renikrill
06-10-2011, 05:36 AM
Counterpart to: Thread 64743

Fill with your assortments of jibble-jabble & the like; informative and/or argumentative, all with regards to the quality representation (or misrepresentation, if you like) of lossless audio.
Every bit of that sort of talk goes in this thread and NOT the above one (which is for d/l links and specific talk with regards to the links/files themselves...)

Peace :-)

---------- Post added at 11:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 PM ----------


Could you help me out in describing what subjectively sounds different about the lossy encodes below? I'm curious to know about it. My high frequency hearing is terrible, but changes in other frequencies I can hear for myself when they are obvious. Or just rank how good you think they sound from best to worst. One of them is the lossless, while the other three are different lossy bitrates/formats.

Folder link:
Free File Hosting Made Simple - MediaFire (http://www.mediafire.com/?2f26lsgbuyudv)

Individual links:
alpha (http://www.mediafire.com/?8jxga2mevxp9a3j), beta (http://www.mediafire.com/?uiuka7tt0atjgt3), gamma (http://www.mediafire.com/?kyvin9naih33q2z), delta (http://www.mediafire.com/?5hkmd1saq4d7n81)


The music is from the same lossless file, "The Shadow of Numeros" from The Legend of Heroes V - A Cagesong of the Ocean (falcom jdk). If anybody wants the whole album (ape+cue, not my rip), let me know!

NW10102320 | The Legend of Heroes V "A Cagesong of the Ocean" Original... - VGMdb (http://vgmdb.net/album/1672)
NW10102330 | The Legend of Heroes V "A Cagesong of the Ocean" Original... - VGMdb (http://vgmdb.net/album/1673)

It's nigh impossible to "describe" specific differences as you hear them in any given track. The way I see it is you can either hear the difference, or you cannot. Simple as that (engineering technicalities aside).
It's not easy to pick out a quality difference given a track you've never heard before, especially one with little dynamic range, so I'd be completely unfazed if I'm incorrect in guessing the following:

alpha and delta are supposedly mp3, or something of a lower caliber (but I'd bet on mp3) 'delta' is the higher bit-rate of these two.
gamma must be the lossless encoding (this seems the crispest of the bunch), and beta is something of a considerably high-fidelity (I'd put my money on AAC?)

I cross-compared alpha and delta on a spectrograph, because I couldn't tell the difference in clarity between them from listening alone. They were obviously the 2 lowest-quality though.

Albanoid
06-11-2011, 11:15 PM
posting in a dead topic, herp (http://forums.ffshrine.org/f72/lossless-video-game-soundtrack-thread-links-first-64743/515.html#post1707522)

also would be prudent to know if anyone testing zeaot's files is doing ABX tests in fb2k and mentioning how many times they're doing it.

zeaot
09-01-2011, 02:52 PM
Oh, I forgot this thread was made. I'm sure nobody cares which was what, but for completeness:

What is what is in the spoiler below (I think--I didn't bother saving these and am going off of memory and others' descriptions. I recall that Arceles did a pretty good job figuring them out, so reading that response jogged my memory)
alpha - LAME 3.98 mp3 -V0 (was like 250 kbps average or so)
beta - aoTuV Vorbis 6.02 -q8 (ended up like 280 kbps average or so)
gamma - original lossless
delta - aoTuV Vorbis 6.02 -q5 (was like 170 kbps average or so)

For portable use I transcode lossless to my "beta" aka latest Vorbis -q8, which is pretty overkill for most music. Maybe it's better to use something lower so I can fit in more tracks, but certainly it works out better than storing FLACs on microSD cards. Uh well, version 6.03 is out now, but that's a bugfix for 5.1 encoding.

Anyway, one point is maybe that mp3 sucks aside from ubiquitous interoperability, and maybe lower complexity for encoding/decoding. ;) There have been many other listening tests on this subject though, so this is nothing new.

Also maybe it's interesting to note that renikrill and Arceles had a different opinion of which was worst.

Personally after ABX I think all of them sound fine, just that there are indeed places where if I crank up the volume and compare carefully, I can tell a difference between the two worst ones compared to either of the two better ones. The two worst ones also sound different in a few places and screw up the music in different ways, but it's mostly subtle. I can't tell between the two better ones at all, but other comparisons are like maybe 8/10 ABX after some training. I didn't sit down and test all day though.

I think the slide up near the beginning and some of the percussive effects are not very kind to most encoders, though this is not a particularly special "problem" track. But I know I've tried to ABX mp3 encoded with LAME 3.98 -V0 with lossless and have not been able to do so, on most music. Here I was able to barely.

Daytime Dreamer
09-05-2011, 08:30 PM
I've seen noted in the lossless audio that some rips that are suppose to be FLAC rips are not. Some people check those with a program that displays a waveform. Which program is that and can anybody put up a mini tutorial how to check FLAC files to be true FLAC indeed?

unrealmaster287
10-29-2011, 12:12 PM
strawman ,
the only reason i use WMA lossless 9.2 !! is because it is the only format with fyll windows property handler support as well as WMP zune and other MS products

I think that chosing a music player comes down to personal preference i personally use WMP with shark007 but if anyone likes th foobar interface then they are provably wrong :P

Ok i am a microsoft die-hard user, so i use WMP!
Get over it :)
Oh and thank you so much for the cuetools link

But the thing that worries me about those is that am i guaranteeed lossless in lossless out, or lossless in bad pecie of **** out, if you know what i mean :)

that is why i am very picky about chosing my audio tools

LiquidAcid
10-29-2011, 12:22 PM
Ok i am a microsoft die-hard user, so i use WMP!

that is why i am very picky about chosing my audio tools
You're contradicting yourself.

unrealmaster287
10-29-2011, 01:59 PM
You're contradicting yourself.
lol
Nice one

i meant audio converters/splitters :)

alc123
10-29-2011, 02:00 PM
if anyone likes th foobar interface then they are provably wrong :PYawn.
But the thing that worries me about those is that am i guaranteeed lossless in lossless out, or lossless in bad pecie of **** out, if you know what i mean :)CueTools doesn't alter the audio data itself in any way. It's simply a tool for changing formats.

unrealmaster287
10-29-2011, 02:05 PM
hey guys i took your advise and tried cuetools but i have a number of questions:
When i chose the output as wav no tags are saved (why)

Second when i chose flac a drop down spears containing

libflac
libflake
libflaccl
flake


and i also get a slider bar with numbers the range depends on the option

to get the absolute best quality which one should i use and what number :P

OK reading back that sentence felt like i was asking a question on those game shows :P

Thanks in advance

strawman
10-29-2011, 02:13 PM
if anyone likes th foobar interface then they are provably wrong :P
I love foobar, but I do wish that it looked more like a Taiwanese overclocking tool.



Fortunately, while I can't make foobar look that awesome, I did hack in a custom menu which lets me set "FSB" to "COLONEL" and then immediately causes a bluescreen, so I'm halfway there.


hey guys i took your advise and tried cuetools but i have a number of questions:
You can't tag WAV files, the format doesn't support it. There's no reason to export to WAV, just go directly to FLAC.

Also, all of those FLAC encoders should theoretically give identical quality, since FLAC is lossless and all; the only difference is encoding time and filesize. If you have a GPU that supports CUDA/OpenCL then use FLACCL, otherwise just use libFLAC. Whichever one you choose, set it to level 8 unless it encodes really slowly. Levels 9-11 for FLACCL aren't officially supported, so some FLAC players might not be able to decode them.

unrealmaster287
10-29-2011, 02:18 PM
cue tools help



hey guys i took your advise and tried cuetools but i have a number of questions:
When i chose the output as wav no tags are saved (why)

Second when i chose flac a drop down spears containing

libflac
libflake
libflaccl
flake




and i also get a slider bar with numbers the range depends on the option

to get the absolute best quality which one should i use and what number :P

OK reading back that sentence felt like i was asking a question on those game shows :P

Thanks in advance

alc123
10-29-2011, 03:26 PM
to get the absolute best quality which one should i use and what number :PThat you're asking this indicates that you don't understand what "lossless" actually means. If there was any difference in the audio quality between any of those FLAC implementations then it wouldn't be lossless, because a change would've occurred.

All of your other questions have already been answered in this (http://forums.ffshrine.org/f72/lossless-video-game-soundtrack-thread-links-first-64743/147.html#post1831990) post. Duplicate posting is probably discouraged here, btw.

unrealmaster287
10-29-2011, 03:55 PM
That you're asking this indicates that you don't understand what "lossless" actually means. If there was any difference in the audio quality between any of those FLAC implementations then it wouldn't be lossless, because a change would've occurred.

All of your other questions have already been answered in this (http://forums.ffshrine.org/f72/lossless-video-game-soundtrack-thread-links-first-64743/147.html#post1831990) post. Duplicate posting is probably discouraged here, btw.

About the duplicating posts it was unintentional i had two tabs open on the same page, one i used to write the post and the other to brows, so when i finished writing the post i was studying, when i came back i looked at the other open tab it did not have my post on it (forgot to refresh honest) and so thought it was a bug (it had had happed to me before on dbpoweramp forums by the way) so i retyped the post again, well not really i save all posts on a notepad (in case i sped 10 mins writing a post and it does not appear)

Believe me or not honestly it was an mistake

second i do know what lossless is i know that wav will give the same quality as flac etc (be easy on me i only got into this lossless scene last month :) ) i was just wondering do the numbers indicate something to do with altering the quality or something, later after ABOUT 25 mins of searching i found out that the options are different encoders and the numbers represent compression.

Which i still dont understand what does compression affect other than file size and if the answer is nothing why dont we compress all our flacs to 8

So there you have it

Leon Scott Kennedy
10-29-2011, 04:09 PM
Which i still dont understand what does compression affect other than file size and if the answer is nothing why dont we compress all our flacs to 8
Encoding/Decoding speed, filesizes (although these aren't always THAT noticeable). Regarding the last question, the answer lies in one of the most obvious reasons: most users simply don't care about these settings and leave the default compression level (usually 5/6, depending on the software).

alc123
10-29-2011, 05:06 PM
Encoding/Decoding speedHonest question, isn't the decoding basically speed the same regardless of FLAC compression level? I was fairly certain higher levels didn't add a significant computational hike, but I might be wrong.

Historically I think the reason for choosing something other than FLAC lvl 8 is encoding time, which was at best a tenuous argument five years ago (spend a few minutes, save a few megabytes, why not?), but frankly anyone whose computer is genuinely struggling with encoding to lvl 8 in this day and age needs to get with the program and upgrade to something that isn't made of steam and clockwork.


Admit it, you secretly wish it looked like this:

http://cdn.windows7themes.net/pics/windows-7-overclocking-software.jpgI tend to forget that software like that actually exists.

Ick.

LiquidAcid
10-29-2011, 07:20 PM
@unrealmaster287: Read the section about "Software vs. format, format vs. codec" on this page (http://avidemux.org/admWiki/doku.php?id=general:common_myths). FLAC defines a bitstream format and also a container for the stream.

tangotreats
10-29-2011, 07:46 PM
Repeat after me:

1) Lossless is lossless. The only variable metric is the file size.

2) Re-encoding lossless format X to lossless format Y yields the same sound quality. It is not "theoretically" the same - it is the same.

3) Decoding to WAV first is a waste of time - it destroys tags, takes longer, and does nothing for the sound quality. The converter is decompressing the audio prior to re-encoding it anyway.

4) Higher compression takes longer to COMPRESS but all about the same to decompress (with the exception of APE at the highest compression level - which is fairly intensive to decode). For the most part, encoding is the mathematically difficult part. Decoding is easy. In 2011 there is no reason whatsoever to use anything but the highest compression level. If the user at the other end wants something different, he can re-encode it himself without quality loss until his heart is content. Lossless is diplomatic; it may not be what EVERYBODY wants but it can be turned INTO what EVERYBODY wants easily by the recipient. Save bitrate and use the highest compression level. It's quicker for you to upload and quicker for the recipient to download.

4) Foobar2000 is fantastic. If you don't like the interface, it can be customised. It is probably the best player out there and most people's converter of choice.

5) Aren't those overclock things UGLY! I suppose it's to distract you from the fact that they basically do nothing.

LiquidAcid
10-29-2011, 08:03 PM
4) Higher compression takes longer to COMPRESS but all about the same to decompress (with the exception of APE at the highest compression level - which is fairly intensive to decode). For the most part, encoding is the mathematically difficult part. Decoding is easy. In 2011 there is no reason whatsoever to use anything but the highest compression level. If the user at the other end wants something different, he can re-encode it himself without quality loss until his heart is content. Lossless is diplomatic; it may not be what EVERYBODY wants but it can be turned INTO what EVERYBODY wants easily by the recipient. Save bitrate and use the highest compression level. It's quicker for you to upload and quicker for the recipient to download.
This can be even extended. The major bottlenecks on most modern systems (both desktop and portables) are storage and memory bandwidth. Even if the computational complexity increases a bit with higher encoding efficiency, this is by far outweighted by the bandwidth benefits. This of course doesn't apply to symmetric codecs.

alc123
10-29-2011, 08:09 PM
It is not "theoretically" the same - it is the same.Agreed, though I think when strawman said "theoretically" he meant "if everything's working correctly" (see also: Medieval Cue Splitter's habit of altering the audio stream).

unrealmaster287
10-29-2011, 08:45 PM
Repeat after me:

1) Lossless is lossless. The only variable metric is the file size.

2) Re-encoding lossless format X to lossless format Y yields the same sound quality. It is not "theoretically" the same - it is the same.

3) Decoding to WAV first is a waste of time - it destroys tags, takes longer, and does nothing for the sound quality. The converter is decompressing the audio prior to re-encoding it anyway.

4) Higher compression takes longer to COMPRESS but all about the same to decompress (with the exception of APE at the highest compression level - which is fairly intensive to decode). For the most part, encoding is the mathematically difficult part. Decoding is easy. In 2011 there is no reason whatsoever to use anything but the highest compression level. If the user at the other end wants something different, he can re-encode it himself without quality loss until his heart is content. Lossless is diplomatic; it may not be what EVERYBODY wants but it can be turned INTO what EVERYBODY wants easily by the recipient. Save bitrate and use the highest compression level. It's quicker for you to upload and quicker for the recipient to download.

4) Foobar2000 is fantastic. If you don't like the interface, it can be customised. It is probably the best player out there and most people's converter of choice.

5) Aren't those overclock things UGLY! I suppose it's to distract you from the fact that they basically do nothing.

Ok miss,i have learn my lesson, now may i please go to the playground and play with all the other kids :P

Sorry i just had to say that, anyway thanks for the info, i now fully understand the differences between lossless formats (there aren't any) exept for file sizes

Second could you show me a screen shot of a decent foobar setup (theme) that looks normal

And please i am not a pc noob (just when it comes to digital audio), i mean i know how to program (c#,C++ and VB.net), but when it comes to digital audio i know very little yet i want everything i dont care about size i dont care about format (thats a lie i do care about the format) i just want to sleep knowing that i have the best sounding audio i can get for my money (come to think of it i spent $0 so lol) I just want a ..............

Wait a second if lossless is lossless then why is there WV,WAV,WMA,FLAC,etc formats O.o
Relax i learn my lesson but honestly why so many formats


PS:
Thanks to all those that helped in my learning process ( i wont mention names because they will fill the page),
I apologize for any 'bad'/dumb questions i posted, and for that double post (Which isn't my fault ) but still

So thank you in advance :)

Good night ladies and gentelmen

Music fades in
-----*CREDITS*-----
Text - me
Questions - me
Answers - Everyone else
Unrealmaster287 played by himself
Every one else played by Them (points at you, yes especially you Michel)

can't blame me for having some fun ;)

LiquidAcid
10-29-2011, 09:06 PM
i mean i know how to program (c#,C++ and VB.net)
*rofl*
Based on your comments and questions here I doubt you could code your way out of a paperbag...

tangotreats
10-29-2011, 09:45 PM
This can be even extended. The major bottlenecks on most modern systems (both desktop and portables) are storage and memory bandwidth. Even if the computational complexity increases a bit with higher encoding efficiency, this is by far outweighted by the bandwidth benefits. This of course doesn't apply to symmetric codecs.

Quite right, didn't think of that! Modern systems can probably decode FLAC faster than the storage medium can physically provide the raw data.


Agreed, though I think when strawman said "theoretically" he meant "if everything's working correctly" (see also: Medieval Cue Splitter's habit of altering the audio stream).

Well, something pretty bad would have to be going on for the audio to be erroneously encoded to a lossy format and decompressed somewhere in the chain... but point taken. It's important to clarify though that there is no "maybe" or "theoretical" as far as the actual process goes. If you do something silly, or your encoding software is doing something silly, anything is possible...


Ok miss,i have learn my lesson, now may i please go to the playground and play with all the other kids :P

Sorry i just had to say that, anyway thanks for the info, i now fully understand the differences between lossless formats (there aren't any) exept for file sizes

Second could you show me a screen shot of a decent foobar setup (theme) that looks normal

I didn't mean to be patronising; I just wanted to collect a few facts together in one place.

Whether a Foobar setup is "decent" to you or not depends entirely on what you want out of it. It's pretty crummy right out of the box but if you spend a little time on it, learn how the customisation works (it's hard work, but it really is worth it) you are virtually able to build your own player from scratch.


Wait a second if lossless is lossless then why is there WV,WAV,WMA,FLAC,etc formats O.o
Relax i learn my lesson but honestly why so many formats

There's always more than one way to do essentially the same thing. All formats are working to the same goal but use different mathematical tricks to get there. There's taking advantage of redundancy (ie, if you have a passage of data that's fifty zeroes, twelve ones, a hundred and fifty zeroes, you can store that in less space by saying 50x0, 12x1, 150x0 etc rather than by explicitly writing out 00000000000000000000000000000000000011111111111000 00 etc) which ZIP, RAR, etc all do as a matter of course. Lossless codecs go further; I do not understand the precise detail of how they work but I do trust that they do work. Lossless audio coding is probably the only audio-technology related piece of processing that you can prove worked without getting into the murky waters of subjective opinion and double blind testing. If you have some raw sound, you compress it, decompress it, compare it to the original, and the data stream is the same, it worked. If they're not, it didn't. :)

LiquidAcid
10-30-2011, 01:48 AM
Lossless codecs go further; I do not understand the precise detail of how they work but I do trust that they do work.
It's not really that complicated. E.g. FLAC has basically five steps: blocking, inter-channel decorrelation, modeling, residual coding and framing

Blocking is kind of self-explanatory, you just hack the input stream into blocks of a certain length (VBS = variable block size is possible).
Inter-channel decorrelation is what's usually known as joint-stereo in the lossy/MP3 world. It's just taking advantage that e.g. the two channels of a stereo channel contain "mostly" the same signal.
Modeling now tries to approximate the signal of a give block with an "easy" mathematical function. Easy in the sense that you need only a few bits to store the type of the function. Now since this is only an approximation, you need the next step.
Residual coding now takes the difference signal (difference between approximated and input signal) and applies a normal data compression to it (Rice-coding in the case of FLAC). If the approximating function was well chosen by the encoder, than this step is mostly going to encode zeros (zero = no difference between approximated and input signal).
Framing is then just packaging of the computed data (the appromation function plus the encoded difference signal) together with some checksum and a header.

Well, and that's it.

unrealmaster287
10-30-2011, 08:45 AM
Ok thanks all for all the help :)

And LiquidAcid, yes i know my questions were extremely dumb pointless and redundant :) but come on its a holiday here, i have nothing better to do than sit on a text editor and write some verbal diarrhea without thinking about it

And i do admit that when i posted that question for the different flac encoders and the compression bar thing, the fact that it is still lossless skimped my mind i thought it affected bit rate/freq/something

tangotreats, and LiquidAcid, and every one else thanks for the info,

PS:
I use VS 2010 SP1 to program in VB and C#
My VB.net skills are mid/expert
My C# is so,so
I use a program called kiss for my C++ but it is basically rubbish (i use it for the bot ball competition so i only need to use loops and pre-defined functions, sometimes i create my own functions :) )

Could we close this thread and forget it ever happened ;)

B l u e
07-20-2012, 02:45 AM
Great topic, but a lot of osts links are down.

melonofwater
07-21-2012, 05:43 AM
Great topic, but a lot of osts links are down.

D-Reaper
07-21-2012, 11:24 AM
I think he meant previous post.

radliff
07-21-2012, 11:38 AM
no, milo's stuff seems all there

EDIT: I think he means the first page, which the title suggests to be, let's call it 'curated'.

Kaitlin.EXE
07-21-2012, 02:12 PM
I was about to say the same thing. Almost every link (not for say ALL) from the first page are dead, even there�s still being links for the closed Megaupload.
You should update the first page since it�s VERY EASY to get lost in this 768 pages thread and don�t find the OST you want, or find it and get dissapointed because the links are dead. (Personal experience...)

I�m not maybe a good uploader, and I�m not too active in the forum since I�m a noob, but I�m willing to offer myself for check ALL the links you have for help you.

LiquidAcid
07-21-2012, 02:14 PM
You should update the first page since it�s VERY EASY to get lost in this 768 pages thread and don�t find the OST you want, or find it and get dissapointed because the links are dead. (Personal experience...)
That's not going to happen. Sirusjr already explained the situation.

Executable
07-21-2012, 02:41 PM
I�m not maybe a good uploader, and I�m not too active in the forum since I�m a noob

Not too Noob to Download since 2008, eh ?


Kaitlin.EXE
07-21-2012, 05:42 PM
o.oU ... well... I�m not too sure how to get that... Either way I want to apologize if I did something wrong or that last post sounds way hipocrite for anyone... never meant to do it, since I don�t visit the forum that much in all those years and I THINK I don�t download that much...I just liked the way you guys worked that hard in bring us all those Lossless OST.

Despair
07-21-2012, 06:20 PM
I think Lossless Video Game Soundtrack Thread is a pretty cool guy and doesnt afraid of anything

Executable
07-21-2012, 07:16 PM
I think Lossless Video Game Soundtrack Thread is a pretty cool guy and doesnt afraid of anything

Wait....

in 2012...Man and Girls look like this....(till emanzipation...and metro sex...it whas vice versa)






Puea
07-21-2012, 08:41 PM
Isn't this Thread supposed to be a little bit more about music?

I have nothing against Off-Topic Stuff, but at some point it's going to far :/

Executable
07-21-2012, 09:44 PM
Isn't this Thread supposed to be a little bit more about music?

I have nothing against Off-Topic Stuff, but at some point it's going to far :/

Say that again, when the battle starts AGAIN "why use FLAC ?" "whats cuesheet?" "mp3 sounds same as that FLAC/ALAC/etc file".....


They certainly don't employ some super-secret RSA codebreaking technique to examine the contents of an encrypted RAR file. They just take that shit down.

Most Filehosters today have that funtion build in....make it pretty easy to spot.
You sure come across some MD5 files....thats basically the same.

Hash function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_function)

Hellacia
07-21-2012, 09:47 PM
I'll say one thing: passwording your files is retarded, it just makes us have to go back and see what the password is again, or make us keep all the passwords down in a notepad file or something. For those of us that download in batches and are not at our computer 24/7 waiting to extract the file right when it finishes downloading, it's a pain in the ass. And, like alc123 said, it doesn't do shit. What, do you guys think the Mediafire staff thoughtfully downloads each file that's reported to check if it's actually infringing copyright? And if they can't open it because it has a password on it, they think "Oh, well, I can't prove it, so I won't delete this one"? If anything the password is a dead giveaway, and that's ignoring the point that they're not checking shit anyway. In fact I'd venture to say that the vast majority of reported files are done so by hyperlink referral rather than manual reporting. There's not some douchebag crawling this site looking for links to report. This site is on their blacklist, and if a link to their site is so much as clicked on from this site, it's an automatic flag for deletion because they know about this site's content.

Just saying... guys... this password stuff is retarded.

alc123
07-21-2012, 10:06 PM
Most Filehosters today have that funtion build in....make it pretty easy to spot.
You sure come across some MD5 files....thats basically the same.

Hash function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_function)Did you mean to respond to me, or...? Because none of that relates to what I said.


There's not some douchebag crawling this site looking for links to report.Actually I think there probably is. The extended life of some links and unbelievably fast takedown of others seems to suggest it, anyway. And don't forget that some people get really, seriously bent out of shape over copyright infringement.

lvalice2
07-21-2012, 10:28 PM
I'll say one thing: passwording your files is retarded, it just makes us have to go back and see what the password is again, or make us keep all the passwords down in a notepad file or something. For those of us that download in batches and are not at our computer 24/7 waiting to extract the file right when it finishes downloading, it's a pain in the ass. And, like alc123 said, it doesn't do shit. What, do you guys think the Mediafire staff thoughtfully downloads each file that's reported to check if it's actually infringing copyright? And if they can't open it because it has a password on it, they think "Oh, well, I can't prove it, so I won't delete this one"? If anything the password is a dead giveaway, and that's ignoring the point that they're not checking shit anyway. In fact I'd venture to say that the vast majority of reported files are done so by hyperlink referral rather than manual reporting. There's not some douchebag crawling this site looking for links to report. This site is on their blacklist, and if a link to their site is so much as clicked on from this site, it's an automatic flag for deletion because they know about this site's content.

Just saying... guys... this password stuff is retarded.

Mediafire wouldn't have to download anything... Its their servers, their storage. They can instantly access files without downloading.

And pass-wording archives actually does seem to help, even if ten 200MB parts of a rar archive is a dead giveaway for copyrighted material. I often encounter dead links in my quest for music and games, and while I do sometimes encounter dead links with passwords printed by them, the amount of pass-worded deadlinks I find is barely even a fraction of the dead links I encounter that don't have a password. Pass-wording can also reduce people taking credit for other uploads.

Also one more important thing... The fucking files are free... If you can't be bothered to write down or revisit the source you downloaded FREE MEDIA from to get the unlock key, then go buy the damn stuff yourself for often $30 or more apiece. Its THEIR media and they have the right to share it in the manor that THEY dictate. Even if the passwords are ineffective and annoying, its not like you're giving up anything except a few seconds to literally highlight, copy, and paste a string of text.

The only thing you have any right to complain about is if someone posts a wrong password, or if they're not providing lossless. If you think pass-wording is retarded, then you don't have to download shit. Just go away and find it else where or be prepared to pay for it.

I mean for fuck's sake... the passwords are pasted right by the URL's... Thats like if someone left the key in the door, and a thief bitches publicly "I gotta turn that shit a quarter clockwise to get free stuff?! Fuck that!" Way to bite any hands that feed. Your douchebaggery is noted.

Hellacia
07-21-2012, 10:31 PM
Actually I think there probably is.

Okay, but... he still doesn't care if you used a password! And neither does Mediafire!

/rage

(No seriously, passwords are retarded. Nobody use passwords anymore.)


You can't point out when something is wrong when it's wrong if it's free.

Oh daaaaaaaang, forgot the rules of the interwebz there! My bad! lolz!

Stop fucking using passwords!

Leon Scott Kennedy
07-21-2012, 10:34 PM
1) What? Any right to complain about users not uploading lossless?! Mwahahah! Never have I heard a bigger bullshit. Seriously, follow your own advice: go and purchase the album if you're not happy with what people share for free, I'll politely remind you that they must not give you anything.

2) Again, their share(s), their rule(s)... as long as they don't go against the community ones. They want to use passwords, slow file-hosting services, random filenames?! Bear with it, if you want the damn thing, otherwise leave it there. It's retarded to complain about your waste of time when others already wasted their time to offer you the album/single/whatever.

cooljacker
07-21-2012, 10:48 PM
Stop fucking using passwords!

Along with bulk downloading, you can sometimes drop by to thank the uploader/ripper, heh...

But nobody's forcing you to, just like you can't force (some) uploaders to stop using passwords. Deal.with.it.

lvalice2
07-21-2012, 11:09 PM
Of course theres a right to complain if someone doesn't upload lossless... Ignoring the fact that its just downright disrespectful to the music itself to upload as a lossy file, but I myself refuse to put anything on my lucky (my 2TB external harrdrive that I call lucky) that is not lossless. So I don't download MP3, so since I don't download MP3, then I don't owe the original uploader anything, so I have a clear conscious and everyright to assault anyone of my choosing with a barrage of insults. I don't do this and instead ignore threads because there are so many threads that spit on albums by uploading as MP3, so I just don't bother.

So yeah... since you pointed this out... I half-takeback what I said earlier to the guy earlier about just dealing with it... If he has the will to refuse download anything with a password, then he has the right to complain. I myself download lossless and only lossless so I never had a problem with passwords. But I'll always refuse the slop people call MP3s, so I get to bash MP3 uploaders all I want, don't you think?

Leon Scott Kennedy
07-21-2012, 11:22 PM
Nope, I don't agree. They're offering a free service, going as far as risking to face legal troubles... and for what? To share with a bunch of random, unknown, folks. They deserve respect, regardless of what and/or how they share. In your appreciation for lossless you forgot one very basic thing: you are not supposed to enjoy a 128kbps MP3 encode [or transcode] when you don't own legally the original album. So, yeah, the downloader doesn't really have much to complain/bash about. Don't like what others share?! Shut the fuck up and wait, or solve the problem yourself.

Don't forget that sharing is an act of kindness, folks, (potential) sharers don't owe you shit, nor they have to go by your standards. The likes of you don't really make others want to take that road.

emuxer
07-22-2012, 12:47 AM
Do we always have to go through this with newbies? The next time someone posts something like: Can someone upload today the CD that will be out tomorrow in Japan? or Can someone upload the soundtrack directly to my computer?, I say we just ignore them. We already have a hard time dealing with the storage services to waste it on newbies, let a mod send him a PM explaining him why we ignore him and why we thing it's stupid, instead of making pages and pages of trolling or discussions like the above. Let's move on.

Hellacia
07-23-2012, 10:28 PM
Thank you for the info. Do you know the proper, step-by-step way to rip or have a proposed one at least? I wish someone really knowledgeable on these things would make a comprehensive guide about it :)

I'll attempt one right here. I'm not trying to make this pretty, so it's basically going to be a wall of text with no pictures, but I assume we can all find our way around EAC :)

----
EAC Settings
----

1. The extraction tab.
Check "fill up missing offset samples with silence". This does what it says, and replaces samples lost due to your drive's offset with silence so the track length will remain the same, rather than becoming shorter. For example, if your drive has a +18 offset, you will lose 18 samples from the track. So, this option fills them back in. However, it does so with silence, so if there were non-silent audio samples in those 18 samples you lost, then it's that less lossless of a rip. To combat that, you'll need to have a drive that overreads into the lead-in and lead-out.
Check "synchronize between tracks". This basically prevents pops and gaps from occurring in between tracks. Sounds good (no pun intended).
Don't check the third box. This essentially achieves the opposite of the first box and makes sure the track isn't as long as it should be. Very lame.
The skip track boxes are there for if your disc is having errors, can't properly extract a track, and will take all day just to try and do so. You can check these if you want just to save you some time, just know when your drive has had an error.
The next two boxes are also optional. If you're worried about drive heat, check the first one, fiddle with the options. If you're worried about the drive opening during extraction, check the second one (I actually have this checked and it saved me once since I accidentally flicked the drive button while near my computer).
Extraction priority can be whatever you want, I use High. Error recovery quality should be High, just to give it the best chance it can get.

2. The general tab.
The only required box on this tab is the third box "on unknown CDs," which you are required to turn OFF. Yes, that's right, I said off. All this box does is adds CD-Text to CDs that don't have it and changes the CD-Text on CDs that do have it. CD-Text is data about the CD just like any other subchannel code is, like pregaps, and goes into your CUE sheet accordingly. Adding it or changing it is not acceptable. Uncheck this box.
I also think it's good to check the fourth box, "display times using frames". Frames are more accurate then seconds because they are the CD's native interval of time; seconds can't be exactly calculated from frames and have to be rounded to. It won't affect the quality of anything though.

3. The tools tab.
This tab is much more important. To start, you always want to have the first tab checked. It adds subchannel code to your CUE sheet, which is quite literally what your CUE sheet is for: to contain all the data of a CD that isn't the audio (indexes, pregaps, catalogs, ISRCs, CD-Text). Always have this box checked. Some drives don't retrieve this data properly and that's a shame, but at least we'll still know that the data's there.
The "use CD-Text information in CUE sheet generation" tab is going to be one of the trickier tabs, and goes hand-in-hand with the box we turned off in the "general" tab. This tab will usually be turned off, but you have to know when to turn it on. If you put a CD in your drive and it has it's own CD-Text, then you will turn this option on for the usage of that CD. Otherwise, you have it turned off.
The third option is optional. Personally, I can't stand those fucking things and delete them on sight, but generate them if you like.
Check the fourth and fifth boxes. One writes the LOG file we all know and love, and the other appends a checksum that can be verified with a tool that comes with EAC, so we know it hasn't been edited. Very good things right here.
Everything else is optional (except the last box actually :D).

4. The normalize tab.
Keep the box unchecked, period. Normalizing changes the volume of the audio file. Did we say "changes"? Not lossless. Not good.

5. Just kidding! There is no number 5 for this section. That's right, all the other tabs are optional. Well actually, the "interface" tab should be set so that you use a Windows interface unless... you know some reason you shouldn't o_O

----
Drive Settings
----

1. The extraction method tab.
Obviously, you want to be in Secure Mode.
Enable Accurate Stream.
Whether or not you should disable your cache depends on the drive you're using. Though I actually don't need to, I disable my cache for two reasons: because it can only yield positive results, and so people can't find anything wrong with the rip. It's good to disable it, but if you know you don't need to (if you know), then it's perfectly fine not to.
As for C2 errors, a few drives support them, and if you know your drive does and think it will help you with a scratched disc or something, then enable them. But usually, you'll have this turned off.

2. The drive tab.
Not much to do here. With a CD in the drive, you can detect your drive's read command. The read command can really help with extraction speed. Don't select one yourself unless you really know what you're doing.
The next three boxes should be unchecked, unless you know you need to use them for some reason (not usually the case).
At the bottom, check the CD-Text read capable drive box in hopes that your drive can read CD-Text. It's an important part of getting an as-close-to-perfect rip as possible. I think many drives can read CD-Text, but it's kind of tough testing this out because there's not exactly a list of CDs with CD-Text on them, so you just kind of have to hope it works.

3. The offset / speed tab.
To start, DO NOT USE ACCURATERIP WITH YOUR DRIVE. This will force you to use an offset that is +30 from what you should use.
The default offset you should use is -30 from what Accuraterip says. So, +30 becomes 0, +6 becomes -24, etc. That is what you should put for starters in your offset box.
If your drive can overread into the lead-in and lead-out, then definitely check that box. That's an important part in catching every sample. If your drive can't do it; you may not miss samples, but you may, which would be a shame.
Use "current" speed.
Allow speed reduction during extraction.

4. The gap detection tab.
Your gap/index retrieval method should be set to Method A / Secure. If your drive can't use this method for some reason, choose Method B or Method C, but try to keep it on secure.

5. The writer tab.
I won't go into this, since I think the idea is to rip CDs, not burn them.

----
The Ripping Process
----

1. Put the CD in your drive!
2. Notice whether or not there is CD-Text - that is, whether or not information about the tracks comes up in the editor. If it's all just Track01, Track02 with Unknown Artist and Unknown Album, then you keep the "use CD-Text information in CUE sheet generation" option in the "tools" tab unchecked. If information does come up, then go and check that box.
3. Press F4 to detect the pregaps.
4. In the "action" menu, select the method you'd like to rip with. Typically, this will be test & copy, with or without any lossless compression format you might have chosen (FLAC, APE, etc). I'm not going to help you set up a compression format with EAC because I don't use one with EAC! I rip to WAV and then compress outside of EAC with FLAC, APE, or whatever I'm using. Personal choice, you do what you want. You can also rip to a range, there's nothing wrong with that (however it makes retrieving a whole HTOA kind of tricky and just really not worth it, but that's only for CDs with an HTOA which are extremely few).
5. Now that we've ripped the music, create the CUE sheet, done via the "action" menu again. You probably want the second-to-last option in the "action" menu checked, "append gaps to previous track (default)", if it isn't already. Then you can just create the CUE sheet with the "current gap settings..." option in the "create CUE sheet" submenu. Of course, you can use prepended gaps and it won't affect how lossless your rip is (actually they make more sense then appended gaps), but many people don't like them. The thing with appended gaps is that, if a CD has a "hidden track" in between tracks, in a pregap (usually a short 30 second - 1 minute intro of sorts), appending the gaps will cause the intro of one track to actually be the ending of another track, so that track will end very strangely and the other track won't begin like it should. However all the audio data is still there and in contiguous order, so it's still a lossless method of handling gaps.
6. Remove the REM DISCID and REM COMMENT crap that EAC adds to the CUE sheets. It's really stupid and doesn't belong on the CUE sheet because it's not part of the CD. Do you think there is a reference to ExactAudioCopy v1.0b3 on a CD, especially one created 20 years before EAC was even created? No, nor is the DISCID stored somewhere on the CD. The DISCID was made up by CDDB as a method of identifying discs, it's not part of a CD.
7. Don't be afraid to change filenames how you like. There's no such thing as a "filename" on a CD, only indexes, and as long as you don't change those, you're good. Make sure to change the filenames in the CUE sheet accordingly, and use the right extension! CUE sheets default to WAV, and there's nothing more annoying than pointing to a bunch of WAV files that don't exists because they are actually FLAC files.

----
Special Methods
----
1. Want to know when it's appropriate to change your offset? This required quite a bit of extra work and some technical know-how. It also requires a drive that can overread into lead-in and lead-out. If you don't have a drive like this, then this will be a total waste of your time. This is also only for people that care about retrieving every sample from the CD (that is, they don't want to lose samples because they want lossless ;)).
To start, rip the first and last track of the CD with your drive's normal offset (again, this is -30 from the Accuraterip/EAC offset). These need to be WAV files, so they can be worked with. Then, with a tool like silrem (http://www.noisetime.com/silrem.html), check to see if there is silence at the beginning of the first track and at the end of the last track. If there is silence at the beginning of the first track, then we haven't missed any non-silent samples at the beginning of the CD, and same goes with the end of the CD if the last track has silent samples at the end of the rip. However, if you have non-silent samples all the way to the end of a CD, then you will need to extend your drive's offset to the point where you catch the last sample.
To test for this in silrem, it's pretty simple. First of all, move the tracks to the silrem folder. Then open the program, go to the "output" tab and make sure the third box from the bottom, "create files even if nothing changed", is unchecked. It should be by default. You should also set up a subfolder to output the files to using the box titled "subfolder" to the right of the "source folder with" option. Just call it "new" or something.
In the "processing" tab, uncheck the "link silence removal of beginning and end" box. Stupidest option I've ever seen, and it makes our task impossible. Now, uncheck the box to remove silence at the end, and keep the box to remove silence from the beginning checked. Make sure that the threshold is "-inf (digital zero)". This will make the program look only for true silent samples, which are 00s in a WAV file.
Now, in the "input" tab, click the "Add..." button in the bottom-left corner and add the first track. Then just click the "process" button in the top-right corner. If it creates a new file, you're good and don't need to worry about the beginning of the CD. Now go back to the "processing" tab, uncheck the option to remove silence from the beginning and check the option to remove silence from the end, again at -inf. Now go back to the "input" tab, select the last track, and process. If it creates a new file: great news! You don't need to change your drive's offset. You're good to go with your default offset, all the samples on the CD will be caught. Of course, let's say it doesn't create a new track for the beginning or end. Okay, now you have to get really tricky...
To start, you will need to re-rip the track that wasn't affected by silrem (let me say here that if neither track was affected, then you're screwed and this is a CD that you cannot retrieve every sample from). Go back into EAC, and this time, set your offset to 100 less or more than your default offset: if you're doing the beginning track, subtract 100; if you're doing the end track, add 100. Now rip the track and open the resulting WAV in an waveform viewer. I use Sound Forge 7.0 (don't hate, I'm too lazy to update); you can use anything that doesn't do any strange interpolation of the waveform, and just shows it to you in its normal form. I can't comment on any waveform viewers that do interpolation nor could I tell you how to disable it, because I've only used Sound Forge. If there is a high demand for it, I can test some free waveform viewers out.
Anyway, open the new track in the waveform viewer program and zoom the waveform in as high as you can. The peaks should spike up really high and should basically just be gigantic blocks until the end, where it will die down. Go all the way to the end of the file. There will be some samples where there are no peaks. Moving left of that, you will eventually see some peaks again. You need to count how many silent samples there are, which is possible usually by just clicking at the end of the non-silent samples, holding shift, and hitting end; the program should tell you in how many samples your selection is. You need to take this number and modify your +/-100 offset with it; + if you're doing the beginning track, and - if you're doing the end track. So, say my drive's offset has a 0. Oh noes, there's non-silent samples at the end of the CD. So, I rip with +100. I figure out "okay, now there's 56 silent samples at the end of the track." So, 100-56=44. So, I need to rip this disc with a +44 offset to catch everything (p.s. I've found about 6 discs now that have needed +44 so this example is not coming out of my ass).
Sorry if that is confusing to you, but right now it's the best I can do. I've been writing this thing for almost 2 hours, lol. If people want me to improve it, I'll try to improve it later.

2. Does your CD have a HTOA, meaning there's a hidden track before track 1? There's a special way to rip these, rather than just using the typical EAC commands. To do it, you can't be afraid to enter the Windows registry and manually change some values. You also, again, need a drive that can overread into lead-in and lead-out. You also kind of need a drive whose offset isn't negative (though this isn't as important).
Hit the "start" button in Windows and click on "Run..." (sorry if these directions aren't exact for your version of Windows, I'm on XP, but I think you know what I mean). Type "regedit" without the quotes and press Enter or hit OK. The Registry Editor should open. It may be something weird like "regedt32" if "regedit" doesn't work.
In the Registry Editor, Hit Ctrl+F and search for "CDTextCapable" without the quotes. It should take you to a place where EAC has stored the settings for any drive you have ever configured/used with EAC. This should be in HKEY_CURRENT_USER, not HKEY_USERS. HKEY_CURRENT_USER should be the first result anyway though.
Alright, in the left side column, find the drive that you're currently using. For example I have three: TSSTcorpCD/DVDW TS-H552L 0614, IDE-DVD DROM6216 HD08 and PLEXTOR DVDR PX-716A 1.11. The PLEXTOR is the drive I currently use, so I'll click on that. Now, in the right panel, we have a column of different keys we can change. Find the one called SampleOffset and double-click on it. We're going to change it so that it equals -44100, plus whatever your drive's default offset is. So, for example, my default offset for the Plextor is 0, so I'll just use -44100. However, if your drive's offset was +18, you'd use -44082. However, changing a value into a negative using hex is a little tricky, so we have to enlist the aide of our good friend Calculator.
Open Calculator and make sure you're in Scientific/Programmer/whatever they call it mode so that you can use hex values. Hit the - button, then 44100, then hit =. This will change it into -44100. Add your offset to this. Now hit the hex button to convert this to hex. You will get a really long string of Fs with a few different letters/numbers at the end. For the Plextor (0 offset), I get FFFFFFFFFFFF53BC. Now you need to know what to do with those results.
Since there are This particular value likes to eat its hard-boiled eggs from the little end first, so it's in Little Endian notation. This means that the least significant value goes first (the smallest end of the egg). Since the SampleOffset key is asking for 8 digits, take the last 8 digits of the number calculator gave you. In my case, that's FFFF53BC. Now reverse the order of every pair of bytes. So,
FF FF 53 BC
becomes
BC 53 FF FF
You will do the same with your number, and that is what you will enter into the SampleOffset key in Registry Editor. Make sure to highlight all the values currently there and replace them; don't add more. You should have 2 pairs of 4 values when you're done, 8 in total.
Now close Registry Editor (you may wish to save that key into your favorites first so it's easy to get to later) and open EAC. Go to the drive options and check the "offset / speed" tab. Your offset should be at -44100! The reason we have to do this is because EAC is stupid and won't let us change stuff past 11760 samples in either direction, plus or minus. So, we have to force EAC to accept such a high offset. Don't worry, EAC can still use the offset correctly, it just doesn't like to accept it.
Now you can detect gaps and rip the hidden track using the "copy selected tracks index-based" method in EAC's action menu. If you get an error from EAC about your filename construct, you need to add %tracknr2% to your naming scheme in the EAC Options filename tab. After the 01.00 index rips, you can cancel the operation, since it will just go through the whole CD like that, and that's not how you want to rip a CD (it is the only way to rip a HTOA though).
I'll mention now that while I had original said -88200 in my post and pio2000 said it in his post, when I use -88200, I just get a bunch of ripping errors. -44100 extracts the track successfully without any errors and without missing any data (at least for the CD I'm testing with, which is disc 3 of the SaGa Frontier Original Sound Track). My bad on the error before.

And there is my guide to ripping. If you have anything to add/correct/bitch about... what are forums for!

LiquidAcid
07-24-2012, 12:58 AM
I hope someone actually reads the threads (in full!) about the offset issues that Hellacia linked. Because they don't really proof at all, that this newly proposed offset shift by 30 samples is more correct. In particularly this IpseDixit guy doesn't give any proof at all, he just claims some stuff by using big words.

Hellacia
07-24-2012, 01:21 AM
he just claims some stuff by using big words.

You of all people dare to accuse someone of this? That's pretty laughable. Anyway, the guy ran tests with equipment, I don't think he's lying. Even if he is, consider this: Andre was successful in finding each drive's offset compared to each other, but not compared to any kind of global starting point (which we call the reference offset). He admitted this in words and you can even ask him about it: he has said that the +30 offset was chosen because he found many discs that happened to end on that exact point, not because he analyzed the pits and lands of CDs or anything else. Also, it still doesn't change the fact that we need to use different offsets to catch every sample of many CDs, so using one offset for your drive as the only acceptable offset is still a bad idea, whether it's +30, 0, or -6395. You still need to figure out the offset you need to rip a certain CD at, and that much is always going to be the same across drives (relative to each other of course).

Rather than go with a value Andre guessed at based on a few CDs that he saw ended at that point, I'll go with the guy that has at least done some research. Based on Andre's method, I can propose on multiple CDs I've seen that the new offset for a Plextor should not be +30, but instead, +44. How does that make things any better? Just because I've seen CDs end at +44 doesn't mean that everything needs to be ripped at +44. Yeah, sure, we don't know if any value is the "correct" value and at a certain point it's silly because the correct value is also dependent on the offset of the factory's pressing equipment. But I'm not going with +30, I'm going with 0, because not only has IpseDixit gone through the trouble to bring the issue to everyone's attention, but some of the great knowledgeable people of EAC's time, like pio2000, has backed him, so I'm going to go with his research as well.

LiquidAcid
07-24-2012, 01:49 AM
In case you missed his closing post in the first thread:

I think I will now close this topic with some closing remarks:

- No program will ever exactly copy an audio CD (including all subchannels, TOC, CD-Text, pregaps and so on). This is technically not possible (but perhaps special (hardware only) CD copier)
- There is no "correct" read offset, even the second proposed offset is only proposed, there is no real "proof" that it is correct. I just believe it could be correct. Does it make that offset better than the first - I don't think so.
- Offset correction does really only matter as a combined offset. If you use a "bad" read offset, only some samples(!) (around 0,0006 seconds) of audio from the very beginning or the very end of a CD will be "wrong" (and only if there is no silence in that area, otherwise the copy _will_ be correct!)
- It is much more probable that your reader has more limitations that this, so a real exact copy would not be possible anyway (with a very high probability), so I don't think that we should care about 30 samples.
- Using the AccurateRip compatible offset has more advantages than disadvantages, perhaps(!) it will remove 0.0006 seconds of audio at the beginning of a CD, but it is able to tell you (with a probability) whether you ripped your track in burst mode ok or not...

As I said, I think most opinions here come from believe! Nothing is really proofed and the small offset is not really important (as there is no problem to use the correct combined offset).

Finally, this topic is closed!

cu, Andre

This whole debate about correct offset is pointless anyway, since it's essentially a design defect of Redbook. Andre is just being pragmatic about it.

Hellacia
07-24-2012, 02:29 AM
Then you can pragmatically enjoy missing samples in your rips and being as inaccurate as everyone else. Oh by the way considering that this is coming from a guy who says "Nobody needs lossless" and then goes on to talk to about lossy formats in his signature, I don't expect you to understand other peoples' need to try and capture as much as they possibly can about an audio CD, whether it's subchannel code like pregaps, indexes, catalogs, ISRCs, CD-Text and such, or every last sample of the audio itself that they can grab, instead of just saying "Well since I can't achieve total and absolute perfection there's no point in getting as close as I can". Enjoy that motto. If you want to rip with "Accurate"rip, fine, but don't just post to play devil's advocate and try to make it look like you have a point by rattling off the same inaccuracies everyone else has been repeating for years. Also you conveniently didn't quote the parts of Andre's posts that support the offset change, like:

the vast majority of CDs I measured at that time had the exact same offset (and most of them were from different studios and manufacturers!). So if around 6/10 CDs have the exact same offset, I must have come to the conclusion that this is the most valid offset. (And I did find some other offsets on CDs doing these tests...)
Therefore I never have stated that my offset is the absolute correct and only possible (zero) offset. My intention was not to find that absolute (zero) offset (but come as close to it as possible) in order to bring all drives to the same extraction results. I knew that I didn't have the tools to determine the absolute (zero) offset these days, but a partial success seemed to be better than none.
He admits multiple times that he didn't know what the absolute zero offset was and instead just went with what he saw on "the vast majority of CDs", which of course isn't the vast majority because there are literally hundreds of thousands of CDs out there from all different countries and Andre probably only tested a few hundred. After all, how many CDs can one human being own - a thousand? Even that is a blip compared to how many are out there. Bet you he never tested Atelier Iris, because then he would have seen some pretty wild offsets (or maybe he did and just fucking ignored them). He just went with the one he most commonly found to try and come up with an absolute zero offset. So let's see, we have "well I just looked at a bunch of different results and went with a common one" or we have

I've talked to Rich Wall, at DCA (Doug Carson and Associates),
THE optical disc encoder company (DCA - The Innovation Continues! (http://www.dcainc.com)),
he allowed me to disclose about the offset experiment:
he prepared a DDP file (Disc Descriptor Protocol) for me
where 1st byte of 00: 02.00 was !00 and encoded it
in a MIS VIII encoder (http://www.dcainc.com/products/MIS/MIS_V8/),
then captured signal from LBR (Laser Beam Recorder) into a bitstream
in a raw reading file, discovering encoder places main channel's 1st byte
aligned into channel frame 00: 02.00, then came genial Mr. Sidney Cadot
(http://ch.tudelft.nl/~sidney/) with his FPGA audio readout system
(Offsets handling (syncing of audio data vs. Q channel) - Club MyCE (http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=111913) ), made with an
old drive which precisely returns such !00 when asked for 00:02.00,
Then I concluded when I saw such drive in Wiethoff's database having
a +30 samples offset correction.
Hmmmmmmmm.

What I find funny is that when you post your walls of technical shit, LiquidAcid, it's biblical and you're never wrong and it's not just "big words", yet when someone comes around, runs some really high-tech tests and discovers some things beyond the realm of capacity you can discover things at yourself, THEN it's just "big words". Yeah, okay, like I said, you enjoy your guessed-at offset and your shared inaccuracies and let those who want to improve the quality of their rips do so.


This whole debate about correct offset is pointless anyway, since it's essentially a design defect of Redbook. Andre is just being pragmatic about it.


Yeah, sure, we don't know if any value is the "correct" value and at a certain point it's silly because the correct value is also dependent on the offset of the factory's pressing equipment. But I'm not going with +30, I'm going with 0, because not only has IpseDixit gone through the trouble to bring the issue to everyone's attention, but some of the great knowledgeable people of EAC's time, like pio2000, has backed him, so I'm going to go with his research as well.
Already addressed that.

---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

By the way here's some more good reading, in which pio2000 and IpseDixit actually discuss what's going on, rather than IpseDixit just saying "okay I did this, the end".
Offsets handling (syncing of audio data vs. Q channel) - Club MyCE (http://club.myce.com/f61/offsets-handling-syncing-audio-data-vs-q-channel-111913/)
You see, this information isn't just taken at face value because someone said they did it: it was discussed and explained out by people who really know what they're doing. It wasn't just accepted without understanding. Of course, I wouldn't expect someone like you to actually read further into this LiquidAcid, and hence you've probably never seen that thread, or the discussions about the project, such as this post (http://club.myce.com/f61/offsets-handling-syncing-audio-data-vs-q-channel-111913/index3.html#post1610983) by pio2000. But, whatever, live in a bubble.

melonofwater
07-24-2012, 03:12 AM
:tksays:

VyseLegend
07-24-2012, 03:44 AM
Epic debate is epic.

alex_bip_15
07-24-2012, 03:48 AM
*grabs popcorn*

Sirusjr
07-24-2012, 04:05 AM
I have to wonder, with all this terrible loss of data do we actually lose significant portions of the music? I have listened to my lossless rips with close enough settings and it sounds like I have every second of music that I have when I grab the same music from a digital download mp3. Fighting over silly ideals of perfection when the reality is you aren't losing much is a total waste of time and effort.

Hellacia
07-24-2012, 05:15 AM
Already addressed that too.


This is also only for people that care about retrieving every sample from the CD (that is, they don't want to lose samples because they want lossless ;)).

That was in a really long post though so I don't expect you to have read the whole thing, especially if you aren't one of those people that cares about all this.

I'll say this though: you don't have the right to call them "silly ideals". That makes you someone that just puts down the goals of someone else just because you care about something different. To people that care about getting as much as they can: I'm trying to help, and shed some light on things we've been losing because of the current ripping standards. If you're not one of those people: kindly butt out, please. I respect that you're not one of those people, but you need to respect that some of us are those people, that care about getting as much as we can. I'm one of those people, that has done in-depth research on many aspects of DAE, and have learned a lot to improve my rips more and more rather than just take all the tutorials we have now at face value. Please don't tell me that my method of ripping is "silly" simply because you don't value the accuracy it achieves.

Again, if you're talking about how an MP3 sounds the same as lossless, then none of this applies to you and you're missing the point anyway. By the way I don't mean any offense by any of that, it's just the way things are.


Epic debate is epic.

Haha, yeah. What's ridiculous is that this epic debate was actually something that already took place many years ago across both multiple message boards and MSN messenger conversations. This was already worked out during the course of those events, but since nobody (read: LiquidAcid) knows about it or even wants to accept it, we have to basically re-open the entire debate, which is rather absurd.

Executable
07-24-2012, 06:01 AM
I'll attempt one right here. I'm not trying to make this pretty, so it's basically going to be a wall of text with no pictures, but I assume we can all find our way around EAC :)


----
EAC Settings
----

1. The extraction tab.
Check "fill up missing offset samples with silence". This does what it says, and replaces samples lost due to your drive's offset with silence so the track length will remain the same, rather than becoming shorter. For example, if your drive has a +18 offset, you will lose 18 samples from the track. So, this option fills them back in. However, it does so with silence, so if there were non-silent audio samples in those 18 samples you lost, then it's that less lossless of a rip. To combat that, you'll need to have a drive that overreads into the lead-in and lead-out.
Check "synchronize between tracks". This basically prevents pops and gaps from occurring in between tracks. Sounds good (no pun intended).
Don't check the third box. This essentially achieves the opposite of the first box and makes sure the track isn't as long as it should be. Very lame.
The skip track boxes are there for if your disc is having errors, can't properly extract a track, and will take all day just to try and do so. You can check these if you want just to save you some time, just know when your drive has had an error.
The next two boxes are also optional. If you're worried about drive heat, check the first one, fiddle with the options. If you're worried about the drive opening during extraction, check the second one (I actually have this checked and it saved me once since I accidentally flicked the drive button while near my computer).
Extraction priority can be whatever you want, I use High. Error recovery quality should be High, just to give it the best chance it can get.

2. The general tab.
The only required box on this tab is the third box "on unknown CDs," which you are required to turn OFF. Yes, that's right, I said off. All this box does is adds CD-Text to CDs that don't have it and changes the CD-Text on CDs that do have it. CD-Text is data about the CD just like any other subchannel code is, like pregaps, and goes into your CUE sheet accordingly. Adding it or changing it is not acceptable. Uncheck this box.
I also think it's good to check the fourth box, "display times using frames". Frames are more accurate then seconds because they are the CD's native interval of time; seconds can't be exactly calculated from frames and have to be rounded to. It won't affect the quality of anything though.

3. The tools tab.
This tab is much more important. To start, you always want to have the first tab checked. It adds subchannel code to your CUE sheet, which is quite literally what your CUE sheet is for: to contain all the data of a CD that isn't the audio (indexes, pregaps, catalogs, ISRCs, CD-Text). Always have this box checked. Some drives don't retrieve this data properly and that's a shame, but at least we'll still know that the data's there.
The "use CD-Text information in CUE sheet generation" tab is going to be one of the trickier tabs, and goes hand-in-hand with the box we turned off in the "general" tab. This tab will usually be turned off, but you have to know when to turn it on. If you put a CD in your drive and it has it's own CD-Text, then you will turn this option on for the usage of that CD. Otherwise, you have it turned off.
The third option is optional. Personally, I can't stand those fucking things and delete them on sight, but generate them if you like.
Check the fourth and fifth boxes. One writes the LOG file we all know and love, and the other appends a checksum that can be verified with a tool that comes with EAC, so we know it hasn't been edited. Very good things right here.
Everything else is optional (except the last box actually :D).

4. The normalize tab.
Keep the box unchecked, period. Normalizing changes the volume of the audio file. Did we say "changes"? Not lossless. Not good.

5. Just kidding! There is no number 5 for this section. That's right, all the other tabs are optional. Well actually, the "interface" tab should be set so that you use a Windows interface unless... you know some reason you shouldn't o_O

----
Drive Settings
----

1. The extraction method tab.
Obviously, you want to be in Secure Mode.
Enable Accurate Stream.
Whether or not you should disable your cache depends on the drive you're using. Though I actually don't need to, I disable my cache for two reasons: because it can only yield positive results, and so people can't find anything wrong with the rip. It's good to disable it, but if you know you don't need to (if you know), then it's perfectly fine not to.
As for C2 errors, a few drives support them, and if you know your drive does and think it will help you with a scratched disc or something, then enable them. But usually, you'll have this turned off.

2. The drive tab.
Not much to do here. With a CD in the drive, you can detect your drive's read command. The read command can really help with extraction speed. Don't select one yourself unless you really know what you're doing.
The next three boxes should be unchecked, unless you know you need to use them for some reason (not usually the case).
At the bottom, check the CD-Text read capable drive box in hopes that your drive can read CD-Text. It's an important part of getting an as-close-to-perfect rip as possible. I think many drives can read CD-Text, but it's kind of tough testing this out because there's not exactly a list of CDs with CD-Text on them, so you just kind of have to hope it works.

3. The offset / speed tab.
To start, DO NOT USE ACCURATERIP WITH YOUR DRIVE. This will force you to use an offset that is +30 from what you should use.
The default offset you should use is -30 from what Accuraterip says. So, +30 becomes 0, +6 becomes -24, etc. That is what you should put for starters in your offset box.
If your drive can overread into the lead-in and lead-out, then definitely check that box. That's an important part in catching every sample. If your drive can't do it; you may not miss samples, but you may, which would be a shame.
Use "current" speed.
Allow speed reduction during extraction.

4. The gap detection tab.
Your gap/index retrieval method should be set to Method A / Secure. If your drive can't use this method for some reason, choose Method B or Method C, but try to keep it on secure.

5. The writer tab.
I won't go into this, since I think the idea is to rip CDs, not burn them.

----
The Ripping Process
----

1. Put the CD in your drive!
2. Notice whether or not there is CD-Text - that is, whether or not information about the tracks comes up in the editor. If it's all just Track01, Track02 with Unknown Artist and Unknown Album, then you keep the "use CD-Text information in CUE sheet generation" option in the "tools" tab unchecked. If information does come up, then go and check that box.
3. Press F4 to detect the pregaps.
4. In the "action" menu, select the method you'd like to rip with. Typically, this will be test & copy, with or without any lossless compression format you might have chosen (FLAC, APE, etc). I'm not going to help you set up a compression format with EAC because I don't use one with EAC! I rip to WAV and then compress outside of EAC with FLAC, APE, or whatever I'm using. Personal choice, you do what you want. You can also rip to a range, there's nothing wrong with that (however it makes retrieving a whole HTOA kind of tricky and just really not worth it, but that's only for CDs with an HTOA which are extremely few).
5. Now that we've ripped the music, create the CUE sheet, done via the "action" menu again. You probably want the second-to-last option in the "action" menu checked, "append gaps to previous track (default)", if it isn't already. Then you can just create the CUE sheet with the "current gap settings..." option in the "create CUE sheet" submenu. Of course, you can use prepended gaps and it won't affect how lossless your rip is (actually they make more sense then appended gaps), but many people don't like them. The thing with appended gaps is that, if a CD has a "hidden track" in between tracks, in a pregap (usually a short 30 second - 1 minute intro of sorts), appending the gaps will cause the intro of one track to actually be the ending of another track, so that track will end very strangely and the other track won't begin like it should. However all the audio data is still there and in contiguous order, so it's still a lossless method of handling gaps.
6. Remove the REM DISCID and REM COMMENT crap that EAC adds to the CUE sheets. It's really stupid and doesn't belong on the CUE sheet because it's not part of the CD. Do you think there is a reference to ExactAudioCopy v1.0b3 on a CD, especially one created 20 years before EAC was even created? No, nor is the DISCID stored somewhere on the CD. The DISCID was made up by CDDB as a method of identifying discs, it's not part of a CD.
7. Don't be afraid to change filenames how you like. There's no such thing as a "filename" on a CD, only indexes, and as long as you don't change those, you're good. Make sure to change the filenames in the CUE sheet accordingly, and use the right extension! CUE sheets default to WAV, and there's nothing more annoying than pointing to a bunch of WAV files that don't exists because they are actually FLAC files.

----
Special Methods
----
1. Want to know when it's appropriate to change your offset? This required quite a bit of extra work and some technical know-how. It also requires a drive that can overread into lead-in and lead-out. If you don't have a drive like this, then this will be a total waste of your time. This is also only for people that care about retrieving every sample from the CD (that is, they don't want to lose samples because they want lossless ;)).
To start, rip the first and last track of the CD with your drive's normal offset (again, this is -30 from the Accuraterip/EAC offset). These need to be WAV files, so they can be worked with. Then, with a tool like silrem (http://www.noisetime.com/silrem.html), check to see if there is silence at the beginning of the first track and at the end of the last track. If there is silence at the beginning of the first track, then we haven't missed any non-silent samples at the beginning of the CD, and same goes with the end of the CD if the last track has silent samples at the end of the rip. However, if you have non-silent samples all the way to the end of a CD, then you will need to extend your drive's offset to the point where you catch the last sample.
To test for this in silrem, it's pretty simple. First of all, move the tracks to the silrem folder. Then open the program, go to the "output" tab and make sure the third box from the bottom, "create files even if nothing changed", is unchecked. It should be by default. You should also set up a subfolder to output the files to using the box titled "subfolder" to the right of the "source folder with" option. Just call it "new" or something.
In the "processing" tab, uncheck the "link silence removal of beginning and end" box. Stupidest option I've ever seen, and it makes our task impossible. Now, uncheck the box to remove silence at the end, and keep the box to remove silence from the beginning checked. Make sure that the threshold is "-inf (digital zero)". This will make the program look only for true silent samples, which are 00s in a WAV file.
Now, in the "input" tab, click the "Add..." button in the bottom-left corner and add the first track. Then just click the "process" button in the top-right corner. If it creates a new file, you're good and don't need to worry about the beginning of the CD. Now go back to the "processing" tab, uncheck the option to remove silence from the beginning and check the option to remove silence from the end, again at -inf. Now go back to the "input" tab, select the last track, and process. If it creates a new file: great news! You don't need to change your drive's offset. You're good to go with your default offset, all the samples on the CD will be caught. Of course, let's say it doesn't create a new track for the beginning or end. Okay, now you have to get really tricky...
To start, you will need to re-rip the track that wasn't affected by silrem (let me say here that if neither track was affected, then you're screwed and this is a CD that you cannot retrieve every sample from). Go back into EAC, and this time, set your offset to 100 less or more than your default offset: if you're doing the beginning track, subtract 100; if you're doing the end track, add 100. Now rip the track and open the resulting WAV in an waveform viewer. I use Sound Forge 7.0 (don't hate, I'm too lazy to update); you can use anything that doesn't do any strange interpolation of the waveform, and just shows it to you in its normal form. I can't comment on any waveform viewers that do interpolation nor could I tell you how to disable it, because I've only used Sound Forge. If there is a high demand for it, I can test some free waveform viewers out.
Anyway, open the new track in the waveform viewer program and zoom the waveform in as high as you can. The peaks should spike up really high and should basically just be gigantic blocks until the end, where it will die down. Go all the way to the end of the file. There will be some samples where there are no peaks. Moving left of that, you will eventually see some peaks again. You need to count how many silent samples there are, which is possible usually by just clicking at the end of the non-silent samples, holding shift, and hitting end; the program should tell you in how many samples your selection is. You need to take this number and modify your +/-100 offset with it; + if you're doing the beginning track, and - if you're doing the end track. So, say my drive's offset has a 0. Oh noes, there's non-silent samples at the end of the CD. So, I rip with +100. I figure out "okay, now there's 56 silent samples at the end of the track." So, 100-56=44. So, I need to rip this disc with a +44 offset to catch everything (p.s. I've found about 6 discs now that have needed +44 so this example is not coming out of my ass).
Sorry if that is confusing to you, but right now it's the best I can do. I've been writing this thing for almost 2 hours, lol. If people want me to improve it, I'll try to improve it later.

2. Does your CD have a HTOA, meaning there's a hidden track before track 1? There's a special way to rip these, rather than just using the typical EAC commands. To do it, you can't be afraid to enter the Windows registry and manually change some values. You also, again, need a drive that can overread into lead-in and lead-out. You also kind of need a drive whose offset isn't negative (though this isn't as important).
Hit the "start" button in Windows and click on "Run..." (sorry if these directions aren't exact for your version of Windows, I'm on XP, but I think you know what I mean). Type "regedit" without the quotes and press Enter or hit OK. The Registry Editor should open. It may be something weird like "regedt32" if "regedit" doesn't work.
In the Registry Editor, Hit Ctrl+F and search for "CDTextCapable" without the quotes. It should take you to a place where EAC has stored the settings for any drive you have ever configured/used with EAC. This should be in HKEY_CURRENT_USER, not HKEY_USERS. HKEY_CURRENT_USER should be the first result anyway though.
Alright, in the left side column, find the drive that you're currently using. For example I have three: TSSTcorpCD/DVDW TS-H552L 0614, IDE-DVD DROM6216 HD08 and PLEXTOR DVDR PX-716A 1.11. The PLEXTOR is the drive I currently use, so I'll click on that. Now, in the right panel, we have a column of different keys we can change. Find the one called SampleOffset and double-click on it. We're going to change it so that it equals -44100, plus whatever your drive's default offset is. So, for example, my default offset for the Plextor is 0, so I'll just use -44100. However, if your drive's offset was +18, you'd use -44082. However, changing a value into a negative using hex is a little tricky, so we have to enlist the aide of our good friend Calculator.
Open Calculator and make sure you're in Scientific/Programmer/whatever they call it mode so that you can use hex values. Hit the - button, then 44100, then hit =. This will change it into -44100. Add your offset to this. Now hit the hex button to convert this to hex. You will get a really long string of Fs with a few different letters/numbers at the end. For the Plextor (0 offset), I get FFFFFFFFFFFF53BC. Now you need to know what to do with those results.
Since there are This particular value likes to eat its hard-boiled eggs from the little end first, so it's in Little Endian notation. This means that the least significant value goes first (the smallest end of the egg). Since the SampleOffset key is asking for 8 digits, take the last 8 digits of the number calculator gave you. In my case, that's FFFF53BC. Now reverse the order of every pair of bytes. So,
FF FF 53 BC
becomes
BC 53 FF FF
You will do the same with your number, and that is what you will enter into the SampleOffset key in Registry Editor. Make sure to highlight all the values currently there and replace them; don't add more. You should have 2 pairs of 4 values when you're done, 8 in total.
Now close Registry Editor (you may wish to save that key into your favorites first so it's easy to get to later) and open EAC. Go to the drive options and check the "offset / speed" tab. Your offset should be at -44100! The reason we have to do this is because EAC is stupid and won't let us change stuff past 11760 samples in either direction, plus or minus. So, we have to force EAC to accept such a high offset. Don't worry, EAC can still use the offset correctly, it just doesn't like to accept it.
Now you can detect gaps and rip the hidden track using the "copy selected tracks index-based" method in EAC's action menu. If you get an error from EAC about your filename construct, you need to add %tracknr2% to your naming scheme in the EAC Options filename tab. After the 01.00 index rips, you can cancel the operation, since it will just go through the whole CD like that, and that's not how you want to rip a CD (it is the only way to rip a HTOA though).
I'll mention now that while I had original said -88200 in my post and pio2000 said it in his post, when I use -88200, I just get a bunch of ripping errors. -44100 extracts the track successfully without any errors and without missing any data (at least for the CD I'm testing with, which is disc 3 of the SaGa Frontier Original Sound Track). My bad on the error before.

And there is my guide to ripping. If you have anything to add/correct/bitch about... what are forums for!

This is all nice.
But this is the Wrong thread for posting i think.
This should belong to the Discussion thread, and this is the sharing thread.
We dont want another battle or long Discussion about false/right here right, or ?

And by the way, whats with the Lossless Thread #2 anyway ? Seems nobody really cares mmmh.


Haha, yeah. What's ridiculous is that this epic debate was actually something that already took place many years ago across both multiple message boards and MSN messenger conversations.
This was already worked out during the course of those events, but since nobody (read: LiquidAcid) knows about it or even wants to accept it, we have to basically re-open the entire debate, which is rather absurd.

No, not really.
If you wanna Discuss this shit with him.
Go PM or Messenger !
Popping out once in a while and bring a war over here and then vanish doesnt want anyone.

melonofwater
07-24-2012, 06:07 AM
Where the **** is it?

Despair
07-24-2012, 06:46 AM
Let's be honest here, none of us read the Discussion thread. And this debate may yield handy information. I await Liquid's rebuttal.

>>inb4 Jessie

Hellacia
07-24-2012, 06:51 AM
Executable, you were the one that suggested we "place a very good Tutorial" (http://forums.ffshrine.org/f72/lossless-video-game-soundtrack-thread-links-first-64743/768.html#post2045596) on the first page. My first posts were in response to your own post, which was in this thread, I might add. If you want the tutorial to be moved, by all means, request for it to be moved. I only wanted the original post to stay because I wanted people to actually read it. I doubt anyone goes over to the lossless discussion thread or whatever it is, everyone comes here.

As for the second part of your post, I literally can't understand it, I'm sorry. I'm not trolling you right now. Discuss something with him, whoever that is, and apparently I should PM or messenger him, which, if you're talking about LiquidAcid, I don't even know why you're bringing it up because he started the whole "oh well this isn't proven waah waah" debate, tell him to use PMs. As for "bring a war over here", again, you suggested a great tutorial, I gave you one along with detailed explanations about why the settings should be changed, and you... what? Spit in my face with this "doesnt want anyone" shit? LiquidAcid also brought the war over here by rattling off the same old dumb misinformation. Go bitch at LiquidAcid. I spent over 2 hours today typing shit out and trying to help people. This is seriously the respect I get for wanting to help people improve their rips?

No wonder why I don't post here anymore.

LiquidAcid
07-24-2012, 10:55 AM
Let's be honest here, none of us read the Discussion thread. And this debate may yield handy information. I await Liquid's rebuttal.
Not much to say here. I assume here that the people who're interested in the whole issue can read the threads over at HA/EAC forums/etc. themselves and form their own opinion. I'm not going to discuss it here with Hellacia, because a) this isn't the place for that, and (even more important) b) experience shows that you simply can't discuss something with this guy. At some point he begins to just throw verbal abuse at you (swearing in every sentence). That's really tiring and to be honest, I don't need to prove anything to him.

Also, Hellacia probably already quoted Andre's most important statement:

My intention was not to find that absolute (zero) offset (but come as close to it as possible) in order to bring all drives to the same extraction results.
Repeatability/reproducibility is the key here. Kind of natural with him (Andre) being a scientist.

Another reason why I'm refraining from further comments is this:

I spent over 2 hours today typing shit out and trying to help people. This is seriously the respect I get for wanting to help people improve their rips?
This guy just wants attention. Honestly I find this pitiful.

Thanks for the attention, and happy sharing again! ;)

Zetto
07-24-2012, 02:06 PM
Please let me say this because I think it kind of fits, if you don't think so please ignore it entirely:
Knowledge by itself means nothing. Einstein wasn't a genius because he knew a lot. He was because of his creative thinking ability. Knowledge is something anyone can attain, even the simplest of minds. It's not something to brag about. It doesn't say anything about how intelligent you are. Problem solving, how fast you can adapt to new situations, creativity... that makes intelligent people. Furthermore, our deeds and ideals determine who we are and the goal to want to improve things by itself is an honourable feat. You know a lot? Good. But what do you do with that?

Kevin04
07-27-2012, 03:00 AM
I'll attempt one right here. I'm not trying to make this pretty, so it's basically going to be a wall of text with no pictures, but I assume we can all find our way around EAC :)

----
EAC Settings
----

1. The extraction tab.
Check "fill up missing offset samples with silence". This does what it says, and replaces samples lost due to your drive's offset with silence so the track length will remain the same, rather than becoming shorter. For example, if your drive has a +18 offset, you will lose 18 samples from the track. So, this option fills them back in. However, it does so with silence, so if there were non-silent audio samples in those 18 samples you lost, then it's that less lossless of a rip. To combat that, you'll need to have a drive that overreads into the lead-in and lead-out.
Check "synchronize between tracks". This basically prevents pops and gaps from occurring in between tracks. Sounds good (no pun intended).
Don't check the third box. This essentially achieves the opposite of the first box and makes sure the track isn't as long as it should be. Very lame.
The skip track boxes are there for if your disc is having errors, can't properly extract a track, and will take all day just to try and do so. You can check these if you want just to save you some time, just know when your drive has had an error.
The next two boxes are also optional. If you're worried about drive heat, check the first one, fiddle with the options. If you're worried about the drive opening during extraction, check the second one (I actually have this checked and it saved me once since I accidentally flicked the drive button while near my computer).
Extraction priority can be whatever you want, I use High. Error recovery quality should be High, just to give it the best chance it can get.

2. The general tab.
The only required box on this tab is the third box "on unknown CDs," which you are required to turn OFF. Yes, that's right, I said off. All this box does is adds CD-Text to CDs that don't have it and changes the CD-Text on CDs that do have it. CD-Text is data about the CD just like any other subchannel code is, like pregaps, and goes into your CUE sheet accordingly. Adding it or changing it is not acceptable. Uncheck this box.
I also think it's good to check the fourth box, "display times using frames". Frames are more accurate then seconds because they are the CD's native interval of time; seconds can't be exactly calculated from frames and have to be rounded to. It won't affect the quality of anything though.

3. The tools tab.
This tab is much more important. To start, you always want to have the first tab checked. It adds subchannel code to your CUE sheet, which is quite literally what your CUE sheet is for: to contain all the data of a CD that isn't the audio (indexes, pregaps, catalogs, ISRCs, CD-Text). Always have this box checked. Some drives don't retrieve this data properly and that's a shame, but at least we'll still know that the data's there.
The "use CD-Text information in CUE sheet generation" tab is going to be one of the trickier tabs, and goes hand-in-hand with the box we turned off in the "general" tab. This tab will usually be turned off, but you have to know when to turn it on. If you put a CD in your drive and it has it's own CD-Text, then you will turn this option on for the usage of that CD. Otherwise, you have it turned off.
The third option is optional. Personally, I can't stand those fucking things and delete them on sight, but generate them if you like.
Check the fourth and fifth boxes. One writes the LOG file we all know and love, and the other appends a checksum that can be verified with a tool that comes with EAC, so we know it hasn't been edited. Very good things right here.
Everything else is optional (except the last box actually :D).

4. The normalize tab.
Keep the box unchecked, period. Normalizing changes the volume of the audio file. Did we say "changes"? Not lossless. Not good.

5. Just kidding! There is no number 5 for this section. That's right, all the other tabs are optional. Well actually, the "interface" tab should be set so that you use a Windows interface unless... you know some reason you shouldn't o_O

----
Drive Settings
----

1. The extraction method tab.
Obviously, you want to be in Secure Mode.
Enable Accurate Stream.
Whether or not you should disable your cache depends on the drive you're using. Though I actually don't need to, I disable my cache for two reasons: because it can only yield positive results, and so people can't find anything wrong with the rip. It's good to disable it, but if you know you don't need to (if you know), then it's perfectly fine not to.
As for C2 errors, a few drives support them, and if you know your drive does and think it will help you with a scratched disc or something, then enable them. But usually, you'll have this turned off.

2. The drive tab.
Not much to do here. With a CD in the drive, you can detect your drive's read command. The read command can really help with extraction speed. Don't select one yourself unless you really know what you're doing.
The next three boxes should be unchecked, unless you know you need to use them for some reason (not usually the case).
At the bottom, check the CD-Text read capable drive box in hopes that your drive can read CD-Text. It's an important part of getting an as-close-to-perfect rip as possible. I think many drives can read CD-Text, but it's kind of tough testing this out because there's not exactly a list of CDs with CD-Text on them, so you just kind of have to hope it works.

3. The offset / speed tab.
To start, DO NOT USE ACCURATERIP WITH YOUR DRIVE. This will force you to use an offset that is +30 from what you should use.
The default offset you should use is -30 from what Accuraterip says. So, +30 becomes 0, +6 becomes -24, etc. That is what you should put for starters in your offset box.
If your drive can overread into the lead-in and lead-out, then definitely check that box. That's an important part in catching every sample. If your drive can't do it; you may not miss samples, but you may, which would be a shame.
Use "current" speed.
Allow speed reduction during extraction.

4. The gap detection tab.
Your gap/index retrieval method should be set to Method A / Secure. If your drive can't use this method for some reason, choose Method B or Method C, but try to keep it on secure.

5. The writer tab.
I won't go into this, since I think the idea is to rip CDs, not burn them.

----
The Ripping Process
----

1. Put the CD in your drive!
2. Notice whether or not there is CD-Text - that is, whether or not information about the tracks comes up in the editor. If it's all just Track01, Track02 with Unknown Artist and Unknown Album, then you keep the "use CD-Text information in CUE sheet generation" option in the "tools" tab unchecked. If information does come up, then go and check that box.
3. Press F4 to detect the pregaps.
4. In the "action" menu, select the method you'd like to rip with. Typically, this will be test & copy, with or without any lossless compression format you might have chosen (FLAC, APE, etc). I'm not going to help you set up a compression format with EAC because I don't use one with EAC! I rip to WAV and then compress outside of EAC with FLAC, APE, or whatever I'm using. Personal choice, you do what you want. You can also rip to a range, there's nothing wrong with that (however it makes retrieving a whole HTOA kind of tricky and just really not worth it, but that's only for CDs with an HTOA which are extremely few).
5. Now that we've ripped the music, create the CUE sheet, done via the "action" menu again. You probably want the second-to-last option in the "action" menu checked, "append gaps to previous track (default)", if it isn't already. Then you can just create the CUE sheet with the "current gap settings..." option in the "create CUE sheet" submenu. Of course, you can use prepended gaps and it won't affect how lossless your rip is (actually they make more sense then appended gaps), but many people don't like them. The thing with appended gaps is that, if a CD has a "hidden track" in between tracks, in a pregap (usually a short 30 second - 1 minute intro of sorts), appending the gaps will cause the intro of one track to actually be the ending of another track, so that track will end very strangely and the other track won't begin like it should. However all the audio data is still there and in contiguous order, so it's still a lossless method of handling gaps.
6. Remove the REM DISCID and REM COMMENT crap that EAC adds to the CUE sheets. It's really stupid and doesn't belong on the CUE sheet because it's not part of the CD. Do you think there is a reference to ExactAudioCopy v1.0b3 on a CD, especially one created 20 years before EAC was even created? No, nor is the DISCID stored somewhere on the CD. The DISCID was made up by CDDB as a method of identifying discs, it's not part of a CD.
7. Don't be afraid to change filenames how you like. There's no such thing as a "filename" on a CD, only indexes, and as long as you don't change those, you're good. Make sure to change the filenames in the CUE sheet accordingly, and use the right extension! CUE sheets default to WAV, and there's nothing more annoying than pointing to a bunch of WAV files that don't exists because they are actually FLAC files.

----
Special Methods
----
1. Want to know when it's appropriate to change your offset? This required quite a bit of extra work and some technical know-how. It also requires a drive that can overread into lead-in and lead-out. If you don't have a drive like this, then this will be a total waste of your time. This is also only for people that care about retrieving every sample from the CD (that is, they don't want to lose samples because they want lossless ;)).
To start, rip the first and last track of the CD with your drive's normal offset (again, this is -30 from the Accuraterip/EAC offset). These need to be WAV files, so they can be worked with. Then, with a tool like silrem (http://www.noisetime.com/silrem.html), check to see if there is silence at the beginning of the first track and at the end of the last track. If there is silence at the beginning of the first track, then we haven't missed any non-silent samples at the beginning of the CD, and same goes with the end of the CD if the last track has silent samples at the end of the rip. However, if you have non-silent samples all the way to the end of a CD, then you will need to extend your drive's offset to the point where you catch the last sample.
To test for this in silrem, it's pretty simple. First of all, move the tracks to the silrem folder. Then open the program, go to the "output" tab and make sure the third box from the bottom, "create files even if nothing changed", is unchecked. It should be by default. You should also set up a subfolder to output the files to using the box titled "subfolder" to the right of the "source folder with" option. Just call it "new" or something.
In the "processing" tab, uncheck the "link silence removal of beginning and end" box. Stupidest option I've ever seen, and it makes our task impossible. Now, uncheck the box to remove silence at the end, and keep the box to remove silence from the beginning checked. Make sure that the threshold is "-inf (digital zero)". This will make the program look only for true silent samples, which are 00s in a WAV file.
Now, in the "input" tab, click the "Add..." button in the bottom-left corner and add the first track. Then just click the "process" button in the top-right corner. If it creates a new file, you're good and don't need to worry about the beginning of the CD. Now go back to the "processing" tab, uncheck the option to remove silence from the beginning and check the option to remove silence from the end, again at -inf. Now go back to the "input" tab, select the last track, and process. If it creates a new file: great news! You don't need to change your drive's offset. You're good to go with your default offset, all the samples on the CD will be caught. Of course, let's say it doesn't create a new track for the beginning or end. Okay, now you have to get really tricky...
To start, you will need to re-rip the track that wasn't affected by silrem (let me say here that if neither track was affected, then you're screwed and this is a CD that you cannot retrieve every sample from). Go back into EAC, and this time, set your offset to 100 less or more than your default offset: if you're doing the beginning track, subtract 100; if you're doing the end track, add 100. Now rip the track and open the resulting WAV in an waveform viewer. I use Sound Forge 7.0 (don't hate, I'm too lazy to update); you can use anything that doesn't do any strange interpolation of the waveform, and just shows it to you in its normal form. I can't comment on any waveform viewers that do interpolation nor could I tell you how to disable it, because I've only used Sound Forge. If there is a high demand for it, I can test some free waveform viewers out.
Anyway, open the new track in the waveform viewer program and zoom the waveform in as high as you can. The peaks should spike up really high and should basically just be gigantic blocks until the end, where it will die down. Go all the way to the end of the file. There will be some samples where there are no peaks. Moving left of that, you will eventually see some peaks again. You need to count how many silent samples there are, which is possible usually by just clicking at the end of the non-silent samples, holding shift, and hitting end; the program should tell you in how many samples your selection is. You need to take this number and modify your +/-100 offset with it; + if you're doing the beginning track, and - if you're doing the end track. So, say my drive's offset has a 0. Oh noes, there's non-silent samples at the end of the CD. So, I rip with +100. I figure out "okay, now there's 56 silent samples at the end of the track." So, 100-56=44. So, I need to rip this disc with a +44 offset to catch everything (p.s. I've found about 6 discs now that have needed +44 so this example is not coming out of my ass).
Sorry if that is confusing to you, but right now it's the best I can do. I've been writing this thing for almost 2 hours, lol. If people want me to improve it, I'll try to improve it later.

2. Does your CD have a HTOA, meaning there's a hidden track before track 1? There's a special way to rip these, rather than just using the typical EAC commands. To do it, you can't be afraid to enter the Windows registry and manually change some values. You also, again, need a drive that can overread into lead-in and lead-out. You also kind of need a drive whose offset isn't negative (though this isn't as important).
Hit the "start" button in Windows and click on "Run..." (sorry if these directions aren't exact for your version of Windows, I'm on XP, but I think you know what I mean). Type "regedit" without the quotes and press Enter or hit OK. The Registry Editor should open. It may be something weird like "regedt32" if "regedit" doesn't work.
In the Registry Editor, Hit Ctrl+F and search for "CDTextCapable" without the quotes. It should take you to a place where EAC has stored the settings for any drive you have ever configured/used with EAC. This should be in HKEY_CURRENT_USER, not HKEY_USERS. HKEY_CURRENT_USER should be the first result anyway though.
Alright, in the left side column, find the drive that you're currently using. For example I have three: TSSTcorpCD/DVDW TS-H552L 0614, IDE-DVD DROM6216 HD08 and PLEXTOR DVDR PX-716A 1.11. The PLEXTOR is the drive I currently use, so I'll click on that. Now, in the right panel, we have a column of different keys we can change. Find the one called SampleOffset and double-click on it. We're going to change it so that it equals -44100, plus whatever your drive's default offset is. So, for example, my default offset for the Plextor is 0, so I'll just use -44100. However, if your drive's offset was +18, you'd use -44082. However, changing a value into a negative using hex is a little tricky, so we have to enlist the aide of our good friend Calculator.
Open Calculator and make sure you're in Scientific/Programmer/whatever they call it mode so that you can use hex values. Hit the - button, then 44100, then hit =. This will change it into -44100. Add your offset to this. Now hit the hex button to convert this to hex. You will get a really long string of Fs with a few different letters/numbers at the end. For the Plextor (0 offset), I get FFFFFFFFFFFF53BC. Now you need to know what to do with those results.
Since there are This particular value likes to eat its hard-boiled eggs from the little end first, so it's in Little Endian notation. This means that the least significant value goes first (the smallest end of the egg). Since the SampleOffset key is asking for 8 digits, take the last 8 digits of the number calculator gave you. In my case, that's FFFF53BC. Now reverse the order of every pair of bytes. So,
FF FF 53 BC
becomes
BC 53 FF FF
You will do the same with your number, and that is what you will enter into the SampleOffset key in Registry Editor. Make sure to highlight all the values currently there and replace them; don't add more. You should have 2 pairs of 4 values when you're done, 8 in total.
Now close Registry Editor (you may wish to save that key into your favorites first so it's easy to get to later) and open EAC. Go to the drive options and check the "offset / speed" tab. Your offset should be at -44100! The reason we have to do this is because EAC is stupid and won't let us change stuff past 11760 samples in either direction, plus or minus. So, we have to force EAC to accept such a high offset. Don't worry, EAC can still use the offset correctly, it just doesn't like to accept it.
Now you can detect gaps and rip the hidden track using the "copy selected tracks index-based" method in EAC's action menu. If you get an error from EAC about your filename construct, you need to add %tracknr2% to your naming scheme in the EAC Options filename tab. After the 01.00 index rips, you can cancel the operation, since it will just go through the whole CD like that, and that's not how you want to rip a CD (it is the only way to rip a HTOA though).
I'll mention now that while I had original said -88200 in my post and pio2000 said it in his post, when I use -88200, I just get a bunch of ripping errors. -44100 extracts the track successfully without any errors and without missing any data (at least for the CD I'm testing with, which is disc 3 of the SaGa Frontier Original Sound Track). My bad on the error before.

And there is my guide to ripping. If you have anything to add/correct/bitch about... what are forums for!

I'll also comment on a few bits of your guide:


-CD-TEXT: I would not write it to a cue sheet at all, because you can't get all CD-TEXT fields by doing so, as a cue can't store binary fields (such as GENRE). Instead, create .cdt files (I do that with CDRWin) and link to them using the CDTEXTFILE command in the cue file. It's easier and nicer too (imo) and you can't really do anything wrong that way, just completely forgetting to extract or to link it.

-Offset: Let me just mention here that Truong over at redump.org found yet another "correct" offset over a year ago, which is -18 (when Carlos' is 0 and Andre's is +30). It's in their private dumpers forum so I can't link it, but they've probably spoken about it elsewhere as well (as there are quotes from Carlos discussing with Truong). Also, personally I think using EAC's offset is perfectly fine, at least as long as there's no absolute proof for a true reference offset (and, as we know, even discs or pressing plants probably have offsets, so one might argue if something like this even exists or matters). Dismissing verification databases like accuraterip and ctdb just because of this is stupid imo. You can always correct your offset afterwards if you made sure to get every single sample of audio data while ripping anyway (and yes, naturally this includes your other methods). Of course, you could also rip using Carlos' or Truong's value and only offset to Andre's for verification post ripping.

-REM DISCID. You're basically right about this (and I would and did actually think so too), but for verification with CUETools, I'd rather advise to keep it, see CUETools Wiki (http://www.cuetools.net/wiki/CUETools#What.27s_wrong_if_i.27m_sure_the_CD_is_pr esent_in_the_database.2C_but_CUETools_doesn.27t_fi nd_it). Yes, this shouldn't apply if your rip is complete, but it doesn't do any harm either, as remarks are just that and get ignored when recreating a disc. I can see it coming in handy when a rip gets butchered by some people before redistributing it.

-HTOA. Isn't the whole registry editing just for getting the "pregap of the audio-session"? Meaning that should there be nonsilent samples at the beginning of the first track, first rip the "gap of the first track" (using Pio's terms here to avoid confusion) by prepending gaps, ripping by range or ripping an image (which is much easier), check this gap for nonsilent samples at the beginning, and only if you encounter actual audio there, start editing the registry and get those two seconds (or just anything until silence). Personally I rip the "gap of the first track" (if present) regardless if there's audio or not, but that's another story.
But after rereading what I wrote I actually think you were talking about those two seconds from the start, it just didn't really sound like it in your guide for me. Adjusting the offset by so little samples wouldn't get you an actual HTOA at all since they're much longer.


Anyway, there really should be a good, comprehensive up-to-date DAE guide people can link to, similar to xuncat's. I'd happily give input and help where I could, but don't see me doing much about hosting or designing it (in whatever form it may appear).

tatsuya1221
03-23-2013, 08:36 PM
[B]3 good alternatives, if you ask me

1. Use a different browser. (I use Chrome most of the time, I only got chashes in Youtube, when I use constantly in that site)
2. Install an add-on.
3. Use a downloader manager. (I use Jdownloader since a long time a go and works well with MEGA)

But no one want to try to find another way to deal with MEGA.


There are plenty of reasons to not use chrome, for instance, i do not like being tracked by google (which neither firefox or opera do).

There;s also the plugin issue, especially if your a stickler for security.
As for the addon, i don't trust it, just like installing a toolbar.

No idea why some people do not use jdownloader or other managers though, it's what i use for mega links.

LiquidAcid
03-23-2013, 08:55 PM
There are plenty of reasons to not use chrome, for instance, i do not like being tracked by google (which neither firefox or opera do)..
This is nonsense. Using FF or Opera doesn't protect you from tracking. Also Opera is closed source, so you don't know anything about what it does under the hood. Contrary to that Chrome is based on the open-source Chromium project. If you don't trust the binary builds Google provides, you can just as well build them yourself.

tatsuya1221
03-24-2013, 06:47 AM
This is nonsense. Using FF or Opera doesn't protect you from tracking. Also Opera is closed source, so you don't know anything about what it does under the hood. Contrary to that Chrome is based on the open-source Chromium project. If you don't trust the binary builds Google provides, you can just as well build them yourself.

You can block all cookies on firefox if you want, in fact i believe tracking cookies are blocked by default in the newest updates of it, as well as use any of the many addons to block tracking.

Not going to comment on opera as i only used it a few times, but it was still more trustworthy than chrome, which google openly admits it tracks your website visits to cater ads to your taste, at least that's the claim.

Claim and use whatever you want, but at least firefox outright states that privacy is a major priority in their builds, while google themselves use chrome to track your site visits..

Either way, this is not the topic to discuss things like this in (this topic has been derailed once already), i just pointed out a major reason why many people still use firefox, even with it's questionable interface changes.

Despair
03-24-2013, 09:01 AM
You can block all cookies on firefox if you want, in fact i believe tracking cookies are blocked by default in the newest updates of it, as well as use any of the many addons to block tracking.

Not going to comment on opera as i only used it a few times, but it was still more trustworthy than chrome, which google openly admits it tracks your website visits to cater adds to your taste, at least that's the claim.

Claim and use whatever you want, but at least firefox outright states that privacy is a major priority in their builds, while google themselves use chrome to track your site visits..

Either way, this is not the topic to discuss things like this in (this topic has been derailed once already), i just pointed out a major reason why many people still use firefox, even with it's questionable interface changes.

The general consensus on arguing with Liquid is you're going to lose. He'll use black magic if he has to.

LiquidAcid
03-24-2013, 12:30 PM
You can block all cookies on firefox if you want, in fact i believe tracking cookies are blocked by default in the newest updates of it, as well as use any of the many addons to block tracking.
You can just do the same in Chromium: You can prevent sites from setting cookies, and it even implements the W3C do-not-track extension. The AdBlock plugin, which started as a Mozilla component, is also available for Chromium.


Claim and use whatever you want, but at least firefox outright states that privacy is a major priority in their builds, while google themselves use chrome to track your site visits..
You seem to believe that nowadays you still need some "active" component in your browser, so sites can track you. This is just downright naive. You feeling safer using FireFox is another good example of the placebo effect. I suggest you read some of the recent interviews with cryptography expert Bruce Schneier about surveillance on the net.
If you really want to avoid tracking you better start using something like TOR, i2p and the like. And yes, this is slow and inconvenient. Remember: There is nothing like a free lunch...

EDIT: And before people start to accuse me of Chrome advertisement: I don't even use it on my main system (Seamonkey here, which uses the Gekko engine -- just like FF). Chromium runs on my Pandaboard, and the main reason there is that it performs better on ARM archs.

aati
03-24-2013, 06:12 PM
This is nonsense. Using FF or Opera doesn't protect you from tracking. Also Opera is closed source, so you don't know anything about what it does under the hood. Contrary to that Chrome is based on the open-source Chromium project. If you don't trust the binary builds Google provides, you can just as well build them yourself.

Never and I mean NEVER trust google. This is just one case There's way more.
Google Tracking iPhone Users? Data Mining at Its Finest | Breakout - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/google-privacy-loophole-did-internet-giant-too-far-162219032.html;_ylt=AtTkWNXPgOE6zJ_Td6aZQkUm2YdG;_ ylu=X3oDMTFtYmtlaG9oBG1pdANCbG9nIFBvc3QgQm9keQRwb3 MDMgRzZWMDTWVkaWFCbG9nQm9keVRlbXBBc3NlbWJseQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTNjdDdmNjY5BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDNWI5MGNkNWQtZTA2Zi0zYzVkLThjODYtNTMzOTY0NT M4NmNhBHBzdGNhdANleGNsdXNpdmVzfGJyZWFrb3V0BHB0A3N0 b3J5cGFnZQR0ZXN0Aw--;_ylv=3)
Google faces legal action over alleged secret iPhone tracking | Technology | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/27/google-legal-action-secret-iphone-tracking)

LiquidAcid
03-24-2013, 06:53 PM
I never said that you should trust anyone. Just that feeling safer with a different browser is fake.

Also I should point out this: Apple's inability to fix a bug in their browser which is known for two years (http://anantgarg.com/2010/02/18/cross-domain-cookies-in-safari/) speaks for itself. If you're using a Apple OS then you've a lot more to worry about than some might-be-tracking-cookie by Google...

Also I find this hilarous:

A Facebook group called Safari Users Against Google's Secret Tracking has vowed to hold Google to account for the tracking.

Right.... a Facebook group go on a warpath because of tracking... *rofl*
Next thing is the new pope joining Christopher Street Day... in full gear...

EDIT: After inquiring some proof via PM from tatsuya1221 it quickly turned out that he doesn't have anything and is just spreading around baseless claims and FUD. Another candidate for my ignore list... *plonk*

tatsuya1221
03-24-2013, 07:19 PM
First off thank you 開陽, I've been looking for 2 of these in lossless for a while.


The general consensus on arguing with Liquid is you're going to lose. He'll use black magic if he has to.
I think you mean he'll just keep claiming someone is wrong until they get tired and leave, that's not a loss, it is just getting tired of someone's endless whining, as a former mod on another forum, this is generally what i preferred people to do myself, or it could turn into a war between multiple people, so it's better to let the one who cannot lose win because of some foolish internet pride than to derail a thread.

So yeah, i'd rather let him believe he won than cause an argument, though i have to say that it's pretty sad that anyone would take the internet so seriously.
And no, though that is insulting to many people, i am merely being honest, i do not see the point of letting the internet become serious business over something so pointless.


You can just do the same in Chromium: You can prevent sites from setting cookies, and it even implements the W3C do-not-track extension. The AdBlock plugin, which started as a Mozilla component, is also available for Chromium.
You seem to not get the fact that it's not "sites" setting cookies i was mainly referring to, google tracks your movements through chrome, this is not a cookie if it's a basic function of the web browser.

As for adblock on chrome, besides the fact that it's gimped on chrome (only blocks some, due to google), it does not have a way to disable flash or scripts as far as i know, which can stop all intrusive functions on their own.


You seem to believe that nowadays you still need some "active" component in your browser, so sites can track you. This is just downright naive. You feeling safer using FireFox is another good example of the placebo effect. I suggest you read some of the recent interviews with cryptography expert Bruce Schneier about surveillance on the net.
If you really want to avoid tracking you better start using something like TOR, i2p and the like. And yes, this is slow and inconvenient. Remember: There is nothing like a free lunch...

EDIT: And before people start to accuse me of Chrome advertisement: I don't even use it on my main system (Seamonkey here, which uses the Gekko engine -- just like FF). Chromium runs on my Pandaboard, and the main reason there is that it performs better on ARM archs.
I am aware of using blocking software and hardware, and i am fully aware of the many security loopholes in all browsers, if you want to be secure i'd stop using java and javascript, because they have severe security problems, flash too, but there is a difference between a program having security exploits and a program intentionally tracking you (origin does the same, and i refuse to use that too), which is why i will never use chrome, i'd rather use old direct connection methods than chrome.

Either way i've made my point, if you want to continue this conversation you'll have to do it without me, i'm not going to derail this thread any longer, this is the lossless video game music thread, not the browser discussion thread.

aati
03-24-2013, 09:17 PM
I never said that you should trust anyone. Just that feeling safer with a different browser is fake.

Also I should point out this: Apple's inability to fix a bug in their browser which is known for two years (http://anantgarg.com/2010/02/18/cross-domain-cookies-in-safari/) speaks for itself. If you're using a Apple OS then you've a lot more to worry about than some might-be-tracking-cookie by Google...

Also I find this hilarous:


Right.... a Facebook group go on a warpath because of tracking... *rofl*
Next thing is the new pope joining Christopher Street Day... in full gear...

EDIT: After inquiring some proof via PM from tatsuya1221 it quickly turned out that he doesn't have anything and is just spreading around baseless claims and FUD. Another candidate for my ignore list... *plonk*

The point is that some people do not want to use a browser from one of the biggest internet tracker there is, Google.

alc123
03-24-2013, 10:38 PM
google tracks your movements through chrome, this is not a cookie if it's a basic function of the web browser.You can play the "I'm the better man and leaving this argument behind me" card but if you then go on to say something absurd like this then plainly you're not leaving the argument - you're antagonising it. If you've got no proof for your ridiculous claims then at least have the decency to bow out quietly.

Kirolemark
03-25-2013, 02:54 AM
All i'm going to say is Nightly master race (Chrome google botnet plebians please leave)

If you're that willing to antagonize Mozilla then at least use Chromium

aati
03-25-2013, 06:13 PM
And that attitude is irrational as long as it isn't based on facts. You can't just say "I don't use Chrome because it spies on me" and not give _any_ amount of proof for that and on the other side say "I use Firefox because then nobody can spy on me", again giving no proof. This is FUD. Google, Apple, Facebook, Youtube, etc. -- all track you on the net, regardless of what browser you use. Telling people that this is not the case when using a different browser is (dangerous) misinformation.

Let�s look at some facts.
Google is a corporation that has been caught illegally spying numerous times. They also have a "SECRET RELATION" with the NSA, one of the biggest intelligence (spy) agency that is currently building the largest spy system in America, 1 yottabyte (1,000,000,000,000,000GB) to spy on "all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Internet searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails�parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital 'pocket litter',� basically every bit of information that goes from your devices to a server. (�It is the next generation of domestic spying�)

Now this lovely corporation decided to release a web browser. A Web browser that could easily give their beloved friends (at the spy agency) the opportunity further facilitate the monitoring of �all internet search�, �private emails�, generally "all forms of communication� especially when there�s 310 million active users and a 34% worldwide usage share. Hmm, I wonder if they would let such of an massive opportunity go by?

So tell me what�s more rational. Using a Mozilla browser (Firefox) who�s has never been caught spying (to my knowledge), or using a Google browser (Chrome) who�s been caught spying many times and that has a SECRET RELATION with a freaking intelligence (SPY) AGENCY that �no one has any right to know about�. I don�t know about you but I'd rather lower the chances of having my web browser (of all things) track me.

That as much "proof" as you�ll get.

I bet you in few years, they'll release articles on how they've been spying on all the users from the start... matter of fact, I GUARANTY it.

This is just mainstream media. There WAY MORE.
NSA $2 billion Utah-based facility can process yottabytes of information - Charlotte City Buzz | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/nsa-2-billion-utah-based-facility-can-process-yottabytes-of-information)
Court Rules NSA Doesn't Have To Reveal Its Semi-Secret Relationship With Google - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/05/11/court-rules-nsa-doesnt-have-to-reveal-its-semi-secret-relationship-with-google/)
Google Comes Under Fire for 'Secret' Relationship with NSA | PCWorld (http://www.pcworld.com/article/217550/google_watchdog_white_house.html)
Court rules that Google-NSA spy ties can remain secret ? USATODAY.com (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-05-11/court-google-nsa-spy-china/54912902/1?csp=ip)

Google Tracking iPhone Users? Data Mining at Its Finest | Breakout - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/google-privacy-loophole-did-internet-giant-too-far-162219032.html)
Google faces legal action over alleged secret iPhone tracking | Technology | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/27/google-legal-action-secret-iphone-tracking)
Google's Wi-Fi net caught passwords, says France | ZDNet (http://www.zdnet.com/googles-wi-fi-net-caught-passwords-says-france-3040089304/)
Lawyers Claim Google Wi-Fi Sniffing 'Is Not an Accident' | Threat Level | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/google-wifi-sniffing/)

alc123
03-25-2013, 06:25 PM
You're forgetting one rather important fact. Chrome is open source. If there was any tracking going on, it'd be visible to all. To the extent that google do track you, they track all browsers equally. Saying "I use Firefox so I'm safe" is delusional.

Everyone loves a conspiracy, but you're letting that get in the way of actual thinking.

aati
03-25-2013, 06:43 PM
You're forgetting one rather important fact. Chrome is open source. If there was any tracking going on, it'd be visible to all. To the extent that google do track you, they track all browsers equally. Saying "I use Firefox so I'm safe" is delusional.

Everyone loves a conspiracy, but you're letting that get in the way of actual thinking.

What are you talking about with "conspiracy"? This is common sense with mainstream articles. I didn't even touch them so your whole conspiracy card won't work.
"In September 2008, Google released a large portion of Chrome's source code as an open source project called Chromium on which Chrome releases are still based." "Large portion" is not all of it and a lot has changed since 2008, 5 years ago.

I can't believe that after all that, you STILL can't understand why I use Firefox instead of Google Chrome. You're unbelievable.

Kirolemark
03-25-2013, 06:45 PM
Saying "Chrome is Open Source" is even MORE delusional

alc123
03-25-2013, 07:16 PM
I don't really know what to say to that. If you think Chrome is closed source when it isn't (http://www.chromium.org/) (and despite the fact that even if it wasn't, the kind of client-side tracking you're suggesting would be trivially easy to detect), then I guess this is the end of the line for the debate. Have fun with your whacked out conspiracy theories about spies and whatnot, and enjoy that false sense of security.

(I do still use Firefox as my main browser, FWIW. Been using it since it was Firebird.)

aati
03-25-2013, 07:50 PM
I don't really know what to say to that. If you think Chrome is closed source when it isn't (http://www.chromium.org/) (and despite the fact that even if it wasn't, the kind of client-side tracking you're suggesting would be trivially easy to detect), then I guess this is the end of the line for the debate. Have fun with your whacked out conspiracy theories about spies and whatnot, and enjoy that false sense of security.

(I do still use Firefox as my main browser, FWIW. Been using it since it was Firebird.)

I love people who use the conspiracy card when they have nothing better to say even though you haven't mentioned any conspiracies whatsoever.

Google Chrome is NOT Chromium. Like I said: "In September 2008, Google released a large portion of Chrome's source code as an open source project called Chromium on which Chrome releases are still based." "Large portion" is not all of it and a lot has changed since 2008, 5 years ago.

So basically, you didn't end anything.

eleriaqueen
03-25-2013, 08:06 PM
I love Google's cloud saving for bookmarks atleast... I'd be pretty angry to let that go, even if before and for a very long time I used Firefox and Kmeleon which are both based on the same rendering engine.

I don't think google is more evil than any other company or country (the US didn't ratify the Kyoto protocol, that means they're literally killing life on earth at much faster rate than most countries). No point in thinking about those things too much, after all we can't do sh*t.

LiquidAcid
03-25-2013, 09:38 PM
@aati: Stop talking bullshit and finally take a look at the Chrome repo (http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/). The latest change is some minutes (!) old. And if you're already quoting Wikipedia, you should actually read what it says there: Differences from Google Chrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_%28web_browser%29#Differences_from_Google _Chrome)
You can at any time check out this repo, build it and receive a Chrome browser which misses the features presented in the article.

Despair
03-25-2013, 09:44 PM
I highly doubt either FireFox or Google care what users like us search for. All websites themselves usually track you, or you leave some sort of digital footprint on it, there's not many ways around that. Google may track you more than Firefox, but that's probably only because of the search engine being built into it, which we know tracks you to tailor better results. Use DuckDuckGo if you don't want to be tracked whilst searching, but either way, think about it. Even if Google is tracking you the way you're talking about, they're tracking everyone that way, it was said earlier, 100's of millions of users, do you realize how much data that is? Think how long it would take for them to sort through all of that unless they were already looking at you in particular, in which case, there's probably many ways they could still get your information.

Hey, you wanna not be tracked? Go get a VPN, then use that to connect to another VPN, then connect to Tor. Enjoy your Dial-Up speeds.

Teddyb3ar
03-25-2013, 11:36 PM
All websites themselves usually track you, or you leave some sort of digital footprint on it, there's not many ways around that


And that (Where's your fucking Axe??????? T_T) is the true about all of this.

Despair
03-25-2013, 11:55 PM
And that (Where's your fucking Axe??????? T_T) is the true about all of this.

Ha, I'd rather not clutter the thread further with it. Though if there's an avatar sized version I'll change to that.

aati
03-25-2013, 11:56 PM
@aati: Stop talking bullshit and finally take a look at the Chrome repo (http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/). The latest change is some minutes (!) old. And if you're already quoting Wikipedia, you should actually read what it says there: Differences from Google Chrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_%28web_browser%29#Differences_from_Google _Chrome)
You can at any time check out this repo, build it and receive a Chrome browser which misses the features presented in the article.

I'm not sure what the first link is (I’m guessing it’s open source patches) but if Google Chrome was open source, it would say it in the first paragraph like with Chromium:
"Chromium is the open source web browser project from which Google Chrome draws its source code. The browsers share the majority of code and features, though there are some minor differences."
Instead it says:
"In September 2008, Google released a large portion of Chrome's source code as an open source project called Chromium, on which Chrome releases are still based."
So it’s part open source.

Like I said, they have secret relations with the NSA so they're obviously not going to be like:
This web browser features:
- Log of all user activity sent direct to our database. (YEAH!)

All that I'm saying is that I don't want to use a web browser from a corporation that has been caught on multiple occasions, tracking user activity and that has a close/secret relation with the biggest tracking/intelligence/spying agency in America that would greatly benefit from exploiting this opportunity.

If you wanted to legitimately purchase car, would you trust a guy that has been caught multiple times stealing, that has a criminal record and that currently has close ties with a massive black market that he communicated with on a regular basis or would you trust the guy that no criminal record and that has never been caught stealing?


I highly doubt either FireFox or Google care what users like us search for. All websites themselves usually track you, or you leave some sort of digital footprint on it, there's not many ways around that. Google may track you more than Firefox, but that's probably only because of the search engine being built into it, which we know tracks you to tailor better results. Use DuckDuckGo if you don't want to be tracked whilst searching, but either way, think about it. Even if Google is tracking you the way you're talking about, they're tracking everyone that way, it was said earlier, 100's of millions of users, do you realize how much data that is? Think how long it would take for them to sort through all of that unless they were already looking at you in particular, in which case, there's probably many ways they could still get your information.

Hey, you wanna not be tracked? Go get a VPN, then use that to connect to another VPN, then connect to Tor. Enjoy your Dial-Up speeds.

That's why they have a 1 Yottabyte, 2 billion dollar data mining center for.
That's also why I avoid using Google.

VyseLegend
03-26-2013, 12:08 AM
It's true that Google, Facebook and the other big centralized databases in use today are at their core the best way to collect data on a bunch of individuals in the history of the world, second only to their use in commoditizing reality in all its aspects including (formerly) human relationships.

HOWEVER that does not mean that the information being collected is ever going to be used, more likely that its another government money pit and a bridge to nowhere. After all, government jobs and income have increased since 2008 while the private sector has sclerosed in all respects, so what better way to waste time and money than to build giant data centers where many newly hired employees sit around masturbate to child porn all day? But I digress....I use Safari, probably leaving me open to some kind of surveillance by Apple, and above all isn't the best reason not to use Chrome because.... Chrome is ugly and user-unfriendly?

jlaidler
03-26-2013, 01:41 AM
All around the mulberry bush the monkey chased the weasel. And you all just lost the game and took an arrow to the knee trying to find the cake which is a lie. Isn't there a dedicated thread for talking about one browser VS 20 different others etc? I personally don't really care all that much. I'm just here for the music.

LiquidAcid
03-26-2013, 03:09 AM
(I'm posting this here since aati apparantly doesn't have any interest in keeping this a PM discussion.)

@aati: You obviously have no idea how open-source development works. The link points to the viewer for the Chromium repository. It fully disproves your claim that the latest Chrome code available is from 2008. It is from today, as you easily see. You can grab a snapshot of the repository and build it on your local system with your favorite compiler toolchain. This yields the Chrome browser, minus the stuff mentioned before (Flash, built-in PDF, printing, etc.). This is a reproducible by anybody. You don't trust the builds that Google itself provides? Build your own binaries!

You don't trust sourcecode coming from Google itself? Then better get rid of any complex hardware devices in your home! Using this community codec pack on your system? Then you're using code written by Google employes. CCCP uses lavfilters, which in turn uses ffmpeg (http://git.videolan.org/?p=ffmpeg.git;a=summary). Search the repo for commits by people with a [email protected] adress. Yeah.... lots of stuff by Google here. I could provide dozens of more examples here. Heck, even Firefox itself contains code by Google employes. Again, do a simple search in the corresponding repository (http://hg.mozilla.org/). Now this is all good and well because the stuff is completly open. Everyone can have a look inside and see what the code is doing. I could somehow understand your position if we'd be talking about proprietary/closed stuff here. But we're not.

So your behavior is both irrational and inconsistent. You probably have a whole zoo of software (and hardware) which you don't even know one bit what they're doing under the hood. And even worse, you can't even find out what they're doing under the hood because they're essentially a black box to you. No, a block box to everyone, except the company that build the damn thing. And let me tell you one thing. The last one who want to trust about security questions of a device is the creator itself. He'd tell you all kind of nice fairy tales so you just buy his product.
Now you have the exact opposite here. A software which functionality you know exactly. And now you come throwing around these... tabloid links, which apparantly "prove" that Chrome is spying on us. I ask you: Where is this code? If it really is there, then point me to the location in the source! Why haven't I seen a single serious comment on the net, which does that? Is this also part of the "big conspiracy", or is it maybe because this "spy code" just isn't there? And no, Forbes is a finance magazine, not a security bulletin like the e.g. NVD (http://nvd.nist.gov/home.cfm).

And yes, Google does track its users (but so do other companies as well). This is happening regardless of what browser you use. Thinking that a specific one protects you from this is extremely naive and dangerous. Same goes for making a bogeyman out of Chrome. This is simply FUD. I really hope people are smart enough not to parrot the stuff they read in the mass media and tabloids (the stuff that you present as "facts") but evaluate things on their own.

And to close things, a short comment on Despair's statement about me ("The general consensus on arguing with Liquid is you're going to lose."). I make a habit of not entering a discussion if I've got nothing to contribute or my level of expertise is not high enough. You won't be seeing me participating in a discussion about e.g. politics or sports. If I act, then I'm either bored or someone is really talking nonsense -- the "infectious" uneducated type of nonsense.

I apologize for the long statement, but this should be my last here about this topic. I hope I could get at least some people to more critically reflect on what they believe to be the "truth". Thank you for reading.

jlaidler
03-26-2013, 08:11 AM
Personally I'm with an earlier point made. There's an information overload. Sure it's easy to see what we're up to, but with so many people getting up to so many different things at once it's not so dangerous for our info to be tracked because it's likely that no one is looking for many of us and we'd only have cause for concern if WE give THEM reason to look at us. There's too much information flooding everything like Japan in 2011. It's a tsunami of info and no one is likely watching any of us particularly closely if at all. If you do have genuine reason to be nervous though then by all means, batten your hatches.

alc123
03-26-2013, 03:23 PM
Banished to the nether-realm again.

aati
03-26-2013, 05:35 PM
(I'm posting this here since aati apparantly doesn't have any interest in keeping this a PM discussion.)

@aati: You obviously have no idea how open-source development works. The link points to the viewer for the Chromium repository. It fully disproves your claim that the latest Chrome code available is from 2008. It is from today, as you easily see. You can grab a snapshot of the repository and build it on your local system with your favorite compiler toolchain. This yields the Chrome browser, minus the stuff mentioned before (Flash, built-in PDF, printing, etc.). This is a reproducible by anybody. You don't trust the builds that Google itself provides? Build your own binaries!

Either way it's part open source. There's code you can't see.



You don't trust sourcecode coming from Google itself? Then better get rid of any complex hardware devices in your home! Using this community codec pack on your system? Then you're using code written by Google employes. CCCP uses lavfilters, which in turn uses ffmpeg (http://git.videolan.org/?p=ffmpeg.git;a=summary). Search the repo for commits by people with a [email protected] adress. Yeah.... lots of stuff by Google here. I could provide dozens of more examples here. Heck, even Firefox itself contains code by Google employes. Again, do a simple search in the corresponding repository (http://hg.mozilla.org/). Now this is all good and well because the stuff is completly open. Everyone can have a look inside and see what the code is doing. I could somehow understand your position if we'd be talking about proprietary/closed stuff here. But we're not.

Google didn't make my hardware. Firefox is full open source so it doesn't matter.
I don't care about having Google code, I just don't want to use a Google search engine and browser. CCCP/lavfilters doesn't connect to the internet and is not a web browser.
And yes we are. Part of the code is closed.



So your behavior is both irrational and inconsistent. You probably have a whole zoo of software (and hardware) which you don't even know one bit what they're doing under the hood. And even worse, you can't even find out what they're doing under the hood because they're essentially a black box to you. No, a block box to everyone, except the company that build the damn thing. And let me tell you one thing. The last one who want to trust about security questions of a device is the creator itself. He'd tell you all kind of nice fairy tales so you just buy his product.
Now you have the exact opposite here. A software which functionality you know exactly. And now you come throwing around these... tabloid links, which apparantly "prove" that Chrome is spying on us. I ask you: Where is this code? If it really is there, then point me to the location in the source! Why haven't I seen a single serious comment on the net, which does that? Is this also part of the "big conspiracy", or is it maybe because this "spy code" just isn't there? And no, Forbes is a finance magazine, not a security bulletin like the e.g. NVD (http://nvd.nist.gov/home.cfm).

It's called a firewall and I haven't heard any of my software invading my privacy and selling my web data to other companies.

So mainstream article about Google tracking their user, working with the NSA, hacking wireless networks, stealing emails/password and them going to court for it is not enough? I don't know what to tell you then. If it was a conspiracy site, you'd just say that it's just a conspiracy theory so my options are limited...

I guess your common sense is at a lacking. You'd probably pick the first option then:
If you wanted to legitimately purchase car, would you trust a guy that has been caught multiple times stealing, that has a criminal record and that currently has close ties with a massive black market that he communicated with on a regular basis or would you trust the guy that no criminal record and that has never been caught stealing?



And yes, Google does track its users (but so do other companies as well). This is happening regardless of what browser you use. Thinking that a specific one protects you from this is extremely naive and dangerous. Same goes for making a bogeyman out of Chrome. This is simply FUD. I really hope people are smart enough not to parrot the stuff they read in the mass media and tabloids (the stuff that you present as "facts") but evaluate things on their own.

Blocking tracking cookies can provide me with a lot of protection but if the web browser itself is tracking me then it would bypass that protection.



And to close things, a short comment on Despair's statement about me ("The general consensus on arguing with Liquid is you're going to lose."). I make a habit of not entering a discussion if I've got nothing to contribute or my level of expertise is not high enough. You won't be seeing me participating in a discussion about e.g. politics or sports. If I act, then I'm either bored or someone is really talking nonsense -- the "infectious" uneducated type of nonsense.

Yeah, very irrational not trusting well known privacy invaders. This is normalization. As long as it happens it everyone else, no one care. Make really easy to control the masses that way.

alc123
03-27-2013, 10:14 AM
It's called a firewallIt became clear at this point that you weren't following what was being said. A firewall has nothing to do with this topic at all.


Make really easy to control the masses that way.For future reference, it's really very difficult to take anyone who uses this kind of rhetoric seriously. Scale it back a bit if you want anyone to listen.

VyseLegend
03-27-2013, 08:41 PM
It doesn't really matter how hard you try to protect your privacy. The government has the monopoly on coercion that allows them to demand any piece of information about you from essentially anyone, at any time – so I don't know if Google is really to blame for your suspicions. The stories are true about the massive NSA data hubs using supercomputers to crack encryption schemes and to collate extreme amounts of extraneous data about everyone on the web – essentially, they admit, the American people are the enemy. So your best bet is to keep all critical data and communications hidden and off of mainstream channels as much as possible, encrypted, behind VPN's etc. It's not worth being an apologist for Chrome or Google because even if they are 'open source', there are going to be goons out there looking to collect your data or demand it by force from these companies.

LX2I4V
11-29-2013, 11:10 PM

HEY HEY EVERYONE ! I BROUGHT THE GOA.....









(weird silence & glares).........








masons & world goverments conspiracy thread ??








anyway im here now ....

Puea
11-30-2013, 11:44 AM
LX2I4V , in the Lossless Music Thread you responded to me:

Originally Posted by Puea
24-bit /192 KHz music is nonsense. I do only use it during Music Production so I can be sure not to loose any music date, the end Product is usually in 16-bit 96 KHz FLAC (I could go down to 48, but I don't see how 96 KHz is as harming to the ear as 192 KHz is).

The reason I want to get the highest Fidelity, why I use FLAC and Lossless Stuff is because I like to preserve music and avoid generational loss.

But most CDs usually come in 16-bit/44.1 KHz by standard so I usually don't worry about CD-Rips. (Or even DVD-Rips which go to 48 KHz usually for Movies).


& thats how the long looong endless debate about 16-bit/44.1 KHz , 24-bit /192 KHz started all over again ... damn i still got it after all these years *smug* & soon later the "chinese private (not making sense) share phobia" & the "oh so famous mp3 CBR 320 , VBR 190" movie! it's gonna be deja ouch .. all over again

________

I really don't get what you tried to say in response to what I said ...

LX2I4V
11-30-2013, 02:41 PM
LX2I4V , in the Lossless Music Thread you responded to me:

I really don't get what you tried to say in response to what I said ...




[CENTER]
.... hmmmm i see .. interesting , i'll try what you suggested & do tests on them to know which is highest quality ... i thank for your humble assist gentlemen








24-bit /192 KHz music is nonsense. I do only use it during Music Production so I can be sure not to loose any music date, the end Product is usually in 16-bit 96 KHz FLAC (I could go down to 48, but I don't see how 96 KHz is as harming to the ear as 192 KHz is).

The reason I want to get the highest Fidelity, why I use FLAC and Lossless Stuff is because I like to preserve music and avoid generational loss.



can you tell or explane to whats underline in order to understand about it more , it seems very interesting ,how does that work exactly ? Music Production & all ?...

+

after i take some pic's i'll be finished from testing on the 24-bit /192 KHz , 16-bit 96 KHz & post'em all here with answering other members ....

Puea
11-30-2013, 07:12 PM
I started Making music about 2 years ago as a Hobby. I do it for fun and to do at least something productive in my spare time. I have not read much the theory or common practice, so keep that in mind. All my Knowledge comes from Watch and learn (and the occasional tutorial I actually did read, as well as chats with other people/artists).
Also: I'm working onlky digital, no singing, no recording, only my programm and Plugins.

After checking what I actually use in my programm (and actually thinking about what the hell I'm typing) I came to this.

I don't really do use 24-bit/192 KHz even during the production. Nor do I even know what it outputs, since during the production, nothing really gets saved or compressed into a file, the audio signal just flows stright to the Output, never to be heard again.
I do however render it in 24-bit / 96 kHz Audio, because until now, I thought this would be the best way to preserve Audio.

______________________

I read the Article again that got linked in the Lossless Thread ( 24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed (http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html) )

and now I get it ...

although it IS hard to explain so I'll think about what would be the best way...

__________

"I use FLAC and Lossless Stuff is because I like to preserve music and avoid generational loss."

If you have a Picture, and you want to preserve it. You put it on a good Scanner and scan it in such a high quality that you can still see the lines of your brush-strokes if you zoom in far enough.
Good, now you got a really nice backup of your Picture, in case you want to show it to people, or want to put it up in your online gallery.
Of course, the File of that painting is rather big, because do to a high resolution you got a lot of Pixels each one has another defined piece of code to describe it's position and you also need to list all the different colors, which got used in those pixels
What can you do to reduce the filesize? make the resolution and number of pixels smaller, use less different colors so you have less overall.
Now you reduced the filesize, but the digital copy of that picture doesn't look as good anymore, but maybe just good enough to not be able to tell the different if you don't pay much attention to it.

Let's say now a fire burned the original picture, and the big good copy of the it you had on your Laptop, but the small copy you had is still on your website and you could get that from there. Well, you still got that copy of the original, but it just isn't as high quality as the original...

I just made that flimsy Story up to kind of show why you would use a lower quality version of something, mostly because you had (especially 10 years ago) not much space on your devices. So people often changed the format of things. The easyest way to reduce the size of something is to just delete it. Lossy codecs often just cut high frequencies off, because you most likely wouldn't have been able to hear them anyway.
Another thing are bad codecs. A well written codec can of course make a good compressed copy which will sound as good as the original, but if it's poorly written than it will not end in a good copy.

These are some of the things I would describe as generation Loss. And the thing is that you can't make it undone (well, you can try to restore some of it, look at the Guy who made the Metroid Prime Remaster here for example) but you technically just restor it by guessing how it was supposed to be, judging by how the Waveform looks for example.

It may be paranoid, but I like to know that I preserve Audio the way it is, by using Codecs such as FLAC that just compress the file as far as possible without actually removing any important data.

LX2I4V
11-30-2013, 07:29 PM

DONE testing & experimenting !







after reading all those articles & the lovely opininons , explanation posts then finaly put them into test from spectrum , hearing tests it apper that ...







24-bit /192 or 96 KHz music IS NONSENSE ! as many here agreed ! i swear to god there weren't a difference at all between 24-bit /192,96 KHz & 16-bit/44.1 KHz noticeable or you can hear,tell ! & based on those two articles : 24/192 and why they make no sense ... (http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html) & Joel Hruska (http://hothardware.com/News/Research-Data-Suggests-Higher-Music-Fidelity-Little-More-Than-Snake-Oil/) THE best choice/settings to record music/soundtracks from PS1 console is 48000Hz 24 or 16 bit (even though not much diffrence) which support this choice is the tests i've done + what Despair said earlier that :


cause the PSF style music didn't even hit 44.1KHz.







because 24-bit / 192kHz allows to store sound up to 192/2=96KHz not 192KHz, other than that it makes a lot of sense)

if you mean 24-bit /192,96 KHz while recording & the output is 44KHz 16 bit well ... i couldn't agree more but as an output it's just ridiculous ...






I'd try to record it in the highest quality and with the least amount of fuckery possible. Best bet would be directly into sound card or whatever...atleast I think that's how you're supposed to do it. 24 Bit just cause, but 96KHz is overkill, 48KHz should be fine....

glad we thought of same methode :










btw ... fuckery ??? wtf ?







Just a reminder that any serious audio 'ripping' with the PS1 hardware should be done with a SPDIF mod anyway. And then your bitstream parameters (depth, sample rate, etc.) are fixed.



i wish ... but not possible atm , even though it sounds/looks awsome & must have! ...






btw ... is it too much if im gonna use 48KHz 32bit float for MP3's ?? or it's ideal ?

edit #1 : also general quality of the recorded could differs from sound card to another right ?? it affects the sound in all aspects from the A to the Z true ?






*sigh* forget all the above ... there's just too much confusion & ear pain more than joyment for now i cant even tell the difference btween CBR 320 & VBR0 ... sample rate , bit debth , KHz input & output before & after recording not to mention which fits which more 96000Hz input then turn it by defult to 44100Hz cuz mp3 cant handle that while flac can etc... jesus fucking christ this is too much & not saying you did't help or made it worse , at all you all been great help & support but i'll just do it without thinking too much about all these cuz it'll just add more confusion by going to google & reading all those questions & answers , that saying 96000Hz with 32 bit but the 2nd says its friggin 192000Hz with 64 bit float with a really convenient explanations & proofs on & on & on bla bla making a HUGE misleading thus adding more confusion ... 2days & half like this & i had enough , i cant take any more info about it ... no more ... no more

Puea
12-01-2013, 03:58 PM
It's just such a wide Topic. and it often really depends on what you actually use it for :)

Someone who wants to preserve the fidelity of the Audio will use a different setting than someone who wants to wants to get their Sound-Quality to Filesize right.


Someone who wants to record (for example) the output of a PS1 losslessly will probably use other settings than someone who wants to rip a CD without loss.

I could again take 45 minutes writing about what would be optimal for which method of Riping for each medium, and what the differences are, but yeah, it's a lot and confusing.

_____________

Here are maybe some Guidelines we may be able to agree on (or not, can't force anyone, technically all the tests are already made afaik):

CD-RIPs: 16-bit 44.1 KHz , that's the redbook standard, and you can't possibly get more off it than what's actually on the Disk, it may be actually preferable to Rip the Way it got on the CD.

Consoles:
You should try to get into the game Files and get the songs from there, and ether leave them in the original format or convert them into FLAC for example, and ether keeping the original Parameter, (if uncertein, 16 bit 48 kHz because NO Studio would ever waste Space higher quality Audio Files, which sometimes not even the Console itselfs supports).

PS1 often had the case that the Audio was on there like on a Audio CD, people managed to rip the music like on Audio CDs than.

If you still want to get the music by recording what the Hardware sends you, than (because it puts additional filters on it or whatever) yeah, SPDIF would be the best way, and don't go and 16-bit / 48 kHzwill be good enough, 24 bit / 98kHz is for Audio engineers and technicians. The Console wouldn't even output at such a high frequency and there literally no way we could hear the difference, actually at higher frequencies you are actually at higher risk to pick up distortion caused by Hardware and such (which SPDIF also reduces)

LX2I4V
12-01-2013, 11:47 PM
It's just such a wide Topic. and it often really depends on what you actually use it for :)

Someone who wants to preserve the fidelity of the Audio will use a different setting than someone who wants to wants to get their Sound-Quality to Filesize right.


Someone who wants to record (for example) the output of a PS1 losslessly will probably use other settings than someone who wants to rip a CD without loss.

I could again take 45 minutes writing about what would be optimal for which method of Riping for each medium, and what the differences are, but yeah, it's a lot and confusing.


44100Hz 32-bit for both FLAC & MP3 & THAT IS THAT not gonna go why & how !

_____________


Here are maybe some Guidelines we may be able to agree on (or not, can't force anyone, technically all the tests are already made afaik):

Consoles:
You should try to get into the game Files and get the songs from there, and ether leave them in the original format or convert them into FLAC for example, and ether keeping the original Parameter, (if uncertein, 16 bit 48 kHz because NO Studio would ever waste Space higher quality Audio Files, which sometimes not even the Console itselfs supports).



tried that loooooong ago from posting questions all over forums , reading articles , to etc.. & what did i get ?? stfu posts ... (what r they?) example :




me : hey guys can anyone tell me how to rip music from games or iso's or what method should i do/use ? thanks in advance


asshole#1 : (copy & paste some shit from wikipedia...)


asshole#2 : use psone.exe it's great for ripping music from games

((useless program that gives you the very very tone/sound of instrument from the whole 1:38 track & i'am guessing that i have my whole friggin life to figure out how to put every & each tone in the right place & time then arrange them all together to make that ONE track 100% the same which will take approx 25 years MINIMUM !))
... silly isn't ?



shit head#3 : you know this is what i hate , you come here clueless about everything & want answers without an effort , asking everyone to teach you everything from 0 why dont you try to learn about it yourself ! rather than waste ppl time ?

((& holyshit ! i'am trying to get info or a lead to start from but JESUS FUCKING CHRIST NO ! APPARENTLY I CAN'T EVEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A HINT !!))



memb#4 : use ps stream to play songs then record them from your sound card

((like hell i wanna some crappy shitty CBR 320 with a havy distortion & hiss in the silent parts !!?? i wouldn't come here if i wanted that now would i ??))



memb#5 : record it from PSX emulator it's better ! (( O'RLY ??!!))


asshole# 6 : (link to another shit from wiki...)




& shit keep coming , getting worse & worse with no actual answer i can use ... & thats why i gave up looong time ago on ripping from game itself to recording it from the console itself nowdays & quite frankly ... after few recording & comparing it with the same game ripped by someone else .... shit it's 10x better ,clear,louder & i can even extend it to 3,4,7,10 minutes if i want !! & even better can encode it with the latest LAME 3,99,5 & FLAC 1.2.1 it couldn't get any better than this but as always , there's disadvantages for line in recodings :



1- lot of missing tracks due the sfx on the background that cant be cancelled nor controlled thus fail to record it

2- 50% certain about this but you'er welcome to enlighten me :

soundtracks ripped from the very file itself (that containes the game music) comes out to be the purest,clearest sounds you can get , not to mention how it's rich in details in more than a way , cuz it's encoded from the original file format (.XA , BGM.dat , Psf , etc...) so you can hear what you can't hear while playing the game whether it's speakers or headset

**(need proof from ripped game compired between the original music file vs console line in rec)









If you still want to get the music by recording what the Hardware sends you, than (because it puts additional filters on it or whatever) yeah, SPDIF would be the best way, and don't go and 16-bit / 48 kHzwill be good enough, 24 bit / 98kHz is for Audio engineers and technicians. The Console wouldn't even output at such a high frequency and there literally no way we could hear the difference, actually at higher frequencies you are actually at higher risk to pick up distortion caused by Hardware and such (which SPDIF also reduces)



as i said before ... want it but not possible atm ...








SOOO ! ... i got the BGM.dat file of the game i intend to rip .... anyone care to give me something that ACTUALLY works to convert them , work with them this time ???
+
i tried importing it to audacity but all i get is an extreme series of all kind of noises & distortions...






btw thanks for going through the troble to help me know/understant it in all it's aspects & from it , nothing but appreciation & gratitude for your decent yet good effort ... thanks

Puea
12-02-2013, 12:33 AM
some peoples are assholes, some just try to help and get it wrong while doing so, others are right but rude about it... , people suck at times xD

I tried to give what I was comfortable about beeing right, using knowledge I had and reason and logic :/

Vegeta
11-10-2014, 02:22 PM
Bump, cuz this thread got buried.

arfgh
11-10-2014, 02:58 PM
my opinion. No way of comparisson. Lossless format has the full audio spectrum, for the ones that are able to hear high frequencies or for the ones that not. But the audio it is 100% like the source. So there is no way of debate about what is better.

In fact ages ago since i have banned all the lossy formats.

VyseLegend
11-10-2014, 03:34 PM
So does anyone expect this thread to become a hotbed of activity now that the Lossless thread has been fully "intergrated". *

Somehow I doubt it.

*(historical reference)

Arceles
11-10-2014, 05:21 PM
For this thread to work, it needs to be somehow side by side with the other...

SonicRings4
11-10-2014, 05:56 PM
This seems like too much work for me. It would be plausible if there was simply a post button where it will automatically direct you to this thread and post your typed message.
Or, y'know, new download links can be linked in the first post of the thread so off-topic discussions wouldn't be detrimental.

OmegaBlade
11-10-2014, 06:55 PM
I'm willing to put forth an effort.

I don't want the thread to be closed again.

It's the reason I even came to this site.

Vegeta
11-10-2014, 08:35 PM
For this thread to work, it needs to be somehow side by side with the other...

This thread was for the vgm v1 thread, I am not sure if the OP still gets online to check, but if not maybe a different topic for v2 thread would be a good idea.

Despair
11-16-2014, 06:00 PM
I fail to see the point of it as this thread is clearly unused. The lossless thread is home for some of us; for me it's the only topic I actually bother to "read," so a little discussion, especially if it's related to lossless, soundtracks, composers, etc. is a non issue for me. So in my massive scroll I notice large blocks of text that I now have to glance at while scrolling to see if they interest me, so what? The off topic discussion really isn't that bad either.

Now multiple pages mostly being discussion, or worse, rants, I do see as being an issue since they're hardly constructive but I don't agree with how it's handled. Users who are arguing should simply be temp banned so they can cool down, or be reminded once or twice to take it to PM's. And if an argument has brought some discussion out of it then I don't agree with a somewhat "forced censorship" of peoples' opinions, especially if the end result is more knowledge about lossless as a format.

If lots of people are asking for others to stop then I agree they should; if Leon if getting lots of PM's asking to break up a fight, or that the discussion is making it hard for people to just scroll through the thread then that's one thing (Never mind that the whole point of showing the large album covers is so people can quickly scan without taking too much time to read), but otherwise I think alot of problems could simply be cleared up by somebody acting like an adult and asking people to cut it out. Of course, off topic posts could just be spoilered so as not to take up too much space as well.

Morbidcrab
12-08-2014, 07:17 AM
Fight, Fight, Fight!!

Chrono Meridian
12-08-2014, 08:37 AM
May I interject a little question?

Only the lossless thread (Thread 126974) takes a long time to load for me for quite some time.
Is it just me, or has something changed?
(and yes, I have fast internet)

Edit: Oh, it's okay! I have it, now it's all normal. :)