Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

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

182 views
Skip to first unread message

thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 17, 2013, 12:05:21 PM10/17/13
to
I ripped WAVS of a popular '80s synth-pop tune via the three programs in my Subject.


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

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

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


Can you solve the riddle?

Gary Eickmeier

unread,
Oct 17, 2013, 11:28:23 PM10/17/13
to

<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c051e06-2db5-4786...@googlegroups.com...
Are you ripping the exact same track? Off a disc? What is "three programs in
my Subject"? You're talking riddles.

Gary Eickmeier


hank alrich

unread,
Oct 17, 2013, 11:56:43 PM10/17/13
to
The answer to that particular riddle is in the subject line of the post.

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

geoff

unread,
Oct 18, 2013, 12:21:47 AM10/18/13
to
Too much of a riddle for me - insufficient and inconcise information
supplied.

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

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

geoff


Sean Conolly

unread,
Oct 18, 2013, 6:11:41 AM10/18/13
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c051e06-2db5-4786...@googlegroups.com...
There's no techincal reason I can think of that would cause any of them to
have less than bit perfect copies to PCM files, at least if using the same
hardware. However, any differences should be so minute that you will never
be able to hear a result when inverted and summed. If you can, then then
there's a big problem somewhere.

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

Sean


thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 18, 2013, 11:51:55 PM10/18/13
to
Okay obviously none of you were born knowing English:

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

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

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

NOW do you guys get it?

Sean Conolly

unread,
Oct 19, 2013, 12:15:11 AM10/19/13
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca4864b1-a51b-40cf...@googlegroups.com...
Now, what does "joint stereo" mean with a PCM wave file?

Sean


Nil

unread,
Oct 19, 2013, 12:23:08 AM10/19/13
to
If you, too, would like to know English, you should read (if possible)
up on the term, "JOINT STEREO."

John Williamson

unread,
Oct 19, 2013, 3:35:00 AM10/19/13
to
Yeah, we get it. You used a number of programs to convert a CD track to
a .wav file, and are surprised that they all did the job correctly.

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

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

William Sommerwerck

unread,
Oct 19, 2013, 9:13:43 AM10/19/13
to
wrote in message news:ca4864b1-a51b-40cf...@googlegroups.com...

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

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

Scott Dorsey

unread,
Oct 19, 2013, 9:24:42 AM10/19/13
to
No, not at all. What does an encoding setting have to do with anything if
you are ripping to an unencoded format? If you are copying a 16 bit 44.1
disc to a 16 bit 44.1 file, unless there are Type II errors and interpolation
is going on, there should be no difference in the numbers or the sound.
--scott

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

hank alrich

unread,
Oct 19, 2013, 9:40:49 AM10/19/13
to
You ask much! <g>

geoff

unread,
Oct 19, 2013, 9:05:44 PM10/19/13
to
Well, maybe not quite, but probably. Unless the errors on reading the disc
were exectly the same on each pass.

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

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

geoff


Peter Larsen

unread,
Oct 19, 2013, 9:21:33 PM10/19/13
to
William Sommerwerck wrote:

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

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

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

Kind regards

Peter Larsen



thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 19, 2013, 11:37:48 PM10/19/13
to
Peter Larsen wrote "It is also left undefined what settings the original poster used with
windows media player, it has lossless and lossy encoding options. "

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

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

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

Peter Larsen

unread,
Oct 19, 2013, 11:58:31 PM10/19/13
to
That would make sense and fits the finding.

Anything audio that comes with windows is woefully undocumented.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen





Phil W

unread,
Oct 20, 2013, 12:27:04 AM10/20/13
to
Peter Larsen:
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> One (this one, anyway) assumes WAV files are lossless,

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Phil

Adrian Tuddenham

unread,
Oct 20, 2013, 3:23:26 AM10/20/13
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Okay obviously none of you were born knowing English:

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


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

geoff

unread,
Oct 20, 2013, 7:24:55 AM10/20/13
to
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> <thekma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Okay obviously none of you were born knowing English:
>
> I don't think anyone here was was born 'knowing' English, I think we
> all had to learn it.

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

geoff


None

unread,
Oct 20, 2013, 9:33:15 AM10/20/13
to
"geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:a5GdnYesYfYDIf7P...@giganews.com...
> Look, it's obviously not really 'thekmanrocks' posting this drivel.

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

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

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

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


thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 20, 2013, 9:49:25 AM10/20/13
to
Phil W wrote "
Result: *ONLY* MP3 is "Joint Stereo", *all* other formats (WAV, WMA, WMA
variable/lossless/pro) are *not*! "

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

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

None

unread,
Oct 20, 2013, 10:22:25 AM10/20/13
to
<whining little girl @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca4864b1-a51b-40cf...@googlegroups.com...
> Okay obviously none of you were born knowing English:

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

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




thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 20, 2013, 11:42:55 AM10/20/13
to
Flatus wrote "But unlike you, they learned it. You told us how you
were promoted in school because the teachers were
tired of your unwillingness or inability to learn. They
just wanted you to go away (you must be used to that!).
Since you bragged about getting out of school without
actually getting an education, it's pretty stupid to blame
the newsgroup for your ignorance. "

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

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

None

unread,
Oct 20, 2013, 12:49:37 PM10/20/13
to
<drool bucket @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6fdf0e05-3c98-46d0...@googlegroups.com...
> Try attending AES con with that attitude - you'd be escorted out of
> Javits by police!

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

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

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


Message has been deleted

geoff

unread,
Oct 20, 2013, 4:05:34 PM10/20/13
to
Jeff Henig wrote:
> "Phil W" <z@z.z> wrote:
>> Peter Larsen:
>>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>
>>>> One (this one, anyway) assumes WAV files are lossless,
>>
>> ... as long as there愀 PCM in the WAV file container, yes.
>>
>>>> and they're never processed in a lossy fashion.
>>
>> Well, WAV is a container format, so it might contain "anything".
>> Usually, that愀 not the case, but it is not technically impossible.
>> Ever had a 16 bit WAV inside a 24 bit WAV file? That can happen
>> easily. ;-)
>>
>
> (ScoobyDoo voice) Hruuuuh?
>
> I didn't know that. I thought WAV files were the raw thing.

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

geoff


Nil

unread,
Oct 20, 2013, 8:58:11 PM10/20/13
to
On 20 Oct 2013, "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

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

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

Trevor

unread,
Oct 21, 2013, 3:38:05 AM10/21/13
to

"Sean Conolly" <sjcono...@yaaho.com> wrote in message
news:l3t10g$3vm$1...@dont-email.me...
He didn't mention PCM, he's just being stupid as usual.

Trevor.


thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 21, 2013, 6:54:23 AM10/21/13
to
Trevor wrote "He didn't mention PCM, he's just being stupid as usual.

Trevor"

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

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

Marc Wielage

unread,
Oct 21, 2013, 8:04:16 AM10/21/13
to
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 09:05:21 -0700, thekma...@gmail.com wrote
(in article <3c051e06-2db5-4786...@googlegroups.com>):

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

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

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

Read about what AccurateRip does:

http://www.accuraterip.com

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

--MFW

Scott Dorsey

unread,
Oct 21, 2013, 11:00:40 AM10/21/13
to
Yes, and I have seen a few others, but I think the only actual non-PCM
.wav files that I have seen were all from Microsoft. And, for better or
worse, most software can't read them... some software still just strips
the header off and loads it in as raw data which is great if it's 16 bit
but not so great otherwise.

Arny Krueger

unread,
Oct 21, 2013, 5:23:29 PM10/21/13
to

"geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:f_GdnXqkF9JUq_nP...@giganews.com...
> Jeff Henig wrote:
>> "Phil W" <z@z.z> wrote:
>>> Peter Larsen:
>>>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One (this one, anyway) assumes WAV files are lossless,
>>>
>>> ... as long as there�s PCM in the WAV file container, yes.
>>>
>>>>> and they're never processed in a lossy fashion.
>>>
>>> Well, WAV is a container format, so it might contain "anything".
>>> Usually, that�s not the case, but it is not technically impossible.
>>> Ever had a 16 bit WAV inside a 24 bit WAV file? That can happen
>>> easily. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> (ScoobyDoo voice) Hruuuuh?
>>
>> I didn't know that. I thought WAV files were the raw thing.
>
> 99.9999% of the time they are, but they don't have to be. I've never seen
> one that wasn't LPCM. At least not that I knew about.

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


thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 21, 2013, 6:19:25 PM10/21/13
to
Mark Wielage:

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

Nil

unread,
Oct 21, 2013, 9:34:28 PM10/21/13
to
I don't know how in the world you could have possibly missed it, but
when you Google "EAC", the VERY FIRST link that comes up is the
official site, with a perfectly good download link. You don't have to
agree to anything.

William Sommerwerck

unread,
Oct 21, 2013, 9:39:35 PM10/21/13
to
"Nil" wrote in message news:XnsA260DB77...@wheedledeedle.moc...
You could have fooled me. Both links use a "download" manager, and both are
labeled as advertisements.


Phil W

unread,
Oct 21, 2013, 10:02:28 PM10/21/13
to
Well, stuff like that is, why I prefer to rip to WAV first and then use
a dedicated MP3 encoder software, which lets the user choose the
settings for encoding.
Either you want maximum comfort, which often means automated processing
with no options to be chosen by the user, or you want as much control as
possible, which means the user has to go through the steps "manually"...
Of course, the latter method involves, that the user should know, what
the options/settings actually do.

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

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

Phil W

unread,
Oct 21, 2013, 10:17:44 PM10/21/13
to
Am 22.10.2013 00:19, schrieb thekma...@gmail.com:
> Mark Wielage:
>
> I did try to download EAC, but every so-called download link to it was just an ad or something you had to sign up to or agree to download a bunch of other crap in order to download what you intended to.

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

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en

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

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

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

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

Nil

unread,
Oct 21, 2013, 11:34:59 PM10/21/13
to
On 21 Oct 2013, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net>
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

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

I don't see any of that.

Here's the main site:

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

Here's the download page:

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

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

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

...which contains this link

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

to the installation file:

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

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

Peter Larsen

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 1:33:03 AM10/22/13
to
It is not possible to make any guess at what will show up in someone elses
google-search.

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

Kind regards

Peter Larsen



Nil

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 2:28:42 AM10/22/13
to
On 22 Oct 2013, "Peter Larsen" <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

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

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

geoff

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 2:55:14 AM10/22/13
to
No - the search will have different rfesults depending on where you are, and
(if logged in to Google) skewed towards things relating to your browsing
history.

geoff


Trevor

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 3:20:42 AM10/22/13
to

"Nil" <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA260DB77...@wheedledeedle.moc...
But obviously his internet abilities are on par with the rest of his
technical abilities :-)

Trevor.




Trevor

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 3:25:39 AM10/22/13
to

"Peter Larsen" <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:52660e18$0$6972$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
> +1 for Audiograbber, it is semi-adware, but the ad-part is easily avoided
> and is also a quite usable recorder.


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

Trevor.


Peter Larsen

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 4:57:15 AM10/22/13
to
I haven't encountered problems with it that it didn't indicate having while
ripping, but thanks anyway, gonna go take a look-see at the competing
product.

> Trevor.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen



thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 8:21:16 AM10/22/13
to
William Sommerwerk wrote ""Nil" wrote in message news:XnsA260DB77...@wheedledeedle.moc...
- show quoted text -
You could have fooled me. Both links use a "download" manager, and both are
labeled as advertisements. "

THANK YOU!!!! William.

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

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

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

So stop acting like a prick!

William Sommerwerck

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 10:56:08 AM10/22/13
to
"Nil" wrote in message news:XnsA260EFE6...@wheedledeedle.moc...

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

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

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


Nil

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 1:13:00 PM10/22/13
to
On 22 Oct 2013, "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

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

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

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

Nil

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 1:21:23 PM10/22/13
to
On 22 Oct 2013, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net>
wrote in rec.audio.pro:
Yes, it is. When downloading software, especially free software, you
have to always be careful where you get it from, and pay attention
to any link you click. It's unfortunate, but that's just how it is
these days.

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

It's a jungle out there.

thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 2:00:44 PM10/22/13
to
On Monday, October 21, 2013 10:17:44 PM UTC-4, Phil W wrote:
______________________

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

<<<< Introduction

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



Advertisement / Anzeige
BIG GREEN DOWNLOAD BUTTON HERE

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



Advertisement / Anzeige
BIG GREEN DOWNLOAD BUTTON HERE


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

thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 2:23:25 PM10/22/13
to
On Monday, October 21, 2013 10:17:44 PM UTC-4, Phil W wrote:
I did have better luck with second link above - "Download Installer".

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

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

Don Pearce

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 2:32:20 PM10/22/13
to
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:23:25 -0700 (PDT), thekma...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why convert to sound? This is data; use a file comparison programme.

d

Ron C

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 2:58:38 PM10/22/13
to
On 10/22/2013 2:32 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:23:25 -0700 (PDT), thekma...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, October 21, 2013 10:17:44 PM UTC-4, Phil W wrote:
>>> Am 22.10.2013 00:19, schrieb > > Mark Wielage:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I did try to download EAC, but every so-called download link to it was just an ad or something you had to sign up to or agree to download a bunch of other crap in order to download what you intended to.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The link to the *official* "Exact Audio Copy" website
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> was already mentioned in my previous post about my short WMP test.
>>>
>>> The download page links to the website of a german PC (print) magazine,
>>>
>>> where the file is actually hosted - obviously for traffic reasons.
>>>
>>> Nothing wrong about that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyway, there愀 a direct "mirror", if you愉e too scared to visit a
>>>
>>> completely legal magazine website:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/weitere-seiten/download-from-alternative-servers-2/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> click on the *TEXT* link, ignore possible graphics with "Download" in
>>>
>>> big letters.
>>
>>
>> I did have better luck with second link above - "Download Installer".
>>
>> So my new WAV results are - everything nulled against EAC is perfectly quiet.
>>
>> So shouldn't that mean that all my rippers are just as good as EAC??
>
> Why convert to sound? This is data; use a file comparison programme.
>
> d
>
A question that comes to mind is if they all handle compromised media
identically.
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

Don Pearce

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 3:04:21 PM10/22/13
to
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:58:38 -0400, Ron C <r.c...@verizon.net> wrote:

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

What do you mean by compromised- damaged?

d

thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 3:14:42 PM10/22/13
to
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 12:05:21 PM UTC-4, thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
> I ripped WAVS of a popular '80s synth-pop tune via the three programs in my Subject.
>
>
>
>
>
> Since I have had the most luck with and use iTUnes to import CDs to WAV, MP3, and so forth, I decided to null the other two against it.
>
>
>
> When I inverted and nulled the Fairstars rip, I heard nothing.
>
>
>
> When I inverted and nulled the Windows Media Player rip, I should have heard something.
>
>
>
>
>
> Can you solve the riddle?

________________


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

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

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

Scott Dorsey

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 3:26:45 PM10/22/13
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>So my new WAV results are - everything nulled against EAC is perfectly quie=
>t.

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

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

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

Ron C

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 3:37:46 PM10/22/13
to
Scratched, sun bleached, warped, dust covered, etc.
Pick your poison. Heck, I'm guessing the guy must have
some reason to suspect copy errors, else why bother?

Nil

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 4:12:48 PM10/22/13
to
On 22 Oct 2013, thekma...@gmail.com wrote in rec.audio.pro:

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

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

geoff

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 4:27:34 PM10/22/13
to
Seems common these days that download pages are peppered with <Download>
buttons that are not for the item you want. You just need to check the page
with due suspicion unil you find the right link to click for what you really
want.

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

geoff


geoff

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 4:29:19 PM10/22/13
to
Sadly the KMPlayer (previously an excellent Media Player) now comes with
dodgey crap embedded that is difficult to avoid or get rid of.

geoff


geoff

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 4:33:05 PM10/22/13
to
thekma...@gmail.com wrote:

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

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

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

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

geoff


thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 4:47:44 PM10/22/13
to
Nil:

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

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

Nil

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 5:10:28 PM10/22/13
to
On 22 Oct 2013, thekma...@gmail.com wrote in rec.audio.pro:

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

Works for me. Sounds like cockpit error.

thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 5:52:08 PM10/22/13
to
Nil wrote "Works for me. Sounds like cockpit error. "

Simple cut & paste - even our last "president" could handle that! lol

According to the site I used, the code overrides any of the settings(id3, bitrate, etc).

Nil

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 6:53:54 PM10/22/13
to
On 22 Oct 2013, thekma...@gmail.com wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> Simple cut & paste - even our last "president" could handle that!
> lol
>
> According to the site I used, the code overrides any of the
> settings(id3, bitrate, etc).

But obviously it didn't. And since it does for me, you must be doing
something wrong.

You don't seem to be asking any real questions or looking for actual
help, so I'm not offering any.

thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 8:28:00 PM10/22/13
to
On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:53:54 PM UTC-4, Nil wrote:
_____________________

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


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

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

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

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

Sucks to be me I guess!

Nil

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 8:36:06 PM10/22/13
to
On 22 Oct 2013, thekma...@gmail.com wrote in rec.audio.pro:

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

Do you really have Lame installed?

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

None

unread,
Oct 22, 2013, 9:36:51 PM10/22/13
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc3dca10-c34b-49a9...@googlegroups.com...
> Nil:
>
> I tried pasting some alternate command lines and none of them
> worked.
>
> Hey, I graduated with a MIS degree

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

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


Trevor

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 12:01:50 AM10/23/13
to

"Nil" <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA26187DE...@wheedledeedle.moc...
> Similarly, you must always pay close attention when you install
> anything, especially if it was free. Nearly all "free" software will
> try to foist other programs on you during installation, and if you
> should miss your chance to decline, they can be destructive to your
> computer, and can be very difficult to get rid of.

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


> It's a jungle out there.

That's an understatement!

Trevor.


Ralph Barone

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 12:25:25 AM10/23/13
to
On THAT CD, yes.

Marc Wielage

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 12:37:14 AM10/23/13
to
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 21:01:50 -0700, Trevor wrote
(in article <l47hlp$93s$1...@speranza.aioe.org>):

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

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

http://www.dbpoweramp.com

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

--MFW

Trevor

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 12:58:34 AM10/23/13
to

"Marc Wielage" <mwie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.CE8CA08A...@news.giganews.com...
> Very true. I've used a half-dozen ripping engines out there, and the only
> one that does the job for me is dBPowerAmp:
>
> http://www.dbpoweramp.com
>
> It's not free ($39), but it's got an infinitely better-designed front-end
> with a far more intuitive user interface. No command lines, all
> menu-driven,
> and terrific support on the DBP website. Far better than EAC... but you
> gotta pay for it.

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

Trevor.



thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 5:25:44 AM10/23/13
to
Nil wrote "Do you really have Lame installed? "

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

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

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

UnsteadyKen

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 10:27:46 AM10/23/13
to

thekma...@gmail.com wrote...

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

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

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

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

--
UnsteadyKen

Nil

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 1:03:08 PM10/23/13
to
On 23 Oct 2013, thekma...@gmail.com wrote in rec.audio.pro:

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

Just as I thought: cockpit error.

thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 1:34:32 PM10/23/13
to
How is it "wrong" to follow instructions?

Les Cargill

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 1:41:54 PM10/23/13
to
UnsteadyKen wrote:
>
> thekma...@gmail.com wrote...
>
>> Come one, this is the millennium of automatic mapping,
>> not the glorious DOSsy '80s! lol :)
>>
> In the unlamented 90's one could bypass all this ripping nonsense with
> a quick mod to the Windows 95/98 cd driver which meant you could treat
> the audio tracks on a cd as just another type of file and extract them
> with drag and drop letting the OS handle error correction and checking.
>
> http://www.sonicspot.com/alternatecdfsvxd/alternatecdfsvxd.html
>
> Very early versions of XP could do this trick natively out of the box,
> but then the DRM gang kicked up a fuss and the facility was axed
>

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

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

--
Les Cargill

Nil

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 2:42:56 PM10/23/13
to
On 23 Oct 2013, thekma...@gmail.com wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> How is it "wrong" to follow instructions?

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

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

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

geoff

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 3:35:44 PM10/23/13
to
Yeah, and from memory the other things that it f'ed up and slowed down ....

geoff


thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 4:12:20 PM10/23/13
to
Nil wrote "

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

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

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

thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 4:25:54 PM10/23/13
to
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 2:42:56 PM UTC-4, Nil wrote:
"Invalid Replacement Tag Found!"

Maybe this website should be taken down.

thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 4:40:37 PM10/23/13
to
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 2:42:56 PM UTC-4, Nil wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2013, wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>
>
>
> > How is it "wrong" to follow instructions?
>
>
>
> It's "wrong" when you ignore the directions and then try to blame it on
>
> something else. It says on the site you referenced,
>
>
>
> http://blowfish.be/eac/Lossy/lossy.html
>
>
>
> in big green letters, "BROWSE TO LAME.EXE".

Nil!!

I finally got it! Don't ask how.

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

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

???

Peter Larsen

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 4:49:17 PM10/23/13
to
thekma...@gmail.com wrote:

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

> Nil!!

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

Congrats.

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

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

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

> ???

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

Other people know vastly more about this.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen


thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 4:59:19 PM10/23/13
to
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:49:17 PM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
> wrote:

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

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

Peter Larsen

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 5:13:13 PM10/23/13
to
thekma...@gmail.com wrote:

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

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

> You mean 64khz

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

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

Kind regards

Peter Larsen


thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 5:19:55 PM10/23/13
to
_________________
Your terms are vague and unclear. When you state a sampling rate in kHz it is automaticlly understood that the Nyquist frequency(the highest to be reproduced) = sampling rate/2.

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

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

My sampling rate options in EAC are unselectable.

Peter Larsen

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 5:26:06 PM10/23/13
to
thekma...@gmail.com wrote:

> Your terms are vague and unclear.

No.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen


None

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 7:45:03 PM10/23/13
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66e40665-a398-4bea...@googlegroups.com...
>> > Peter Larsen wrote:
>> >> My opinion is that the best choice for a good mp3 is to
>> >> samplerate
>> >> convert to 32 kHz sample rate first because that allows more
>> >> bits of
>> >> resolution in the treble range than insisting on getting 20 kHz,

>> > You mean 64khz

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

> Your terms are vague and unclear.

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

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

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







thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 8:27:05 PM10/23/13
to
Then explain what you meant by "32kHz".

Nice.


And.



Slow.

geoff

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 9:07:01 PM10/23/13
to
thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:13:13 PM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
> _________________
> Your terms are vague and unclear. When you state a sampling rate in
> kHz it is automaticlly understood that the Nyquist frequency(the
> highest to be reproduced) = sampling rate/2.

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

geoff


geoff

unread,
Oct 23, 2013, 9:08:03 PM10/23/13
to
Well I got it clear and easy.

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


geoff


Message has been deleted

thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 24, 2013, 2:41:39 AM10/24/13
to
geoff wrote "He meant a sample rate of 32kHz, just like what he said.

geoff"

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

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

Gray_Wolf

unread,
Oct 24, 2013, 3:37:49 AM10/24/13
to
On 22 Oct 2013 15:26:45 -0400, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

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

What about Audition and Wavelab?

Peter Larsen

unread,
Oct 24, 2013, 5:34:22 AM10/24/13
to
Feurio is good at ripping the unrippable and tells you if it encounters
C2's.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen



geoff

unread,
Oct 24, 2013, 5:51:40 AM10/24/13
to
thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
> geoff wrote "He meant a sample rate of 32kHz, just like what he said.
>
> geoff"
>
> Well then I must be the only person on RAP who understands sample
> rates.

But not, apparently, plain English.

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

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

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

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

geoff


thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 24, 2013, 6:21:57 AM10/24/13
to
Geoff wrote "We are talking about MP3s here. Great idea to kill off the very high
frequencies, to reduce the HF artifacts (the permanent phaser of low and "

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

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

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

Luxey

unread,
Oct 24, 2013, 7:15:48 AM10/24/13
to
Seam's None was right.

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

None

unread,
Oct 24, 2013, 7:34:28 AM10/24/13
to
< chrissie k is brain dead @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f46160a-91b2-47f0...@googlegroups.com...
> geoff wrote "He meant a sample rate of 32kHz, just like what he
> said.
>
> geoff"
>
> Well then I must be the only person on RAP who understands sample
> rates.

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

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

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

thekma...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 24, 2013, 7:57:58 AM10/24/13
to
Luxey "Seams like Nones right"

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

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

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

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

I'm listening.

John Williamson

unread,
Oct 24, 2013, 8:10:18 AM10/24/13
to
Good. Limiting the sample rate, and hence the HF content, of the
original file reduces many of the audible high frequency artifacts of
mp3 compression caused by leaving the original 44.1kHz sample rate in
place. This is a Good Thing (tm) in mopst cases.

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

--
Tciao for Now!

John.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages