Best (reasonable) CD Ripping Practice

[kilroy]

I will leave this thread because you have asked.

If the OP had asked me politely ,I would have left this thread long ago.

 

It's a shame though that with any thread that I have ever started, in any area of the forum, that a similar request by me would have never resulted in the same courtesy.

That is one of the main reasons I am reluctant to post any of my other material/findings in this forum.

 

Guess you have no intention of honoring Chris' or my requests, or even your own word of leaving this thread.

Do I have to ask his involvement again?

[sandyk]

Guess you have no intention of honoring Chris' or my requests, or even your own word of leaving this thread.

Do I have to ask his involvement again?

 

This thread has served its purpose. Stick a fork in it. Thanks to all (except you know who ).

 

Why do you care ? You asked for the thread to be closed.

Chris is aware of my re-entry to this thread AFTER you asked for it to be closed, as he replied to a reasonable question from me.

Perhaps you don't like what Warren posted about hearing differences between the 2 versions, and the fact that I can still hear differences too, after conversion from .aiff to .wav ?

Warren didn't exclude me or any other member from listening to his files, and I think that he would have been happy if a few more members had a listen to them and posted whether they heard any differences or not..

 

Are you afraid you might actually learn something ?

[mansr]

MD5 for the first one:

 

bf27eba213deb094365035db836526cd

and the second:

d89a6e1078e5abe246f31abd7c91f751

 

The difference is in the metadata. Two lines about source being CD lossless and the composer's name are transposed. This is why the hash is different. The actual music samples are the same.

 

Sorry for those not enjoying the checksums.

 

I do like the Beatles and this music. It still sounds the same to me over my headphones. I have been letting it repeat both copies while messing about with the checksums.

 

I can confirm that the audio samples are exactly the same. The metadata has a few more differences:

1. File 1 has ID3v2.3, file 2 has ID3v2.4

2. File 1 has UTF-16 encoded text fields, file 2 has UTF-8

3. The tags are in a different order, not just a two-line transposition

4. The album tag is different, "Past Masters, Disc 1" on file 1, "Past Masters, Disc 1a" on file 2

5. File 2 is padded with zeros to the same size as file 1

 

Whether or not these difference are audible (of course they're not), the presence of the jitterbug has nothing to do with it. The metadata is taken from some online database, and in both cases the same disc ID is detected (TXXX: [AccurateRipDiscID]: 018-001ad2b7-01680674-fc09f512-15). Why dBpoweramp wrote the tags differently is impossible to tell. Maybe the user changed a setting or did something slightly differently between the runs. Maybe it's just unpredictable. Either way, this test has proved nothing.

[wdw]

Hi Warren

Comparing my rip with yours in Sound Forge 9 shows that mine is almost certainly the original, but yours has been painted with the "Loudness Brush." The original sounds markedly better.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

 

Just to clarify, my rip is from the 2009 remastered boxed stereo issued set a few years back. They also issued the remastered monos. I recall Brian Epstein claimed we haven't really heard Sargent Pepper until we hear the monos. The differing metadada may be due to the secong rip being run through Yate to give it a differing album name. Master 1a.

Is yours an earlier issue? I suspect the reissue could have been pumped.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_Box_Set

[wdw]

I can confirm that the audio samples are exactly the same. The metadata has a few more differences:

1. File 1 has ID3v2.3, file 2 has ID3v2.4

2. File 1 has UTF-16 encoded text fields, file 2 has UTF-8

3. The tags are in a different order, not just a two-line transposition

4. The album tag is different, "Past Masters, Disc 1" on file 1, "Past Masters, Disc 1a" on file 2

5. File 2 is padded with zeros to the same size as file 1

 

Whether or not these difference are audible (of course they're not), the presence of the jitterbug has nothing to do with it. The metadata is taken from some online database, and in both cases the same disc ID is detected (TXXX: [AccurateRipDiscID]: 018-001ad2b7-01680674-fc09f512-15). Why dBpoweramp wrote the tags differently is impossible to tell. Maybe the user changed a setting or did something slightly differently between the runs. Maybe it's just unpredictable. Either way, this test has proved nothing.

 

...but it wasn't a test just two files that you could listen too. Totally subjective and no Klingon babies. The metadata differences likely due to Yate.

[The Computer Audiophile]

...but it wasn't a test. Just two files that you could listen too. Totally subjective and no Klingon babies. The metadata differences likely due to Yate.

Thanks for keeping a great attitude and realizing this is just a great hobby where no Klingon babies are being saved.

[wdw]

Thanks for keeping a great attitude and realizing this is just a great hobby where no Klingon babies are being saved.

 

Chris,

..but have to bite my tongue when I read a statement like this from Mansr

 

Whether or not these difference are audible (of course they're not),

rudeness disguised as a certainty

[The Computer Audiophile]

Chris,

..but have to bite my tongue when I read a statement like this from Mansr

 

 

rudeness disguised as a certainty

Agree.

[mansr]

...but it wasn't a test just two files that you could listen too. Totally subjective and no Klingon babies. The metadata differences likely due to Yate.

 

Thanks for the clarification about the metadata. That explains it.

[sandyk]

Is yours an earlier issue? I suspect the reissue could have been pumped.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_Box_Set

Warren

My copy is CDP 7 90043 2 - This compilation 1988 EMI Records

Please check your PMs

Regards

Alex

[kilroy]

Why do you care ? You asked for the thread to be closed.

Chris is aware of my re-entry to this thread AFTER you asked for it to be closed, as he replied to a reasonable question from me.

Perhaps you don't like what Warren posted about hearing differences between the 2 versions, and the fact that I can still hear differences too, after conversion from .aiff to .wav ?

Warren didn't exclude me or any other member from listening to his files, and I think that he would have been happy if a few more members had a listen to them and posted whether they heard any differences or not..

 

Are you afraid you might actually learn something ?

 

No it's that all your credibility has been lost so there's nothing to learn from you. Interesting how you always quote other people (or misquote, or selectively quote, or take out of context) to support your hare-brained fringe theories. Yet you don't say that you hear these things. I agree with most other people who say "so what" to lunacy ramblings. And to the fact that these things are not audible, or at best are very subjective if they are deemed to be by a listener.

 

Why is it you don't start your own thread like numerous people have suggested instead of dumping on everyone else's threads. You can invite abductees, conspiracy theorists and all that ilk as well, it'll fit right in.

[Sal1950]

We?

 

I was born in '75 :~)

Whippersnapper.

Least the dance had more relevancy than the delusional ramblings and crapping by Alex and friends in kilroy's thread.

A plea for some intervention and sanity here.

[wdw]

.......

[YashN]

I tried to listen, about 2-3 times on and off over the years, the different tracks that have the same checksum but sound different offered by SandyK. Guess what. As soon as you play the files back, anything can happen in the computer which can create differences in playback which are audible, these were were the days before Intona, Regen and the like.

 

How is that new? We've been discussing that for years here.

 

Being that it may I couldn't detect any differences between the samples.

 

Good for you.

 

I don't feel I get any valuable information from you, and I'm relieved it is so. I don't have to worry then and be blissfully ignorant of all your teachings. Now that's freedom of choice.

 

If that means we'll be seeing less of your trolls posts in my threads, then good effing riddance. You don't have the capacity anyway.

[YashN]

I know when I offer to make anonymized tracks available that have identical MD5 hashes you and other proponents suddenly have somewhere else to be.

 

Who are you again?

 

Do your own tests. I have done plenty of listening of my own test files and others'.

[YashN]

Chris,

..but have to bite my tongue when I read a statement like this from Mansr

 

 

rudeness disguised as a certainty

 

...plus someone who actually spent a couple of minutes doing just the proxy tests of trying BugHead or Rewrite Data would probably stop and think deeper before dismissing things outright. After all the latter (RW) is just a file copy...

[audiventory]

I can confirm that the audio samples are exactly the same. The metadata has a few more differences:

1. File 1 has ID3v2.3, file 2 has ID3v2.4

2. File 1 has UTF-16 encoded text fields, file 2 has UTF-8

3. The tags are in a different order, not just a two-line transposition

4. The album tag is different, "Past Masters, Disc 1" on file 1, "Past Masters, Disc 1a" on file 2

5. File 2 is padded with zeros to the same size as file 1

 

Whether or not these difference are audible (of course they're not), the presence of the jitterbug has nothing to do with it. The metadata is taken from some online database, and in both cases the same disc ID is detected (TXXX: [AccurateRipDiscID]: 018-001ad2b7-01680674-fc09f512-15). Why dBpoweramp wrote the tags differently is impossible to tell. Maybe the user changed a setting or did something slightly differently between the runs. Maybe it's just unpredictable. Either way, this test has proved nothing.

 

I can't understand why need refer to some checksum(s) from uncertified source(s), when ripper may have direct access to error flags?

 

1. What probability of correct checksum(s)?

 

2. What probability of C2 (error) flag show "correct" instead "error"?

 

3. What do with rare CDs?

[One and a half]

If that means we'll be seeing less of your trolls posts in my threads, then good effing riddance. You don't have the capacity anyway.

 

Don't worry, any errors created by you will be corrected.