
> Joint stereo is always MS-encouding and never a problem - it a good choice
> for encoding stereo mp3's, what is a problem is pure intensity encoding in
> the treble in mp3 enconding, something that is a selectable encoder
> parameter.
>
> It is also left undefined what settings the original poster used with
> windows media player, it has lossless and lossy encoding options.

Well, I just did a short test on Win7 64 / WMP 12, ripping the same track
from a CD to all formats offered by WMP.

Result: *ONLY* MP3 is "Joint Stereo", *all* other formats (WAV, WMA, WMA
variable/lossless/pro) are *not*!


So, rakman, if you´re so concerned about the quality of your audio CD rips,
why don´t you use a dedicated program for that, but some media player
software, that does it as a "drive-by" function?
Do you know "Audio Grabber"
http://www.audiograbber.org
or "Exact Audio Copy"
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en ?


Phil

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

> wrote:

> Okay obviously none of you were born knowing English:

I don't think anyone here was was born 'knowing' English, I think we all
had to learn it.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[geoff]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> Okay obviously none of you were born knowing English:
>
> I don't think anyone here was was born 'knowing' English, I think we
> all had to learn it.

Look, it's obviously not really 'thekmanrocks' posting this drivel. It's
probably somebody spoofing this email address trying to make us think that
he's a fwit.

geoff

[None]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> Look, it's obviously not really 'thekmanrocks' posting this drivel.

LOL! Of course it’s little Chrissie the Trollercoaster.

> It's probably somebody spoofing this email address trying to make us
> think that he's a fwit.

No, it fits with whatever drool he's posted in the back. Brain damage
boy, flinging his Stupid all over the newsgroup. Now the little
crybaby
is whining that the grownups don't want to deal with his
broken-English
baby talk.

He's definitely a ****wit ... he doesn't have the brain power to rise
to the level of half-wit.

[[email protected]]

Phil W wrote "
Result: *ONLY* MP3 is "Joint Stereo", *all* other formats (WAV, WMA, WMA
variable/lossless/pro) are *not*! "

That confirms what I thought. And is good in case I don't care which of my aforementioned tools I pick to rip a WAV on any particular day.

BTW I later on ripped two 320k mp3s: One in iT(normal stereo), the other WMP(perm. joint mp3), and definitely heard enough of the Null to recognize the song. I'm keeping it "full" on my other rippers from now on!

[None]

<whining little girl @ gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> Okay obviously none of you were born knowing English:

But unlike you, they learned it. You told us how you
were promoted in school because the teachers were
tired of your unwillingness or inability to learn. They
just wanted you to go away (you must be used to that!).
Since you bragged about getting out of school without
actually getting an education, it's pretty stupid to blame
the newsgroup for your ignorance.

When there's a communication problem, you should
look to the block of granite between your ears for the
reason, and stop blaming everyone else who's smarter
than you. If you're tired of everyone treating you as if
you're an idiot, maybe you should address the root
cause: you're an idiot.

[[email protected]]

Flatus wrote "But unlike you, they learned it. You told us how you
were promoted in school because the teachers were
tired of your unwillingness or inability to learn. They
just wanted you to go away (you must be used to that!).
Since you bragged about getting out of school without
actually getting an education, it's pretty stupid to blame
the newsgroup for your ignorance. "

Try attending AES con with that attitude - you'd be escorted out of Javits by police!

I wasn't unwilling to learn - They couldn't grade me high enough in Social Studies or English. I just could not grasp MATH! But high school & college knew they couldn't deny me my future just because of one subject. I don't "hate" math. It's just that I can't process it.

[None]

<drool bucket @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> Try attending AES con with that attitude - you'd be escorted out of
> Javits by police!

Stop drooling. The police don't give a **** how Stupid you are.

> I wasn't unwilling to learn - They couldn't grade me high enough in
> Social Studies or English. I just could not grasp MATH! But high
> school & college knew they couldn't deny me my future just because
> of one subject. I don't "hate" math. It's just that I can't
> process it.

You seem to have trouble processing English, too.
But of course, you're too Stupid to admit it.

[geoff]

Jeff Henig wrote:
> "Phil W" > wrote:
>> Peter Larsen:
>>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>
>>>> One (this one, anyway) assumes WAV files are lossless,
>>
>> ... as long as there´s PCM in the WAV file container, yes.
>>
>>>> and they're never processed in a lossy fashion.
>>
>> Well, WAV is a container format, so it might contain "anything".
>> Usually, that´s not the case, but it is not technically impossible.
>> Ever had a 16 bit WAV inside a 24 bit WAV file? That can happen
>> easily. ;-)
>>
>
> (ScoobyDoo voice) Hruuuuh?
>
> I didn't know that. I thought WAV files were the raw thing.

99.9999% of the time they are, but they don't have to be. I've never seen
one that wasn't LPCM. At least not that I knew about.

geoff

[Nil]

On 20 Oct 2013, "geoff" > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> 99.9999% of the time they are, but they don't have to be. I've
> never seen one that wasn't LPCM. At least not that I knew about.

I have. For example, some of the system sounds in Microsoft Windows are
(or were) in some compressed WAV format (not sure what.)

[Trevor]

"Sean Conolly" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Okay obviously none of you were born knowing English:
>>
>> I ripped the same CD track to WAV in Fairstars, Windows Media Player, and
>> iTunes.
>>
>> I then dropped them in my DAW, and inverted them to perform null tests to
>> check the quality of the rips in the three aforementioned programs.
>>
>> The reason I think I should have heard *something* from the inverted
>> Windows media player rip is because it defaults to JOINT STEREO and
>> cannot be changed from that setting.
>>
>> NOW do you guys get it?
>
> Now, what does "joint stereo" mean with a PCM wave file?

He didn't mention PCM, he's just being stupid as usual.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote "He didn't mention PCM, he's just being stupid as usual.

Trevor"

It's mentioned in the subject of my o.p.!

But it's moot now. It was already explained that joint-stereo is a lossy encoding option, not relevant to WAV.

[None]

< **** head @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> Trevor wrote "He didn't mention PCM, he's just being stupid as
> usual.
>
> Trevor"
>
> It's mentioned in the subject of my o.p.!

No you didn't, you moron. What a ****ing idiot you are.
Please go away. Go back to second grade (if you can
pass the entrance exam).

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 09:05:21 -0700, wrote
(in article >):

> I ripped WAVS of a popular '80s synth-pop tune via the three programs in my
> Subject.
>
> Since I have had the most luck with and use iTUnes to import CDs to WAV, MP3,

> and so forth, I decided to null the other two against it.
>
> When I inverted and nulled the Fairstars rip, I heard nothing.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

Do NOT use iTunes or WMP as a ripper. Use dBPowerAmp or EAC instead.

Read about what AccurateRip does:

http://www.accuraterip.com

I speak from experience. Burst ripping without comparing the bits to a known
database, or at least ripping it twice and comparing it to itself (a Secure
Rip), is very risky.

--MFW

[Scott Dorsey]

Nil > wrote:
>On 20 Oct 2013, "geoff" > wrote in
>rec.audio.pro:
>
>> 99.9999% of the time they are, but they don't have to be. I've
>> never seen one that wasn't LPCM. At least not that I knew about.
>
>I have. For example, some of the system sounds in Microsoft Windows are
>(or were) in some compressed WAV format (not sure what.)

Yes, and I have seen a few others, but I think the only actual non-PCM
..wav files that I have seen were all from Microsoft. And, for better or
worse, most software can't read them... some software still just strips
the header off and loads it in as raw data which is great if it's 16 bit
but not so great otherwise.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> Jeff Henig wrote:
>> "Phil W" > wrote:
>>> Peter Larsen:
>>>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One (this one, anyway) assumes WAV files are lossless,
>>>
>>> ... as long as there´s PCM in the WAV file container, yes.
>>>
>>>>> and they're never processed in a lossy fashion.
>>>
>>> Well, WAV is a container format, so it might contain "anything".
>>> Usually, that´s not the case, but it is not technically impossible.
>>> Ever had a 16 bit WAV inside a 24 bit WAV file? That can happen
>>> easily. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> (ScoobyDoo voice) Hruuuuh?
>>
>> I didn't know that. I thought WAV files were the raw thing.
>
> 99.9999% of the time they are, but they don't have to be. I've never seen
> one that wasn't LPCM. At least not that I knew about.

I recall obtaining a batch of .wav files whose contents were coded in MP3
format. Many music players just handle them.

[[email protected]]

Mark Wielage:

I did try to download EAC, but every so-called download link to it was just an ad or something you had to sign up to or agree to download a bunch of other crap in order to download what you intended to.

[Nil]

On 21 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> I did try to download EAC, but every so-called download link to it
> was just an ad or something you had to sign up to or agree to
> download a bunch of other crap in order to download what you
> intended to.

I don't know how in the world you could have possibly missed it, but
when you Google "EAC", the VERY FIRST link that comes up is the
official site, with a perfectly good download link. You don't have to
agree to anything.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Nil" wrote in message ...
On 21 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

>> I did try to download EAC, but every so-called download link to
>> it was just an ad or something you had to sign up to or agree to
>> download a bunch of other crap in order to download what you
>> intended to.

> I don't know how in the world you could have possibly missed it,
> but when you Google "EAC", the VERY FIRST link that comes up
> is the official site, with a perfectly good download link. You don't
> have to agree to anything.

You could have fooled me. Both links use a "download" manager, and both are
labeled as advertisements.

[Phil W[_4_]]

Am 20.10.2013 15:49, schrieb :
> Phil W wrote "
> Result: *ONLY* MP3 is "Joint Stereo", *all* other formats (WAV, WMA, WMA
> variable/lossless/pro) are *not*! "
>
> That confirms what I thought. And is good in case I don't care which of my aforementioned tools I pick to rip a WAV on any particular day.
>
> BTW I later on ripped two 320k mp3s: One in iT(normal stereo), the other WMP(perm. joint mp3), and definitely heard enough of the Null to recognize the song.

> I'm keeping it "full" on my other rippers from now on!

Well, stuff like that is, why I prefer to rip to WAV first and then use
a dedicated MP3 encoder software, which lets the user choose the
settings for encoding.
Either you want maximum comfort, which often means automated processing
with no options to be chosen by the user, or you want as much control as
possible, which means the user has to go through the steps "manually"...
Of course, the latter method involves, that the user should know, what
the options/settings actually do.

There are quite a few good encoding (and decoding) programs available as
freeware. For MP3 I like "LameDropXPd". It offers all necessary options
and once set, keeps them in a .ini file in the same folder as the .exe
.... To encode or decode (MP3 -> WAV) simply drag´n´drop a source file
onto the program window.

http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lamedrop.php

[Phil W[_4_]]

Am 22.10.2013 00:19, schrieb :
> Mark Wielage:
>
> I did try to download EAC, but every so-called download link to it was just an ad or something you had to sign up to or agree to download a bunch of other crap in order to download what you intended to.

The link to the *official* "Exact Audio Copy" website

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en

was already mentioned in my previous post about my short WMP test.
The download page links to the website of a german PC (print) magazine,
where the file is actually hosted - obviously for traffic reasons.
Nothing wrong about that.

Anyway, there´s a direct "mirror", if you´re too scared to visit a
completely legal magazine website:

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/weitere-seiten/download-from-alternative-servers-2/

click on the *TEXT* link, ignore possible graphics with "Download" in
big letters.

[Nil]

On 21 Oct 2013, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> You could have fooled me. Both links use a "download" manager, and
> both are labeled as advertisements.

I don't see any of that.

Here's the main site:

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

Here's the download page:

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/resources/download/

....which takes you to this off-site page:

http://www.pcwelt.de/news/Exact-Audio-Copy-EAC-International-1524569.html

....which contains this link

http://rednoise.x10host.com/temp/EACDL.png

to the installation file:

http://download.pcwelt.de/area_release/files/87/BD/87BD48BD274F8B304EADDCF8C8287F03/eac-1.0beta3.exe

which scans as clean by every malware scanner I have and which
installs with no sign of any download managers or other
foistware.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Nil wrote:

> On 21 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

>> I did try to download EAC, but every so-called download link to it
>> was just an ad or something you had to sign up to or agree to
>> download a bunch of other crap in order to download what you
>> intended to.

> I don't know how in the world you could have possibly missed it, but
> when you Google "EAC", the VERY FIRST link that comes up is the
> official site, with a perfectly good download link. You don't have to
> agree to anything.

It is not possible to make any guess at what will show up in someone elses
google-search.

+1 for Audiograbber, it is semi-adware, but the ad-part is easily avoided
and is also a quite usable recorder.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Nil]

On 22 Oct 2013, "Peter Larsen" > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> It is not possible to make any guess at what will show up in
> someone elses google-search.

I think that it's a pretty damn good assumption that searching for the
simple product string "EAC" will show up, if not the first entry
returned, than at least in the first several. Try it yourself.

[geoff]

Nil wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2013, "Peter Larsen" > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
>> It is not possible to make any guess at what will show up in
>> someone elses google-search.
>
> I think that it's a pretty damn good assumption that searching for the
> simple product string "EAC" will show up, if not the first entry
> returned, than at least in the first several. Try it yourself.

No - the search will have different rfesults depending on where you are, and
(if logged in to Google) skewed towards things relating to your browsing
history.

geoff

[Trevor]

"Nil" > wrote in message
...
> On 21 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>> I did try to download EAC, but every so-called download link to it
>> was just an ad or something you had to sign up to or agree to
>> download a bunch of other crap in order to download what you
>> intended to.
>
> I don't know how in the world you could have possibly missed it, but
> when you Google "EAC", the VERY FIRST link that comes up is the
> official site, with a perfectly good download link. You don't have to
> agree to anything.

But obviously his internet abilities are on par with the rest of his
technical abilities :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
> +1 for Audiograbber, it is semi-adware, but the ad-part is easily avoided
> and is also a quite usable recorder.


Audiograbber is fast, but no secure rip, and often gives a misleading
looking "CRC checksum" when the WAV file is actually total garbage.
Stick with EAC.

Trevor.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Trevor wrote:

> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
> ...

>> +1 for Audiograbber, it is semi-adware, but the ad-part is easily
>> avoided and is also a quite usable recorder.

> Audiograbber is fast, but no secure rip, and often gives a misleading
> looking "CRC checksum" when the WAV file is actually total garbage.
> Stick with EAC.

I haven't encountered problems with it that it didn't indicate having while
ripping, but thanks anyway, gonna go take a look-see at the competing
product.

> Trevor.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerk wrote ""Nil" wrote in message ...
- show quoted text -
You could have fooled me. Both links use a "download" manager, and both are
labeled as advertisements. "

THANK YOU!!!! William.

And to Trevor, who doesn't know a damn thing about me beyond our correspondence in a Usenet group:

As far as my "internet skills" go, I report exactly what I experienced.

And as others have pointed out - your geographical results may vary.

So stop acting like a prick!

[William Sommerwerck]

"Nil" wrote in message ...

http://download.pcwelt.de/area_release/files/87/BD/87BD48BD274F8B304EADDCF8C8287F03/eac-1.0beta3.exe

> which scans as clean by every malware scanner I have and which
> installs with no sign of any download managers or other
> foistware.

Thanks for your research. You have to admit, though, a download button with
"advertisement" next to it //is// rather suspicious.

[Nil]

On 22 Oct 2013, "geoff" > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> Nil wrote:
>>
>> I think that it's a pretty damn good assumption that searching
>> for the simple product string "EAC" will show up, if not the
>> first entry returned, than at least in the first several. Try it
>> yourself.
>
> No - the search will have different rfesults depending on where
> you are, and (if logged in to Google) skewed towards things
> relating to your browsing history.

Of course if may be different, but are you seriously suggesting that
the official EAC website will not come up within the first few
entries?? It's the most relevant to the search, and should be one of
the first few returns. What happens when you search for "EAC"?

Both Google and Bing put the EAC site at the top of the list. I tried
this on 2 different computers. On a third, "Eastern Arizona University"
it #1, and Exact Audio Copy is #2.

[Nil]

On 22 Oct 2013, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> "Nil" wrote in message
> ...
>
> http://download.pcwelt.de/area_release/files/87/BD/87BD48BD274F8B304EADDCF8C8287F03/eac-1.0beta3.exe
>
>> which scans as clean by every malware scanner I have and which
>> installs with no sign of any download managers or other
>> foistware.
>
> Thanks for your research. You have to admit, though, a download
> button with "advertisement" next to it //is// rather suspicious.

Yes, it is. When downloading software, especially free software, you
have to always be careful where you get it from, and pay attention
to any link you click. It's unfortunate, but that's just how it is
these days.

Similarly, you must always pay close attention when you install
anything, especially if it was free. Nearly all "free" software will
try to foist other programs on you during installation, and if you
should miss your chance to decline, they can be destructive to your
computer, and can be very difficult to get rid of.

It's a jungle out there.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, October 21, 2013 10:17:44 PM UTC-4, Phil W wrote:
> Am 22.10.2013 00:19, schrieb .com:
>
> > Mark Wielage:
>
> >
>
> > I did try to download EAC, but every so-called download link to it was just an ad or something you had to sign up to or agree to download a bunch of other crap in order to download what you intended to.
>
>
>
> The link to the *official* "Exact Audio Copy" website
>
>
>
> http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en
>
>
>
> was already mentioned in my previous post about my short WMP test.
>
> The download page links to the website of a german PC (print) magazine,
>
> where the file is actually hosted - obviously for traffic reasons.
>
> Nothing wrong about that.
>
>
>
> Anyway, there´s a direct "mirror", if you´re too scared to visit a
>
> completely legal magazine website:
>
>
>
> http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/weitere-seiten/download-from-alternative-servers-2/
>
>
>
> click on the *TEXT* link, ignore possible graphics with "Download" in
>
> big letters.
______________________

Here is what I got at the "official" website:

<<<< Introduction

Exact Audio Copy is a so called audio grabber for audio CDs using standard CD and DVD-ROM drives. The main differences between EAC and most other audio grabbers are :



Advertisement / Anzeige
BIG GREEN DOWNLOAD BUTTON HERE

•It is free (for non-commercial purposes)
•It works with a technology, which reads audio CDs almost perfectly. If there are any errors that can’t be corrected, it will tell you on which time position the (possible) distortion occurred, so you could easily control it with e.g. the media player



Advertisement / Anzeige
BIG GREEN DOWNLOAD BUTTON HERE


With other audio grabbers you usually need to listen to every grabbed wave because they only do jitter correction. Scratched CDs read on CD-ROM drives often produce distortions. But listening to every extracted audio track is a waste of time. Exact Audio Copy conquer these problems by making use of several technologies like multi-reading with verify and AccurateRip. >>>>

[[email protected]]

On Monday, October 21, 2013 10:17:44 PM UTC-4, Phil W wrote:
> Am 22.10.2013 00:19, schrieb > > Mark Wielage:
>
> >
>
> > I did try to download EAC, but every so-called download link to it was just an ad or something you had to sign up to or agree to download a bunch of other crap in order to download what you intended to.
>
>
>
> The link to the *official* "Exact Audio Copy" website
>
>
>
> http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en
>
>
>
> was already mentioned in my previous post about my short WMP test.
>
> The download page links to the website of a german PC (print) magazine,
>
> where the file is actually hosted - obviously for traffic reasons.
>
> Nothing wrong about that.
>
>
>
> Anyway, there´s a direct "mirror", if you´re too scared to visit a
>
> completely legal magazine website:
>
>
>
> http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/weitere-seiten/download-from-alternative-servers-2/
>
>
>
> click on the *TEXT* link, ignore possible graphics with "Download" in
>
> big letters.


I did have better luck with second link above - "Download Installer".

So my new WAV results are - everything nulled against EAC is perfectly quiet.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:23:25 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Monday, October 21, 2013 10:17:44 PM UTC-4, Phil W wrote:
>> Am 22.10.2013 00:19, schrieb > > Mark Wielage:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I did try to download EAC, but every so-called download link to it was just an ad or something you had to sign up to or agree to download a bunch of other crap in order to download what you intended to.
>>
>>
>>
>> The link to the *official* "Exact Audio Copy" website
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en
>>
>>
>>
>> was already mentioned in my previous post about my short WMP test.
>>
>> The download page links to the website of a german PC (print) magazine,
>>
>> where the file is actually hosted - obviously for traffic reasons.
>>
>> Nothing wrong about that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, there´s a direct "mirror", if you´re too scared to visit a
>>
>> completely legal magazine website:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/weitere-seiten/download-from-alternative-servers-2/
>>
>>
>>
>> click on the *TEXT* link, ignore possible graphics with "Download" in
>>
>> big letters.
>
>
>I did have better luck with second link above - "Download Installer".
>
>So my new WAV results are - everything nulled against EAC is perfectly quiet.
>
>So shouldn't that mean that all my rippers are just as good as EAC??

Why convert to sound? This is data; use a file comparison programme.

d

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 10/22/2013 2:32 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:23:25 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, October 21, 2013 10:17:44 PM UTC-4, Phil W wrote:
>>> Am 22.10.2013 00:19, schrieb > > Mark Wielage:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I did try to download EAC, but every so-called download link to it was just an ad or something you had to sign up to or agree to download a bunch of other crap in order to download what you intended to.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The link to the *official* "Exact Audio Copy" website
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> was already mentioned in my previous post about my short WMP test.
>>>
>>> The download page links to the website of a german PC (print) magazine,
>>>
>>> where the file is actually hosted - obviously for traffic reasons.
>>>
>>> Nothing wrong about that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyway, there´s a direct "mirror", if you´re too scared to visit a
>>>
>>> completely legal magazine website:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/weitere-seiten/download-from-alternative-servers-2/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> click on the *TEXT* link, ignore possible graphics with "Download" in
>>>
>>> big letters.
>>
>>
>> I did have better luck with second link above - "Download Installer".
>>
>> So my new WAV results are - everything nulled against EAC is perfectly quiet.
>>
>> So shouldn't that mean that all my rippers are just as good as EAC??
>
> Why convert to sound? This is data; use a file comparison programme.
>
> d
>
A question that comes to mind is if they all handle compromised media
identically.
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:58:38 -0400, Ron C > wrote:

>On 10/22/2013 2:32 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:23:25 -0700 (PDT),
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, October 21, 2013 10:17:44 PM UTC-4, Phil W wrote:
>>>> Am 22.10.2013 00:19, schrieb > > Mark Wielage:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I did try to download EAC, but every so-called download link to it was just an ad or something you had to sign up to or agree to download a bunch of other crap in order to download what you intended to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The link to the *official* "Exact Audio Copy" website
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> was already mentioned in my previous post about my short WMP test.
>>>>
>>>> The download page links to the website of a german PC (print) magazine,
>>>>
>>>> where the file is actually hosted - obviously for traffic reasons.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing wrong about that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, there´s a direct "mirror", if you´re too scared to visit a
>>>>
>>>> completely legal magazine website:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/weitere-seiten/download-from-alternative-servers-2/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> click on the *TEXT* link, ignore possible graphics with "Download" in
>>>>
>>>> big letters.
>>>
>>>
>>> I did have better luck with second link above - "Download Installer".
>>>
>>> So my new WAV results are - everything nulled against EAC is perfectly quiet.
>>>
>>> So shouldn't that mean that all my rippers are just as good as EAC??
>>
>> Why convert to sound? This is data; use a file comparison programme.
>>
>> d
>>
>A question that comes to mind is if they all handle compromised media
>identically.

What do you mean by compromised- damaged?

d

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 12:05:21 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> I ripped WAVS of a popular '80s synth-pop tune via the three programs in my Subject.
>
>
>
>
>
> Since I have had the most luck with and use iTUnes to import CDs to WAV, MP3, and so forth, I decided to null the other two against it.
>
>
>
> When I inverted and nulled the Fairstars rip, I heard nothing.
>
>
>
> When I inverted and nulled the Windows Media Player rip, I should have heard something.
>
>
>
>
>
> Can you solve the riddle?

________________


The only problem with the "Compression" options is that I went to this site http://blowfish.be/eac/Lossy/lossy.html

To change the command line to be able to rip CBR MP3s, but the lines they provided don't work!

And EAC is VBR by default - can't have it any other way.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>
>So my new WAV results are - everything nulled against EAC is perfectly quie=
>t.

This is normal, and it's what you would expect.

>So shouldn't that mean that all my rippers are just as good as EAC??

No, the differences come when there are errors. Get a CD with a huge scratch
across the front of it and then you'll start seeing differences.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 10/22/2013 3:04 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:58:38 -0400, Ron C > wrote:
>
>> On 10/22/2013 2:32 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:23:25 -0700 (PDT),
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, October 21, 2013 10:17:44 PM UTC-4, Phil W wrote:
>>>>> Am 22.10.2013 00:19, schrieb > > Mark Wielage:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I did try to download EAC, but every so-called download link to it was just an ad or something you had to sign up to or agree to download a bunch of other crap in order to download what you intended to.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The link to the *official* "Exact Audio Copy" website
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> was already mentioned in my previous post about my short WMP test.
>>>>>
>>>>> The download page links to the website of a german PC (print) magazine,
>>>>>
>>>>> where the file is actually hosted - obviously for traffic reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing wrong about that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, there´s a direct "mirror", if you´re too scared to visit a
>>>>>
>>>>> completely legal magazine website:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/weitere-seiten/download-from-alternative-servers-2/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> click on the *TEXT* link, ignore possible graphics with "Download" in
>>>>>
>>>>> big letters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did have better luck with second link above - "Download Installer".
>>>>
>>>> So my new WAV results are - everything nulled against EAC is perfectly quiet.
>>>>
>>>> So shouldn't that mean that all my rippers are just as good as EAC??
>>>
>>> Why convert to sound? This is data; use a file comparison programme.
>>>
>>> d
>>>
>> A question that comes to mind is if they all handle compromised media
>> identically.
>
> What do you mean by compromised- damaged?
>
> d
>
Scratched, sun bleached, warped, dust covered, etc.
Pick your poison. Heck, I'm guessing the guy must have
some reason to suspect copy errors, else why bother?
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Nil]

On 22 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> And EAC is VBR by default - can't have it any other way.

Yes, you can. You can use any available command line option for any
external codec.

[geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Nil" wrote in message
> ...
> http://download.pcwelt.de/area_release/files/87/BD/87BD48BD274F8B304EADDCF8C8287F03/eac-1.0beta3.exe
>
>> which scans as clean by every malware scanner I have and which
>> installs with no sign of any download managers or other
>> foistware.
>
> Thanks for your research. You have to admit, though, a download
> button with "advertisement" next to it //is// rather suspicious.

Seems common these days that download pages are peppered with <Download>
buttons that are not for the item you want. You just need to check the page
with due suspicion unil you find the right link to click for what you really
want.

More often than not the faux buttons seem to be for Zip-like utilities,
Automatic Driver Updaters, or Speed Up Your Computer utilities.

geoff

[geoff]

Nil wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2013, "William Sommerwerck" >
> wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>
>> "Nil" wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> http://download.pcwelt.de/area_release/files/87/BD/87BD48BD274F8B304EADDCF8C8287F03/eac-1.0beta3.exe
>>
>>> which scans as clean by every malware scanner I have and which
>>> installs with no sign of any download managers or other
>>> foistware.
>>
>> Thanks for your research. You have to admit, though, a download
>> button with "advertisement" next to it //is// rather suspicious.
>
> Yes, it is. When downloading software, especially free software, you
> have to always be careful where you get it from, and pay attention
> to any link you click. It's unfortunate, but that's just how it is
> these days.
>
> Similarly, you must always pay close attention when you install
> anything, especially if it was free. Nearly all "free" software will
> try to foist other programs on you during installation, and if you
> should miss your chance to decline, they can be destructive to your
> computer, and can be very difficult to get rid of.
>
> It's a jungle out there.

Sadly the KMPlayer (previously an excellent Media Player) now comes with
dodgey crap embedded that is difficult to avoid or get rid of.

geoff

[geoff]

wrote:

> So my new WAV results are - everything nulled against EAC is
> perfectly quiet.
>
> So shouldn't that mean that all my rippers are just as good as EAC??

Depends on what you mean by "quiet". Inaudible at moderate volume sitting
next to a computer, or zero residue when waveform looked at magnified in an
audio editor ?

Try the same process then normalise the results to 0dB and see what's there
! If perfect there should be nothing.

And/or try again with a worn/scratched CD.

geoff

[[email protected]]

Nil:

I tried pasting some alternate command lines and none of them worked.

Hey, I graduated with a MIS degree - as in MIStake! Didn't teach me sh- about computers. smh...

[Nil]

On 22 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> I tried pasting some alternate command lines and none of them
> worked.

Works for me. Sounds like cockpit error.

> Hey, I graduated with a MIS degree - as in MIStake! Didn't teach
> me sh- about computers. smh...

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:53:54 PM UTC-4, Nil wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2013, com wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>
>
>
> > Simple cut & paste - even our last "president" could handle that!
>
> > lol
>
> >
>
> > According to the site I used, the code overrides any of the
>
> > settings(id3, bitrate, etc).
>
>
>
> But obviously it didn't. And since it does for me, you must be doing
>
> something wrong.
>
>
>
> You don't seem to be asking any real questions or looking for actual
>
> help, so I'm not offering any.
_____________________

FYI Nil, this is the site I went to, scroll down 1/4 of the way and you'll see the overwrites indicating what instructions to follow.


http://blowfish.be/eac/Lossy/lossy.html

I followed every one. 1/4 of the way down, just below that screen shot, are command lines to substitute for the default.

I put in " -b 320 -h --add-id3v2 --ignore-tag-errors --ta "%a" --tt "%t" --tg "%m" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d "

Clicked "Test"(not visible in the version in that screen capture), and got Error - unrecognized command.

Sucks to be me I guess!

[Nil]

On 22 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> FYI Nil, this is the site I went to, scroll down 1/4 of the way
> and you'll see the overwrites indicating what instructions to
> follow.
>
> http://blowfish.be/eac/Lossy/lossy.html
>
> I followed every one. 1/4 of the way down, just below that
> screen shot, are command lines to substitute for the default.
>
> I put in " -b 320 -h --add-id3v2 --ignore-tag-errors --ta "%a"
> --tt "%t" --tg "%m" --tl "%g" --ty "%y" --tn "%n" %s %d "
>
> Clicked "Test"(not visible in the version in that screen capture),
> and got Error - unrecognized command.

Do you really have Lame installed?

Start with a simpler command line. That guide is old and some of those
arguments may not work with recent versions of LAME.

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> Nil:
>
> I tried pasting some alternate command lines and none of them
> worked.
>
> Hey, I graduated with a MIS degree

So they gave you a paper saying you have a BS in MIS, but
you never learned the material. UConn's standards must be
really pathetic, or you're full of **** about the degree. Or maybe
it was a "short bus" degree.

Don't brag about your expertise about computers while
you're blithering on about what a ****ing idiot you are.
Unless you want people to laugh at your bragging.

[Trevor]

"Nil" > wrote in message
...
> Similarly, you must always pay close attention when you install
> anything, especially if it was free. Nearly all "free" software will
> try to foist other programs on you during installation, and if you
> should miss your chance to decline, they can be destructive to your
> computer, and can be very difficult to get rid of.

And not all freeware even gives you a chance to decline the included
foistware/malware/spyware etc.
(Especially so in the Android market where they rarely do) :-(


> It's a jungle out there.

That's an understatement!

Trevor.

[Ralph Barone[_2_]]

> wrote:
> On Monday, October 21, 2013 10:17:44 PM UTC-4, Phil W wrote:
>> Am 22.10.2013 00:19, schrieb > > Mark Wielage:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I did try to download EAC, but every so-called download link to it was
>>> just an ad or something you had to sign up to or agree to download a
>>> bunch of other crap in order to download what you intended to.
>>
>>
>>
>> The link to the *official* "Exact Audio Copy" website
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en
>>
>>
>>
>> was already mentioned in my previous post about my short WMP test.
>>
>> The download page links to the website of a german PC (print) magazine,
>>
>> where the file is actually hosted - obviously for traffic reasons.
>>
>> Nothing wrong about that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, there´s a direct "mirror", if you´re too scared to visit a
>>
>> completely legal magazine website:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/weitere-seiten/download-from-alternative-servers-2/
>>
>>
>>
>> click on the *TEXT* link, ignore possible graphics with "Download" in
>>
>> big letters.
>
>
> I did have better luck with second link above - "Download Installer".
>
> So my new WAV results are - everything nulled against EAC is perfectly quiet.
>
> So shouldn't that mean that all my rippers are just as good as EAC??

On THAT CD, yes.

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 21:01:50 -0700, Trevor wrote
(in article >):

> And not all freeware even gives you a chance to decline the included
> foistware/malware/spyware etc.
> (Especially so in the Android market where they rarely do) :-(
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

Very true. I've used a half-dozen ripping engines out there, and the only
one that does the job for me is dBPowerAmp:

http://www.dbpoweramp.com

It's not free ($39), but it's got an infinitely better-designed front-end
with a far more intuitive user interface. No command lines, all menu-driven,
and terrific support on the DBP website. Far better than EAC... but you
gotta pay for it.

--MFW

[Trevor]

"Marc Wielage" > wrote in message
.com...
> Very true. I've used a half-dozen ripping engines out there, and the only
> one that does the job for me is dBPowerAmp:
>
> http://www.dbpoweramp.com
>
> It's not free ($39), but it's got an infinitely better-designed front-end
> with a far more intuitive user interface. No command lines, all
> menu-driven,
> and terrific support on the DBP website. Far better than EAC... but you
> gotta pay for it.

Possibly, but EAC works well enough for me in ripping that I feel no need to
pay for another. And for encoding you can use one of the free GUI front ends
for LAME if you prefer.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Nil wrote "Do you really have Lame installed? "

Of course I do. Use 3.96 all the time. Dropped it into the EAC folder as instructed.

Could EAC find it automatically? Of course not! Once I pointed to it under EACs own NOSE, it could.

Come one, this is the millennium of automatic mapping, not the glorious DOSsy '80s! lol :)

[UnsteadyKen]

wrote...

> Come one, this is the millennium of automatic mapping,
> not the glorious DOSsy '80s! lol :)
>
In the unlamented 90's one could bypass all this ripping nonsense with
a quick mod to the Windows 95/98 cd driver which meant you could treat
the audio tracks on a cd as just another type of file and extract them
with drag and drop letting the OS handle error correction and checking.

http://www.sonicspot.com/alternatecdfsvxd/alternatecdfsvxd.html

Very early versions of XP could do this trick natively out of the box,
but then the DRM gang kicked up a fuss and the facility was axed

I assume all the rippers you tried use a variation of this technique,
so no encoding is performed and it's not surprising that they all
performed identically.

--
UnsteadyKen

[Nil]

On 23 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> Of course I do. Use 3.96 all the time. Dropped it into the EAC
> folder as instructed.

Just as I thought: cockpit error.

[[email protected]]

Nil wrote "On 23 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> Of course I do. Use 3.96 all the time. Dropped it into the EAC
> folder as instructed.

Just as I thought: cockpit error. "

How is it "wrong" to follow instructions?

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

UnsteadyKen wrote:
>
> wrote...
>
>> Come one, this is the millennium of automatic mapping,
>> not the glorious DOSsy '80s! lol :)
>>
> In the unlamented 90's one could bypass all this ripping nonsense with
> a quick mod to the Windows 95/98 cd driver which meant you could treat
> the audio tracks on a cd as just another type of file and extract them
> with drag and drop letting the OS handle error correction and checking.
>
> http://www.sonicspot.com/alternatecdfsvxd/alternatecdfsvxd.html
>
> Very early versions of XP could do this trick natively out of the box,
> but then the DRM gang kicked up a fuss and the facility was axed
>

I have a bog-standard Win7 mo-sheen here, and it just rips and rips and
rips... think it's Media Player or EAC I uses.

> I assume all the rippers you tried use a variation of this technique,
> so no encoding is performed and it's not surprising that they all
> performed identically.
>

--
Les Cargill

[Nil]

On 23 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> How is it "wrong" to follow instructions?

It's "wrong" when you ignore the directions and then try to blame it on
something else. It says on the site you referenced,

http://blowfish.be/eac/Lossy/lossy.html

in big green letters, "BROWSE TO LAME.EXE".

[geoff]

UnsteadyKen wrote:
> wrote...
>
>> Come one, this is the millennium of automatic mapping,
>> not the glorious DOSsy '80s! lol :)
>>
> In the unlamented 90's one could bypass all this ripping nonsense with
> a quick mod to the Windows 95/98 cd driver which meant you could treat
> the audio tracks on a cd as just another type of file and extract them
> with drag and drop letting the OS handle error correction and
> checking.
>
> http://www.sonicspot.com/alternatecdfsvxd/alternatecdfsvxd.html
>
> Very early versions of XP could do this trick natively out of the box,
> but then the DRM gang kicked up a fuss and the facility was axed
>
> I assume all the rippers you tried use a variation of this technique,
> so no encoding is performed and it's not surprising that they all
> performed identically.


Yeah, and from memory the other things that it f'ed up and slowed down ....

geoff

[[email protected]]

Nil wrote "

It's "wrong" when you ignore the directions and then try to blame it on
something else. It says on the site you referenced, "

I won't be the first to admit that I have major difficulty following instructions - verbal, written - even if I do take pages of notes.

It's not easy when one doesn't have someone over their shoulder guiding them in such situations.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 2:42:56 PM UTC-4, Nil wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2013, com wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>
>
>
> > How is it "wrong" to follow instructions?
>
>
>
> It's "wrong" when you ignore the directions and then try to blame it on
>
> something else. It says on the site you referenced,
>
>
>
> http://blowfish.be/eac/Lossy/lossy.html
>
>
>
> in big green letters, "BROWSE TO LAME.EXE".

"Invalid Replacement Tag Found!"

Maybe this website should be taken down.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 2:42:56 PM UTC-4, Nil wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>
>
>
> > How is it "wrong" to follow instructions?
>
>
>
> It's "wrong" when you ignore the directions and then try to blame it on
>
> something else. It says on the site you referenced,
>
>
>
> http://blowfish.be/eac/Lossy/lossy.html
>
>
>
> in big green letters, "BROWSE TO LAME.EXE".

Nil!!

I finally got it! Don't ask how.

So I have EAC ripping mp3s to same spec I use in iTunes(256k CBR, full stereo).

I nulled the EAC mp3 vs the iTunes mp3, and there is a very loud audible difference in null. In audacity spectro, the iTunes rolls just above 20kHz, and the EAC mp3 rolls off just below 19kHz.

???

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

wrote:

>> in big green letters, "BROWSE TO LAME.EXE".

> Nil!!

> I finally got it! Don't ask how.

Congrats.

> So I have EAC ripping mp3s to same spec I use in iTunes(256k CBR,
> full stereo).

My opinion is that that maximum variable bit rate is a better choice.

> I nulled the EAC mp3 vs the iTunes mp3, and there is a very loud
> audible difference in null. In audacity spectro, the iTunes rolls
> just above 20kHz, and the EAC mp3 rolls off just below 19kHz.

> ???

My opinion is that the best choice for a good mp3 is to samplerate convert
to 32 kHz sample rate first because that allows more bits of resolution in
the treble range than insisting on getting 20 kHz, more treble is not better
if it is white noise instead of what was there before encoding.

Other people know vastly more about this.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:49:17 PM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
> wrote:

>
> My opinion is that the best choice for a good mp3 is to samplerate convert
>
> to 32 kHz sample rate first because that allows more bits of resolution in
>
> the treble range than insisting on getting 20 kHz, more treble is not better
>
> if it is white noise instead of what was there before encoding.
>
>
>
> Other people know vastly more about this.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Peter Larsen
____________

You mean 64khz - remember Nyquist? the only options in iTunes are 44.1k(22,500Hz) and 48k(24,000Hz).

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:49:17 PM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
>> wrote:

>> My opinion is that the best choice for a good mp3 is to samplerate
>> convert to 32 kHz sample rate first because that allows more bits of
>> resolution in the treble range than insisting on getting 20 kHz,

> You mean 64khz

I mean 32 kHz sample rate, that is why I wrote it.

I also mean that 64 kHz is a lot better as a choice than 96 kHz for
_recording_ because it allows the full range of what a 4006 can convey from
a violin, the rest is just noise and a silly waste of storage space. But
that is a very different discussion.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:13:13 PM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
> .com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:49:17 PM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
>
> >> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> My opinion is that the best choice for a good mp3 is to samplerate
>
> >> convert to 32 kHz sample rate first because that allows more bits of
>
> >> resolution in the treble range than insisting on getting 20 kHz,
>
>
>
> > You mean 64khz
>
>
>
> I mean 32 kHz sample rate, that is why I wrote it.
>
>
>
> I also mean that 64 kHz is a lot better as a choice than 96 kHz for
>
> _recording_ because it allows the full range of what a 4006 can convey from
>
> a violin, the rest is just noise and a silly waste of storage space. But
>
> that is a very different discussion.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Peter Larsen
_________________
Your terms are vague and unclear. When you state a sampling rate in kHz it is automaticlly understood that the Nyquist frequency(the highest to be reproduced) = sampling rate/2.

Therefore, the Nyquist of a 32kHz sampling rate = 16kHz. A slim improvement over FM Radio.

Again, my sampling rate options in iTunes are 44.1kHz and 48kHz.

My sampling rate options in EAC are unselectable.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

wrote:

> Your terms are vague and unclear.

No.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[None]

> wrote in message
...
>> > Peter Larsen wrote:
>> >> My opinion is that the best choice for a good mp3 is to
>> >> samplerate
>> >> convert to 32 kHz sample rate first because that allows more
>> >> bits of
>> >> resolution in the treble range than insisting on getting 20 kHz,

>> > You mean 64khz

>> I mean 32 kHz sample rate, that is why I wrote it.

> Your terms are vague and unclear.

You're a ****ing idiot. He recommended a converting to a 32 kHz sample
rate, and he clearly explained the reason. It seemed like a very
reasonable suggestion. His terminology crystal clear to anyone with
even a rudimentary understanding of digital audio. You don't have that
understanding, but that's not Larsen's fault.

When you have no clue what you're blithering about, you always seem to
blame everyone else, sometimes even getting angry at others for your
own stupidity. You brag about having an MIS degree. And you brag about
not understanding any of the undergraduate math. Did the Dean of the
UConn School of Business really give you a waiver on the math
requirements, and give you a worthless piece of BS toilet paper in
MIS, without the required education? Just to get your sorry ass out of
his life and away from his campus?

You haven't shown much sing of any desire or willingness to learn. On
the contrary, you deny the knowledge of experienced experts, and
insult them by telling them that they are wrong, and you (a ****ing
idiot) are right. I can see why the school wanted you to get the ****
out.

[[email protected]]

Peter Larsen wrote wrote:

> Your terms are vague and unclear.

No.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen "

Then explain what you meant by "32kHz".

Nice.


And.



Slow.

[geoff]

wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:13:13 PM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
> _________________
> Your terms are vague and unclear. When you state a sampling rate in
> kHz it is automaticlly understood that the Nyquist frequency(the
> highest to be reproduced) = sampling rate/2.

The sample rate is the sample rate. Nobody mentioned nyquist (except you).

geoff

[geoff]

wrote:
> Peter Larsen wrote wrote:
>
>> Your terms are vague and unclear.
>
> No.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen "
>
> Then explain what you meant by "32kHz".
>
> Nice.
>
>
> And.
>
>
>
> Slow.

Well I got it clear and easy.

He meant a sample rate of 32kHz, just like what he said.


geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote "He meant a sample rate of 32kHz, just like what he said.

geoff"

Well then I must be the only person on RAP who understands sample rates.

44.1kHz = a maximum freq of 22.05kHz. So I don't know why I'd want a sampling rate of 32! smh....

[Gray_Wolf]

On 22 Oct 2013 15:26:45 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> > wrote:
>>
>>So my new WAV results are - everything nulled against EAC is perfectly quie=
>>t.
>
>This is normal, and it's what you would expect.
>
>>So shouldn't that mean that all my rippers are just as good as EAC??
>
>No, the differences come when there are errors. Get a CD with a huge scratch
>across the front of it and then you'll start seeing differences.
>--scott

What about Audition and Wavelab?

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gray_Wolf wrote:

> On 22 Oct 2013 15:26:45 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>> > wrote:

>>> So my new WAV results are - everything nulled against EAC is
>>> perfectly quie= t.

>> This is normal, and it's what you would expect.

>>> So shouldn't that mean that all my rippers are just as good as EAC??

>> No, the differences come when there are errors. Get a CD with a
>> huge scratch across the front of it and then you'll start seeing
>> differences. --scott

> What about Audition and Wavelab?

Feurio is good at ripping the unrippable and tells you if it encounters
C2's.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[geoff]

wrote:
> geoff wrote "He meant a sample rate of 32kHz, just like what he said.
>
> geoff"
>
> Well then I must be the only person on RAP who understands sample
> rates.

But not, apparently, plain English.

Peter never mentioned "maximum frequency" or "Nyquist".

He simply and clearly stated a sample rate of 32kHz.

>
> 44.1kHz = a maximum freq of 22.05kHz. So I don't know why I'd want
> a sampling rate of 32! smh....

We are talking about MP3s here. Great idea to kill off the very high
frequencies, to reduce the HF artifacts (the permanent phaser of low and
medium level HF for instance).

geoff

[[email protected]]

Geoff wrote "We are talking about MP3s here. Great idea to kill off the very high
frequencies, to reduce the HF artifacts (the permanent phaser of low and "

Well, I rip at 256k CBR, full stereo, 44.1. And unless it's a Glenn Miller or Hank Williams from 65 years ago, the high-end rolloff on my iTunes or WMP encodes doesn't begin until 17-18kHz, and often extends a hair beyond 20kHz(-40dB).

The EAC mp3 encodes roll down to 19k, and just brickwall straight down at that freq.

So I guess I'll just reserve EAC for the 1 or two tough nuts in my collection(like that Foreigner "Records" compilation with a scratch visible from both sides, close to the inner-ring TOC).

[Luxey]

On Thursday, 24 October 2013 08:41:39 UTC+2, wrote:
> geoff wrote "He meant a sample rate of 32kHz, just like what he said.
>
>
>
> geoff"
>
>
>
> Well then I must be the only person on RAP who understands sample rates.
>
>
>
> 44.1kHz = a maximum freq of 22.05kHz. So I don't know why I'd want a sampling rate of 32! smh....

Seam's None was right.

Can't you just admit to have no clue and ask for help, instead of waving "facts" from internet you don't understand at all?

[None]

< chrissie k is brain dead @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> geoff wrote "He meant a sample rate of 32kHz, just like what he
> said.
>
> geoff"
>
> Well then I must be the only person on RAP who understands sample
> rates.

No. You keep making a big display about how you don't understand at
all. You really are a complete moron.

You must be the only person on RAP who can't understand sample rates,
and doesn't care to learn.

He said convert to a 32 kHz sample rate. It's very simple, but your
feeble mind is so much simpler.

[[email protected]]

Luxey "Seams like Nones right"

Come on, you're better than None. EVERYONE on here is better than that! lol.

This is where I got my information from: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate

In that link they refer to the existing Redbook CD sampling rate - 44.1kHz.

So instead of giving up on a brother and siding with a hater like None, lift him up! Help him relate what's in that article to Peter Larsen's "32kHz" sample rate he suggested.

I'm listening.

[John Williamson]

wrote:
> Luxey "Seams like Nones right"
>
> Come on, you're better than None. EVERYONE on here is better than that! lol.
>
> This is where I got my information from: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate
>
> In that link they refer to the existing Redbook CD sampling rate - 44.1kHz.
>
> So instead of giving up on a brother and siding with a hater like None, lift him up! Help him relate what's in that article to Peter Larsen's "32kHz" sample rate he suggested.
>
> I'm listening.

Good. Limiting the sample rate, and hence the HF content, of the
original file reduces many of the audible high frequency artifacts of
mp3 compression caused by leaving the original 44.1kHz sample rate in
place. This is a Good Thing (tm) in mopst cases.

A similar effect can be obtained in the analogue domain while still
using the 44.1kHzample rate by putting a high cut filter in the signal
path, in which case the artifacts don't appear as the problem
frequencies don't exist in the first place.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote "original file reduces many of the audible high frequency artifacts of mp3 compression caused by leaving the original 44.1kHz sample rate in "

I couldn't hear any "high frequency artifacts" anyway - my hearing rolls off sharply above 14kHz! :)

But that doesn't explain why EAC brickwalls most mp3s just below 20kHz compared to the lossy compression on the other rippers in my subject.

[John Williamson]

wrote:
> John Williamson wrote "original file reduces many of the audible high frequency artifacts of mp3 compression caused by leaving the original 44.1kHz sample rate in "
>
> I couldn't hear any "high frequency artifacts" anyway - my hearing rolls off sharply above 14kHz! :)
>
So encode all your mp3s at 128kbps, and save some space, then. If you
can't hear it, it's waste of time encoding it.

Just don't be surprised when others complain about the audio quality.

> But that doesn't explain why EAC brickwalls most mp3s just below 20kHz compared to the lossy compression on the other rippers in my subject.

There is only one true mp3 encoder, and that's the Fraunhofer Institute
one. Other encoders just happen to produce mp3 compatible files.

Each mp3 compatible encoder uses a different algorithm for the
conversion, throwing away different bits of the original file. All the
encoders have ways to modify their behaviour, too, so by careful use of
the control parameters, a halfway decent result can be obtained. Even
so, direct A-B comparison with the original PCM file will show the
deficiencies up summat cruel.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

Gray_Wolf > wrote:
>On 22 Oct 2013 15:26:45 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>So my new WAV results are - everything nulled against EAC is perfectly quie=
>>>t.
>>
>>This is normal, and it's what you would expect.
>>
>>>So shouldn't that mean that all my rippers are just as good as EAC??
>>
>>No, the differences come when there are errors. Get a CD with a huge scratch
>>across the front of it and then you'll start seeing differences.
>
>What about Audition and Wavelab?

I've never used either for ripping CDs. Get a damaged CD and try it and see
what happens! EAC is very good about repeatedly trying when it gets errors,
and then interpolating when multiple tries don't work. It seems to be
optimized for lowest number of Type II errors at the expense of speed. The
others, who knows? Try them and let us know what you get.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

John Williamson "So encode all your mp3s at 128kbps, and save some space, then. If you
can't hear it, it's waste of time encoding it. "

Thanks for the tips, and the advice about the Fraunhoffer codec. It is widely available?

Still, I rip at 256k, because I do notice a difference within the range of what I can hear. My mid and bottom are more than adequate.

[Nil]

On 24 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> But that doesn't explain why EAC brickwalls most mp3s just below
> 20kHz compared to the lossy compression on the other rippers in my
> subject.

EAC does NOT do that. It passes all mp3 encoding duties to whatever
codec you choose. If you're using LAME, you should look there for your
answer.

[Nil]

On 24 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> The EAC mp3 encodes roll down to 19k, and just brickwall straight
> down at that freq.

EAC does not encode mp3s.

[John Williamson]

wrote:
> John Williamson "So encode all your mp3s at 128kbps, and save some space, then. If you
> can't hear it, it's waste of time encoding it. "
>
> Thanks for the tips, and the advice about the Fraunhoffer codec. It is widely available?
>
It's the one used by iTunes and Windows Media Player.

> Still, I rip at 256k, because I do notice a difference within the range of what I can hear. My mid and bottom are more than adequate.

I normally use a VBR coding scheme, which suits the playback systems I
tend to use from day to day.

Although lately, I'm using 320k, as storage is now so cheap.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Rasta Robert]

On 2013-10-24, John Williamson > wrote:
> wrote:
>> Luxey "Seams like Nones right"
>>
>> Come on, you're better than None. EVERYONE on here is better than that! lol.
>>
>> This is where I got my information from: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate
>>
>> In that link they refer to the existing Redbook CD sampling rate - 44.1kHz.
>>
>> So instead of giving up on a brother and siding with a hater like None, lift him up! Help him relate what's in that article to Peter Larsen's "32kHz" sample rate he suggested.
>>
>> I'm listening.
>
> Good. Limiting the sample rate, and hence the HF content, of the
> original file reduces many of the audible high frequency artifacts of
> mp3 compression caused by leaving the original 44.1kHz sample rate in
> place. This is a Good Thing (tm) in mopst cases.
>
> A similar effect can be obtained in the analogue domain while still
> using the 44.1kHzample rate by putting a high cut filter in the signal
> path, in which case the artifacts don't appear as the problem
> frequencies don't exist in the first place.
>

The official Frauenhofer codec by default uses a 16kHz low pass filter
for all bitrates.

Lame also uses a low pass filter on most settings and presets, with
various cutoff frequencies depending on bitrate and quality settings,
and can be disabled or set different from the default by commandline
options.

LFE (Lame Front End) has the possibility to specify such
custom settings in Lame settings/Advanced settings/Filters section,
and then shows the commandline options it uses in a status
line.

When you want a setting that does not use low pass filtering
and gives a better quality then 320 CBR, use --preset extreme
for a variable bitrate that usually varies between 224 and 288 b/s
average (depending on the content/complexity of the audio material).
For normal, non archival use (for wich a lossless compression like
FLAC is preferable), Lame's default, and --preset standard will
usually give the best compromise, resulting in generally transparant
encoding around 192 kbps average bitrate and using a polyphase high
pass filter around 18-19 kHz.
CBR 320 is just wastefull as it aslso uses the highest bitrate for
audio that doesn't need it, while the VBR algorithms allow the
encoder to even momentarily go beyond the 320 kbps when the
compexity of the audio warants it. So high quality VBR generally
results in smaller files of higher audio quality than CBR 320.

--
<http://rr.www.cistron.nl/> -!- <http://www.rr.dds.nl/>
<http://www.dread.demon.nl/>

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 3:32:29 PM UTC-4, Rasta Robert wrote:
> On 2013-10-24, John W wrote>
> >> Luxey "Seams like Nones right"
>
> >>
>
> >> Come on, you're better than None. EVERYONE on here is better than that! lol.
>
> >>
>
> >> This is where I got my information from: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate
>
> >>
>
> >> In that link they refer to the existing Redbook CD sampling rate - 44.1kHz.
>
> >>
>
> >> So instead of giving up on a brother and siding with a hater like None, lift him up! Help him relate what's in that article to Peter Larsen's "32kHz" sample rate he suggested.
>
> >>
>
> >> I'm listening.
>
> >
>
> > Good. Limiting the sample rate, and hence the HF content, of the
>
> > original file reduces many of the audible high frequency artifacts of
>
> > mp3 compression caused by leaving the original 44.1kHz sample rate in
>
> > place. This is a Good Thing (tm) in mopst cases.
>
> >
>
> > A similar effect can be obtained in the analogue domain while still
>
> > using the 44.1kHzample rate by putting a high cut filter in the signal
>
> > path, in which case the artifacts don't appear as the problem
>
> > frequencies don't exist in the first place.
>
> >
>
>
>
> The official Frauenhofer codec by default uses a 16kHz low pass filter
>
> for all bitrates.
>
>
>
> Lame also uses a low pass filter on most settings and presets, with
>
> various cutoff frequencies depending on bitrate and quality settings,
>
> and can be disabled or set different from the default by commandline
>
> options.
>
>
>
> LFE (Lame Front End) has the possibility to specify such
>
> custom settings in Lame settings/Advanced settings/Filters section,
>
> and then shows the commandline options it uses in a status
>
> line.
>
>
>
> When you want a setting that does not use low pass filtering
>
> and gives a better quality then 320 CBR, use --preset extreme
>
> for a variable bitrate that usually varies between 224 and 288 b/s
>
> average (depending on the content/complexity of the audio material).
>
> For normal, non archival use (for wich a lossless compression like
>
> FLAC is preferable), Lame's default, and --preset standard will
>
> usually give the best compromise, resulting in generally transparant
>
> encoding around 192 kbps average bitrate and using a polyphase high
>
> pass filter around 18-19 kHz.
>
> CBR 320 is just wastefull as it aslso uses the highest bitrate for
>
> audio that doesn't need it, while the VBR algorithms allow the
>
> encoder to even momentarily go beyond the 320 kbps when the
>
> compexity of the audio warants it. So high quality VBR generally
>
> results in smaller files of higher audio quality than CBR 320.
>
>
>
> --
>
> <http://rr.www.cistron.nl/> -!- <http://www.rr.dds.nl/>
>
> <http://www.dread.demon.nl/>

_____________________
Thanks for the tips!

Wow, so even the fathers of mp3 implemented a relatively low LPF(16kHz).

Which makes me question something else: When I do spectro analysis of mp3s in my DAW, is what I'm seeing

http://rudemechanicaloz.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/02-spectrum-analysis-three-boss-pedals-in-bypass.png

all the way up to 20kHz "really there"??


Most of my mp3s(and other format digital files) produce that same general characteristic. Some of the mp3s shelf right off at 16kHz, but most have a nice rolldown up to 20kHz.

[Rasta Robert]

On 2013-10-24, > wrote:
> On Thursday, October 24, 2013 3:32:29 PM UTC-4, Rasta Robert wrote:
>>
>> The official Frauenhofer codec by default uses a 16kHz low pass filter
>> for all bitrates.
>>
>> Lame also uses a low pass filter on most settings and presets, with
>> various cutoff frequencies depending on bitrate and quality settings,
>> and can be disabled or set different from the default by commandline
>> options.
>>
>> LFE (Lame Front End) has the possibility to specify such
>> custom settings in Lame settings/Advanced settings/Filters section,
>> and then shows the commandline options it uses in a status
>> line.
>>
>> When you want a setting that does not use low pass filtering
>> and gives a better quality then 320 CBR, use --preset extreme
>> for a variable bitrate that usually varies between 224 and 288 b/s
>> average (depending on the content/complexity of the audio material).
>> For normal, non archival use (for wich a lossless compression like
>> FLAC is preferable), Lame's default, and --preset standard will
>> usually give the best compromise, resulting in generally transparant
>> encoding around 192 kbps average bitrate and using a polyphase high
>> pass filter around 18-19 kHz.
>> CBR 320 is just wastefull as it aslso uses the highest bitrate for
>> audio that doesn't need it, while the VBR algorithms allow the
>> encoder to even momentarily go beyond the 320 kbps when the
>> compexity of the audio warants it. So high quality VBR generally
>> results in smaller files of higher audio quality than CBR 320.
>>
> _____________________
> Thanks for the tips!
>
> Wow, so even the fathers of mp3 implemented a relatively low LPF(16kHz).
>
> Which makes me question something else: When I do spectro analysis of mp3s in my DAW, is what I'm seeing
>
> http://rudemechanicaloz.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/02-spectrum-analysis-three-boss-pedals-in-bypass.png
>
> all the way up to 20kHz "really there"??

Past 20kHz even, as explained above, the Lame codec will choose settings for
the LPF or disable it depending on bitrate and modes setting and/or command
line options that specify custom settings for the pre-encoding filtering.

>
> Most of my mp3s(and other format digital files) produce that same general characteristic.
> Some of the mp3s shelf right off at 16kHz, but most have a nice rolldown up to 20kHz.

The ones you see rolled off at 16kHz are likely produced by a Frauenhofer codec,
the internal mp3 encoding in the Zoom portable recorders have it too.

--
<http://rr.www.cistron.nl/> -!- <http://www.rr.dds.nl/>
<http://www.dread.demon.nl/>

[[email protected]]

Rasta Robert wrote "The ones you see rolled off at 16kHz are likely produced by a Frauenhofer codec, "

YIKES. No wonder mp3 has such a foul taste in the mouths of so many music fans.

Fortunately, I have very few of those(left). I have since bought up plenty of used first-issue CDs to rip replacements for them from. :)

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>>What about Audition and Wavelab?
>
> I've never used either for ripping CDs. Get a damaged CD and try it and
> see
> what happens! EAC is very good about repeatedly trying when it gets
> errors,
> and then interpolating when multiple tries don't work. It seems to be
> optimized for lowest number of Type II errors at the expense of speed.
> The
> others, who knows? Try them and let us know what you get.


Soundforge just gives up when it encounters an error, no idea about the
others.

Trevor.

[hank alrich]

geoff > wrote:

> wrote:
> > geoff wrote "He meant a sample rate of 32kHz, just like what he said.
> >
> > geoff"
> >
> > Well then I must be the only person on RAP who understands sample
> > rates.
>
> But not, apparently, plain English.
>
> Peter never mentioned "maximum frequency" or "Nyquist".
>
> He simply and clearly stated a sample rate of 32kHz.
>
> >
> > 44.1kHz = a maximum freq of 22.05kHz. So I don't know why I'd want
> > a sampling rate of 32! smh....
>
> We are talking about MP3s here. Great idea to kill off the very high
> frequencies, to reduce the HF artifacts (the permanent phaser of low and
> medium level HF for instance).

Maybe if we call it a simplerate.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

wrote:

> Rasta Robert wrote "The ones you see rolled off at 16kHz are likely
> produced by a Frauenhofer codec, "

> YIKES. No wonder mp3 has such a foul taste in the mouths of so many
> music fans.

That is the very least of their problems and it is better NOT to have the
upper third or even half octave than to have it replaced with bursts of
white noise or restricted to 4 bits.

What is a lot worse is that if you encode a dense mix it *will* get altered
and tracks in the mix may disappear because the encoder thinks they are "not
audible".

Listening to an mp3 is like listening with hearing damage and quite possibly
the best illustration thereof because the encoding is a threshold action
with the threshold higher for lower bitrate.

And then there is incorrect use of stereo encoding options because of
incompetent encoder defaults ....

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[John Williamson]

Trevor wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> What about Audition and Wavelab?
>> I've never used either for ripping CDs. Get a damaged CD and try it and
>> see
>> what happens! EAC is very good about repeatedly trying when it gets
>> errors,
>> and then interpolating when multiple tries don't work. It seems to be
>> optimized for lowest number of Type II errors at the expense of speed.
>> The
>> others, who knows? Try them and let us know what you get.
>
>
> Soundforge just gives up when it encounters an error, no idea about the
> others.
>
> Trevor.
>
>
I use CDex, which does a quick rip but reports uncorrectable errors, and
you then get the option to use a boxful of methods to try to recover the
missing data.

At maximum paranoia, it can take a *long* time to read a CD, but if the
data is recoverable, you'll get it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Luxey]

Thekma, man, just keep it quiet for a while. After couple of months, aware of tinnitus, having some clue, come again and tell us if you can really hear past
12-15K.

Hearing at 20K is not granted.
Haven't read any contemporary books, but I remember some old BBC books, they never spoke of anything above 16K. Ok, the equipment was such, but anyway.
Audiologist standard measurements are up to 8k and they go higher only if you specifically request.

Try to think this way, just to get a picture, then explore to refine and correct: Hearing is limited to about 20K. The first harmonic, that's the one we call
"2nd", is octave about fundamental. That's double the freq. So, about 10K is the highest freq with possibly audible harmonic. Start from there.

[[email protected]]

Luxey wrote "Thekma, man, just keep it quiet for a while. After couple of months, aware of tinnitus, having some clue, come again and tell us if you can really hear past 12-15K"


So you're suggesting that high-fidelity reproduction of audio needn't include freqs. past 15K? There are plenty of studies that suggest that such frequencies, even if not as audible as something at 100Hz or 7khz, are interpreted by the mind subconsciously.

Listeners report something "missing" when reproduction extends up to only the mid-teens.

And as far as telling someone to keep quiet - we are all adults here Luxey - and we all have a right to politely express our opinions or share facts.

I did think that my inability to hear above 14kHz was not normal.

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Nil" > wrote in message
...
> On 24 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>
>> The EAC mp3 encodes roll down to 19k, and just brickwall straight
>> down at that freq.
>
> EAC does not encode mp3s.

No but it is often packaged for download with Lame which it will then call
automatically after the .wav file is created.

However strictly speaking Lame does not make MP3s, it makes lossy compressed
files that sound great and play back with MP3 players...

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

> wrote in message
...
>
> 44.1kHz = a maximum freq of 22.05kHz. So I don't know why I'd want a
> sampling rate of 32! smh....

If you experiment with good brick wall filters, you will quickly find that a
16 KHz brick wall filter has no audible effects on almost all musical
recordings. Masking and all that.

If you forget about encoding that last 6 KHz of bandwidth, you reduce the
information workload by about 1/3 which means you can do a far better job of
encoding the rest.

If you are encoding speech, only about 12 KHz bandwith (24 KHz sampling) is
required to get very nice sounding results. The loss of the next 4 KHz is a
tad audible but it doesn't detract from the utility of the speech.

If you doing low bitrate coding, cutting the information workload by 1/3 to
1/2 is a huge advantage for things that probably matter more like
intelligibilty and clarity.

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

> wrote in message
...
> John Williamson wrote "original file reduces many of the audible high
> frequency artifacts of mp3 compression caused by leaving the original
> 44.1kHz sample rate in "
>
> I couldn't hear any "high frequency artifacts" anyway - my hearing rolls
> off sharply above 14kHz! :)
>
> But that doesn't explain why EAC brickwalls most mp3s just below 20kHz
> compared to the lossy compression on the other rippers in my subject.

EAC does no such thing, but Lame which it is usually paired with may.

All by itself EAC does what it claims, which is transcribe an accurate file
of the numbers that amke up the audio tracks on the CD.

[Phil W[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey:
> Gray_Wolf > wrote:
>>On 22 Oct 2013 15:26:45 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>So my new WAV results are - everything nulled against EAC is perfectly
>>>>quiet
>>>
>>>This is normal, and it's what you would expect.
>>>
>>>>So shouldn't that mean that all my rippers are just as good as EAC??
>>>
>>>No, the differences come when there are errors. Get a CD with a huge
>>>scratch
>>>across the front of it and then you'll start seeing differences.
>>
>>What about Audition and Wavelab?
>
> I've never used either for ripping CDs. Get a damaged CD and try it and
> see
> what happens! EAC is very good about repeatedly trying when it gets
> errors,
> and then interpolating when multiple tries don't work. It seems to be
> optimized for lowest number of Type II errors at the expense of speed.
> The
> others, who knows? Try them and let us know what you get.

Wavelab, at least in the full version, offers "safe mode" multi-rip of Audio
CD tracks and automatically compares them. There´s some kind of (C2) error
detection included, as far as I remember. Wavelab 7 LE (free as bundled
software with certain hardware or magazines) does only one cycle, but the
bigger versions probably still have the feature.
Cubase 6 LE offers a "safe mode" option, as well - though I haven´t looked
up, what that actually means.


Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>>>What about Audition and Wavelab?
>>
>> I've never used either for ripping CDs. Get a damaged CD and try it and
>> see
>> what happens! EAC is very good about repeatedly trying when it gets
>> errors,
>> and then interpolating when multiple tries don't work. It seems to be
>> optimized for lowest number of Type II errors at the expense of speed.
>> The
>> others, who knows? Try them and let us know what you get.
>
>
>Soundforge just gives up when it encounters an error, no idea about the
>others.

It gives up when it encounters a Type I error. What does it do with a
Type II? Does it retry or interpolate?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

> wrote:

> geoff wrote "He meant a sample rate of 32kHz, just like what he said.
>
> geoff"
>
> Well then I must be the only person on RAP who understands sample rates.
>
> 44.1kHz = a maximum freq of 22.05kHz.

The max freq must be _less than_ half SR.

> So I don't know why I'd want a
>sampling rate of 32!
>

Understood.

You don't rock.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[[email protected]]

Hank Alrich wrote "Understood.

You don't rock."



English, please.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Nil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 24 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>>
>>> The EAC mp3 encodes roll down to 19k, and just brickwall straight
>>> down at that freq.
>>
>> EAC does not encode mp3s.
>
> No but it is often packaged for download with Lame which it will then call
> automatically after the .wav file is created.
>
> However strictly speaking Lame does not make MP3s, it makes lossy compressed
> files that sound great and play back with MP3 players...
>
>


Among all the "distinctions without a difference" I ever saw....

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Nil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 24 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>>>
>>>> The EAC mp3 encodes roll down to 19k, and just brickwall straight
>>>> down at that freq.
>>>
>>> EAC does not encode mp3s.
>>
>> No but it is often packaged for download with Lame which it will then call
>> automatically after the .wav file is created.
>>
>> However strictly speaking Lame does not make MP3s, it makes lossy compressed
>> files that sound great and play back with MP3 players...
>
>Among all the "distinctions without a difference" I ever saw....

The lawyers with the MPEG consider it very, very important.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> Hank Alrich wrote "Understood.
>
> You don't rock."
>
>
>
> English, please.

It is English, you moron.

Once again, The Stupid can't understand plain English. I think what he
really needs is for everything to be translated into Stupid, his
native language.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Nil" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 24 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>>>>
>>>>> The EAC mp3 encodes roll down to 19k, and just brickwall straight
>>>>> down at that freq.
>>>>
>>>> EAC does not encode mp3s.
>>>
>>> No but it is often packaged for download with Lame which it will then call
>>> automatically after the .wav file is created.
>>>
>>> However strictly speaking Lame does not make MP3s, it makes lossy compressed
>>> files that sound great and play back with MP3 players...
>>
>> Among all the "distinctions without a difference" I ever saw....
>
> The lawyers with the MPEG consider it very, very important.
> --scott
>

I am sure they do. Still - ceci n'est pas une pipe.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jeff Henig wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Les Cargill > wrote:
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>> "Nil" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 24 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The EAC mp3 encodes roll down to 19k, and just brickwall straight
>>>>>>> down at that freq.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EAC does not encode mp3s.
>>>>>
>>>>> No but it is often packaged for download with Lame which it will then call
>>>>> automatically after the .wav file is created.
>>>>>
>>>>> However strictly speaking Lame does not make MP3s, it makes lossy compressed
>>>>> files that sound great and play back with MP3 players...
>>>>
>>>> Among all the "distinctions without a difference" I ever saw....
>>>
>>> The lawyers with the MPEG consider it very, very important.
>>> --scott
>>>
>>
>> I am sure they do. Still - ceci n'est pas une pipe.
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> Pass the pipe on the left hand side?
>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images

--
Les Cargill

[[email protected]]

Les Cargill:

AHHH! So any recording is just a representation of a performer/performance, not the actual performer/performance.

And as we move from 3/4 tape, to vinyl, to 24bit digital, to CD, to mp3 we also move further away from that performer/performance.

[geoff]

wrote:
> Les Cargill:
>
> AHHH! So any recording is just a representation of a
> performer/performance, not the actual performer/performance.
>
> And as we move from 3/4 tape, to vinyl, to 24bit digital, to CD, to
> mp3 we also move further away from that performer/performance.

I haven't moved top MP3, and CD was/is certainly the closest approach in the
commonly-available media sense. MP3 is the first backwards step since
cassette became popular over LP.

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, October 26, 2013 9:02:48 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> .com wrote:
>
> > Les Cargill:
>
> >
>
> > AHHH! So any recording is just a representation of a
>
> > performer/performance, not the actual performer/performance.
>
> >
>
> > And as we move from 3/4 tape, to vinyl, to 24bit digital, to CD, to
>
> > mp3 we also move further away from that performer/performance.
>
>
>
> I haven't moved to* MP3, and CD was/is certainly the closest approach in the
>
> commonly-available media sense. MP3 is the first backwards step since
>
> cassette became popular over LP.
>
>
>
> geoff
____________

*I removed the "p" in your quote above* - assumed that's what you meant.

As for MP3, I cannot distinguish 256K or higher from CD.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 10/26/2013 9:02 PM, geoff wrote:
> wrote:
>> Les Cargill:
>>
>> AHHH! So any recording is just a representation of a
>> performer/performance, not the actual performer/performance.
>>
>> And as we move from 3/4 tape, to vinyl, to 24bit digital, to CD, to
>> mp3 we also move further away from that performer/performance.
>
> I haven't moved top MP3, and CD was/is certainly the closest approach in the
> commonly-available media sense. MP3 is the first backwards step since
> cassette became popular over LP.
>
> geoff
>
>
I do believe cassette became popular because one
couldn't use LPs in cars. Don't know if cassettes would
have taken off without the car connection. The same
[IMHO] goes for those 8 track abominations.
MP3s have a similar mobility connection.
[YMMV]

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[hank alrich]

geoff > wrote:

> wrote:
> > Les Cargill:
> >
> > AHHH! So any recording is just a representation of a
> > performer/performance, not the actual performer/performance.
> >
> > And as we move from 3/4 tape, to vinyl, to 24bit digital, to CD, to
> > mp3 we also move further away from that performer/performance.
>
> I haven't moved top MP3, and CD was/is certainly the closest approach in the
> commonly-available media sense. MP3 is the first backwards step since
> cassette became popular over LP.
>
> geoff

√

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Nil]

On 26 Oct 2013, Ron C > wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> I do believe cassette became popular because one
> couldn't use LPs in cars. Don't know if cassettes would
> have taken off without the car connection. The same
> [IMHO] goes for those 8 track abominations.
> MP3s have a similar mobility connection.
> [YMMV]

That doesn't fit in with the timeline as I remember it. In the early
'70s car 8-track players were common, but there were few if any car
cassette players. Cassettes were common in portable player/recorders
and home stereo units. I got one of the first available car units
around 1971 or so - seems to me it was either a Sony or a Teac. I can
picture it clearly, but I couldn't find a picture online. It wasn't a
dash unit - I installed it in the glove compartment. The face was oval-
shaped.

Car use probably made cassettes as popular as they became, but they
would still have been popular anyway because of their convenience and
recordability. 8-tracks never had much place outside the car (although
a couple of my friends had 8-track recorder home stereo components.)

[John Williamson]

wrote:
> On Saturday, October 26, 2013 9:02:48 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
>> .com wrote:
>>
>>> Les Cargill:
>>> AHHH! So any recording is just a representation of a
>>> performer/performance, not the actual performer/performance.
>>> And as we move from 3/4 tape, to vinyl, to 24bit digital, to CD, to
>>> mp3 we also move further away from that performer/performance.
>>
>>
>> I haven't moved to* MP3, and CD was/is certainly the closest approach in the
>>
>> commonly-available media sense. MP3 is the first backwards step since
>>
>> cassette became popular over LP.
>>
>>
>>
>> geoff
> ____________
>
> *I removed the "p" in your quote above* - assumed that's what you meant.
>
> As for MP3, I cannot distinguish 256K or higher from CD.
>
Then you need either better ears or better playback equipment. On an A-B
comparison of the two, I can easily distinguish even 320k mp3 from wav,
and so can others I've played the tracks back to. One of them was even
trying to convince me that there was no difference until he listened on
a pair of fairly decent headphones. Afterwards, he could even hear the
difference on a cheap car stereo...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote "Then you need either better ears or better playback equipment. On"

How's an iPod plugged into a 80W per ch. JVC receiver with a Beyer DT880 headphone??

Nope. 256 & above sounds pretty outstanding to me.

tchiao for now! ;)

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/26/2013 9:56 PM, Ron C wrote:
> I do believe cassette became popular because one
> couldn't use LPs in cars. Don't know if cassettes would
> have taken off without the car connection.

Don't forget the Walkman! That was really important to the cassette
business.

There were phono players for cars that actually worked sometimes, but
weren't very convenient to operate. Some, maybe all of them, ran at
16-2/3 RPM, the lack of records at that speed perhaps contributing to
its short life.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>John Williamson wrote "Then you need either better ears or better playback equipment. On"
>How's an iPod plugged into a 80W per ch. JVC receiver with a Beyer DT880 headphone??
>Nope. 256 & above sounds pretty outstanding to me.

I would dump the ipod and try a good external A/D and see if that helps.
Also, good speakers can make problems more obvious than headphones because
you will notice image degradation more easily.

It has an awful lot to do with source material, too. I doubt I could hear
the difference with a dense rock mix, but with solo harpsichord it becomes
very clear that something weird is going on.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Luxey]

недеља, 27. октобар 2013. 02.56.07 UTC+1, Ron C је напи�ао/ла:
> On 10/26/2013 9:02 PM, geoff wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> [i]
> >> Les Cargill:
>
> >>
>
> >> AHHH! So any recording is just a representation of a
>
> >> performer/performance, not the actual performer/performance.
>
> >>
>
> >> And as we move from 3/4 tape, to vinyl, to 24bit digital, to CD, to
>
> >> mp3 we also move further away from that performer/performance.
>
> >
>
> > I haven't moved top MP3, and CD was/is certainly the closest approach in the
>
> > commonly-available media sense. MP3 is the first backwards step since
>
> > cassette became popular over LP.
>
> >
>
> > geoff
>
> >
>
> >
>
> I do believe cassette became popular because one
>
> couldn't use LPs in cars. Don't know if cassettes would
>
> have taken off without the car connection. The same
>
> goes for those 8 track abominations.
>
> MP3s have a similar mobility connection.
>
> [YMMV]
>
>
>
> ==
>
> Later...
>
> Ron Capik
>
> --

Cassettes were recordable, that's the main point. You could make own compilations, not to mention overdubbing for even more creative part.
The most brave would even splice it. Alternatives were selling recorded cassette tapes in bags, without cassette, ...
Also, in my world, it was much easier to obtain decent sounding cassette deck than half decent turntable.

[geoff]

Nil wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2013, Ron C > wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>> Car use probably made cassettes as popular as they became, but they
> would still have been popular anyway because of their convenience and
> recordability. 8-tracks never had much place outside the car (although
> a couple of my friends had 8-track recorder home stereo components.)

Don't think the 8-tracks ever made much headway anywhere but USA ...


geoff

[[email protected]]

Luxey wrote "Cassettes were recordable, that's the main point. You could make own compilations"

A few 8-Tracks had the record feature - just saying that they did, cannot speak for the quality of such recordings.

[Nil]

On 27 Oct 2013, "geoff" > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> Don't think the 8-tracks ever made much headway anywhere but USA...

Interesting, I didn't know that. I figured their short life was
worldwide. So, the first common car tape format in NZ was cassette?

I suppose 4-tracks bypassed you completely.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>> EAC does not encode mp3s.
>
> No but it is often packaged for download with Lame which it will then call
> automatically after the .wav file is created.
>
> However strictly speaking Lame does not make MP3s, it makes lossy
> compressed files that sound great and play back with MP3 players...


And have the Mp3 extension and use MP3 tags..... but of course LAME "Ain't
an MP3 Encoder"! Must be true, it's right there in the name :-)

Trevor.

[Luxey]

понедељак, 28. октобар 2013. 02.29.03 UTC+1, је напи�ао/ла:
> Luxey wrote "Cassettes were recordable, that's the main point. You could make own compilations"
>
>
>
> A few 8-Tracks had the record feature - just saying that they did, cannot speak for the quality of such recordings.

??? what are you talking about? Where did I mention 8tr? Do you know what a compact cassette is?

[[email protected]]

Luxey recoiled as if under imminent attack and wrote "??? what are you talking about? Where did I mention 8tr? Do you know what a compact cassette is? "

Whooah calm down Luxe.

I just said that some 8-track machines *also*(read: in addition to compact cassette) had record capability.

No big deal, and this conversation has gotten far away from rippers and their performance in null tests.

[Luxey]

понедељак, 28. октобар 2013. 12.13.39 UTC+1, је напи�ао/ла:
> Luxey recoiled as if under imminent attack and wrote "??? what are you talking about? Where did I mention 8tr? Do you know what a compact cassette is? "
>
>
>
> Whooah calm down Luxe.
>
>
>
> I just said that some 8-track machines *also*(read: in addition to compact cassette) had record capability.

Well, the next time try to quote properly and say what you ment. The way you wrote it, it passed completely different message.

[geoff]

Nil wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2013, "geoff" > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
>> Don't think the 8-tracks ever made much headway anywhere but USA...
>
> Interesting, I didn't know that. I figured their short life was
> worldwide. So, the first common car tape format in NZ was cassette?
>
> I suppose 4-tracks bypassed you completely.

Yep Compact Cassette . There may have been a *few* 8-tracks, but never
mainstream, and most people now (and then) would know wft they were.

geoff

[[email protected]]

Luxey wrote "Well, the next time try to quote properly and say what you ment. The way you wrote it, it passed completely different message. "

Welcome to Amerika, comrade!

All joking aside, I do tend to write(and speak) better than I did just there. And a lot of what you just said goes on here - at a place called Fox News!

lol. Aaaanywho back to topic. ;)

[Nil]

On 28 Oct 2013, "geoff" > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> Yep Compact Cassette . There may have been a *few* 8-tracks, but
> never mainstream, and most people now (and then) would know wft
> they were.

For a while, after their heyday passed, you could pick 8-tracks up off
the side of the road - people were throwing them out their windows!

Now some crazy people actually collect 8-track cartridges these days. I
guess it's a funky-but-chic thing. I'm surprised there are any working
players left these days.

I have a little nostalgia for them. I never owned one, but lots of
people did when I was in high school. It was always annoying when a
long song would fade out ever 10 minutes for the track to change, then
it would fade back in. Or, they would re-sequence the album so it would
fit better. Or, they might edit the songs so they would fit better (for
example, the Reprise of Sgt. Pepper had a verse copied and repeated.
Very disconcerting!

My high school buddy got an 8-track cartridge recorder, so we could
make our own tapes. They still changed tracks every 10 minutes, but one
quick THUNK! was better than the fade-ou/fade-in thing. And the
homemade tapes sounded better the factory ones.

[Chuck[_10_]]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 18:29:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>Luxey wrote "Cassettes were recordable, that's the main point. You could make own compilations"
>
>A few 8-Tracks had the record feature - just saying that they did, cannot speak for the quality of such recordings.


They were terrible; high w & f, crosstalk from other tracks, poor s/n
ratio and poor frequency response.

[S. King]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:39:58 -0500, Chuck wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 18:29:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
>>Luxey wrote "Cassettes were recordable, that's the main point. You could
>>make own compilations"
>>
>>A few 8-Tracks had the record feature - just saying that they did,
>>cannot speak for the quality of such recordings.
>
>
> They were terrible; high w & f, crosstalk from other tracks, poor s/n
> ratio and poor frequency response.

And, you could not re-wind or fast forward if I recall correctly. They
were a continuous loop born from the continuous loop cartridge recorders
used for spots in broadcasting. I was working in a studio that did a lot
of production work during the 8-track period. We only occasionally had a
job to create 8-track masters (from Mercury Records, I think) and hated to
have to deal with the actual cartridges.

Steve King

[Nil]

On 28 Oct 2013, "S. King" > wrote
in rec.audio.pro:

> And, you could not re-wind or fast forward if I recall correctly.

I think that some but not all 8-track players could fast-forward, but
never rewind.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:42:27 -0400, Nil
> wrote:

>On 28 Oct 2013, "S. King" > wrote
>in rec.audio.pro:
>
>> And, you could not re-wind or fast forward if I recall correctly.
>
>I think that some but not all 8-track players could fast-forward, but
>never rewind.

The main problem with the 8-track was the way the tape fed on and off
the single reel - out from the centre and back onto the outside. It
meant that the tape was constantly slipping over itself, and had to be
lubricated. Once that wore off, the tape jammed. A decidedly finite
lifetime.

d

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> Luxey wrote "Well, the next time try to quote properly and say what
> you ment. The way you wrote it, it passed completely different
> message. "
> <snip>
> All joking aside, I do tend to write(and speak) better than I did
> just there.

You obviously have no idea how to quote properly, and everybody knows
that you do NOT tend to write and speak better. You are delusional if
you thing anyone would believe such a ridiculous claim. You refuse to
follow the Usenet norms for quoting, maybe because you're just too
Stupid.

For instance, the post I'm responding to. You refused to quote
properly, and in fact, you called attention to your Stupidity by
trying (and failing) to make a joke about it. Just Plain Stupid. When
anyone tries to set you straight, you just refuse to allow a clue into
your little coffee-bean brain.

[Trevor]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> Nil wrote:
>> On 27 Oct 2013, "geoff" > wrote in
>> rec.audio.pro:
>>
>>> Don't think the 8-tracks ever made much headway anywhere but USA...
>>
>> Interesting, I didn't know that. I figured their short life was
>> worldwide. So, the first common car tape format in NZ was cassette?
>>
>> I suppose 4-tracks bypassed you completely.
>
> Yep Compact Cassette . There may have been a *few* 8-tracks, but never
> mainstream, and most people now (and then) would know wft they were.


8 track players were used in cars here in Australia before Phillips
cassette. Still have a tape myself, and of a local artist made right here,
but nothing to play it on any more.

Trevor.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Nil wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2013, "geoff" > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
>> Yep Compact Cassette . There may have been a *few* 8-tracks, but
>> never mainstream, and most people now (and then) would know wft
>> they were.
>
> For a while, after their heyday passed, you could pick 8-tracks up off
> the side of the road - people were throwing them out their windows!
>


I had a standing deal with people at school - I'd fix 'em. They were
always just wound funny, and it wasn't that much tape. I'd crack the
case,take the spindle out, run the tape to an empty reel, then reverse
the process. This just kinda upacked the tape to where it could slide
again.

Then I'd dub it off on reel to reel if it was interesting.

> Now some crazy people actually collect 8-track cartridges these days. I
> guess it's a funky-but-chic thing. I'm surprised there are any working
> players left these days.
>

There's one in the background of several of the Chuck Lorre shows.

> I have a little nostalgia for them.

I don't. Good Lord, they sucked.

> I never owned one, but lots of
> people did when I was in high school. It was always annoying when a
> long song would fade out ever 10 minutes for the track to change, then
> it would fade back in. Or, they would re-sequence the album so it would
> fit better. Or, they might edit the songs so they would fit better (for
> example, the Reprise of Sgt. Pepper had a verse copied and repeated.
> Very disconcerting!
>
> My high school buddy got an 8-track cartridge recorder, so we could
> make our own tapes. They still changed tracks every 10 minutes, but one
> quick THUNK! was better than the fade-ou/fade-in thing.

You could buy the long tapes and fit an album side per ... run.
SUPERTAPE by Radio Shack, baby... Yeah, you'd get dead spots.

I also built a thingy to run 1/4 track tape on an 8 track deck.
Worked okay, but it was unwieldy. You had to flip the tape over
for the B side. Used the small, like 5.25 inch reels, so you could get
one album per tape.

If I had it to do over again, I'd a gone for the Columbia House
record club because they sold reel to reel tapes.

> And the
> homemade tapes sounded better the factory ones.
>

Absolutely, although people should really realize how bad most vinyl
sounded...

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:42:27 -0400, Nil
> > wrote:
>
>> On 28 Oct 2013, "S. King" > wrote
>> in rec.audio.pro:
>>
>>> And, you could not re-wind or fast forward if I recall correctly.
>>
>> I think that some but not all 8-track players could fast-forward, but
>> never rewind.
>
> The main problem with the 8-track was the way the tape fed on and off
> the single reel - out from the centre and back onto the outside. It
> meant that the tape was constantly slipping over itself, and had to be
> lubricated. Once that wore off, the tape jammed. A decidedly finite
> lifetime.
>
> d
>

You could repack them. I did many this way on behalf of people
I went to school with. The inner spindle ran faster than the capstan,
so it constantly tightened the tape. Repacking it would add *some* life
to the tape. But eventually the lube built into the tape would wear off,
and it would be a lost cause.

I think I sprayed a few that were dried out with WD-40, but that was not
a good idea. Probably gunked up the heads on the playback deck too.


Nobody's mentioned the real problem with these - wow and flutter was
atrocious.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Chuck > wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 18:29:03 -0700 (PDT),
>wrote:
>
>>Luxey wrote "Cassettes were recordable, that's the main point. You could make own compilations"
>>
>>A few 8-Tracks had the record feature - just saying that they did, cannot speak for the quality of such recordings.
>
>
>They were terrible; high w & f, crosstalk from other tracks, poor s/n
>ratio and poor frequency response.

I had a customer who insisted on doing 8-track releases long after the rest
of the world had moved on. He argued that the bass on the 8-track was better
than that of cassette because the cartridge was larger.

That said, the 1" machine I bought with his money to run 8-track bin loop
masters is still in regular use as a production multitrack today. So I got
something out of his obsession witht the format.

It's not just the azimuth errors and the flutter and the unreliability of the
continuous loop. The whole moving-head design was just such a horrible idea.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[polymod]

"Jeff Henig" > wrote in message
...
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>> Jeff Henig wrote:
>>> Les Cargill > wrote:
>>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>> Les Cargill > wrote:
>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>>> "Nil" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On 24 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The EAC mp3 encodes roll down to 19k, and just brickwall straight
>>>>>>>>> down at that freq.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> EAC does not encode mp3s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No but it is often packaged for download with Lame which it will
>>>>>>> then call
>>>>>>> automatically after the .wav file is created.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However strictly speaking Lame does not make MP3s, it makes lossy
>>>>>>> compressed
>>>>>>> files that sound great and play back with MP3 players...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Among all the "distinctions without a difference" I ever saw....
>>>>>
>>>>> The lawyers with the MPEG consider it very, very important.
>>>>> --scott
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am sure they do. Still - ceci n'est pas une pipe.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Les Cargill
>>>
>>> Pass the pipe on the left hand side?
>>>
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> Well alrighty, then. Ya' learn something every day.

That's why I love this place.

Poly

[hank alrich]

geoff > wrote:

> Nil wrote:
> > On 26 Oct 2013, Ron C > wrote in rec.audio.pro:
> >> Car use probably made cassettes as popular as they became, but they
> > would still have been popular anyway because of their convenience and
> > recordability. 8-tracks never had much place outside the car (although
> > a couple of my friends had 8-track recorder home stereo components.)
>
> Don't think the 8-tracks ever made much headway anywhere but USA ...

We like it kinda primitive.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> Nobody's mentioned the real problem with these - wow and flutter was
> atrocious.

It was a huge part of the sound of every one I ever heard, and I coul
dnever get beyond it. I'm pretty good at listening through noise to hear
music, but man, I never made it with 8 track cassette.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

hank alrich wrote:

> geoff > wrote:

>> Nil wrote:
>>> On 26 Oct 2013, Ron C > wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>>>> Car use probably made cassettes as popular as they became, but they
>>> would still have been popular anyway because of their convenience
>>> and recordability. 8-tracks never had much place outside the car
>>> (although a couple of my friends had 8-track recorder home stereo
>>> components.)

>> Don't think the 8-tracks ever made much headway anywhere but USA ...

> We like it kinda primitive.

The sounded OK when recorded on the Akai X1800SD, but I understand from
traffic that the chances of playing a 30 years old 8-track cassette back are
slim.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[geoff]

hank alrich wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>> Nobody's mentioned the real problem with these - wow and flutter was
>> atrocious.
>
> It was a huge part of the sound of every one I ever heard, and I coul
> dnever get beyond it. I'm pretty good at listening through noise to
> hear music, but man, I never made it with 8 track cassette.

Maybe we should demand that sound, again just like the current trend is to
prefer the sound of extreme Autotune artifacts ....


geoff

[[email protected]]

Peter Larsen wrote "traffic that the chances of playing a 30 years old 8-track cassette back are slim."

Got a case of 30, various artists, out of the trunk of my Dad's 1969 Chrysler. Play pretty good on the deck a neighbor gave me 20 years ago.

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>The sounded OK when recorded on the Akai X1800SD, but I understand from
>traffic that the chances of playing a 30 years old 8-track cassette back are
>slim.

Not slim at all, just take it out of the cartridge and put it on an open
reel machine with special heads.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

geoff wrote:
> hank alrich wrote:
>> Les Cargill > wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody's mentioned the real problem with these - wow and flutter was
>>> atrocious.
>>
>> It was a huge part of the sound of every one I ever heard, and I coul
>> dnever get beyond it. I'm pretty good at listening through noise to
>> hear music, but man, I never made it with 8 track cassette.
>
> Maybe we should demand that sound, again just like the current trend is to
> prefer the sound of extreme Autotune artifacts ....
>
>
> geoff
>
>


http://www.vst4free.com/free_vst.php?id=602

--
Les Cargill

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Peter Larsen > wrote:

>> The sounded OK when recorded on the Akai X1800SD, but I understand
>> from traffic that the chances of playing a 30 years old 8-track
>> cassette back are slim.

> Not slim at all, just take it out of the cartridge and put it on an
> open reel machine with special heads.

Thank you Scott, nice to know.

> --scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Trevor]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Peter Larsen > wrote:
>>> The sounded OK when recorded on the Akai X1800SD, but I understand
>>> from traffic that the chances of playing a 30 years old 8-track
>>> cassette back are slim.
>
>> Not slim at all, just take it out of the cartridge and put it on an
>> open reel machine with special heads.
>
> Thank you Scott, nice to know.

That presumes you have 1/4" 8 track heads, or could possibly justify
obtaining some of course. Probably pretty slim also IMO.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Peter Larsen > wrote:
>>>> The sounded OK when recorded on the Akai X1800SD, but I understand
>>>> from traffic that the chances of playing a 30 years old 8-track
>>>> cassette back are slim.
>>
>>> Not slim at all, just take it out of the cartridge and put it on an
>>> open reel machine with special heads.
>>
>> Thank you Scott, nice to know.
>
>That presumes you have 1/4" 8 track heads, or could possibly justify
>obtaining some of course. Probably pretty slim also IMO.

Very very slim indeed, less than half as wide as a 1/4" head. It used to be
people put 8-track deck heads onto a tape machine for the job, then just
shifted the track position by ear. These days the supply of Nortronics
8-track cartridge heads is probably somewhat dried up.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."