I retracked a show!

[feralicious]

It was cool. :cool:

[Five]

ummm... here I thought this was gonna be an exciting thread.

good stuff! :thumbsup

ps please tell me you made sure there's no SBEs

[ssamadhi97]

cue standing ovations

[uhclem]

It was cool. :cool:
Could you be any more sexy? :crazy:

[TheMamba]

:worthless


Haha.

[feralicious]

ps please tell me you made sure there's no SBEsSBEs? What are those? ;)

Research told me that CDWave automatically splits in the right place, and an shntool len check confirmed. :)

God the show I retracked was soooo messed up. The beginnings of almost all the tracks were on the ends of the previous tracks, which I didn't notice until I started spot checking individual tracks before including the show in a loop since if you listen to it continuously it's not apparent.
And there were several long stories, one of which had about a minute at the end of one track and about a minute at the beginning of the next track. It may have even been split in the middle of a word! So I split them out as their own tracks. Not a difficult task, but it took a decent amount of time.

How's that for excitement, Five? :lol

[pmonk]

All depends - what were you wearing at the time????

[feralicious]

Could you be any more sexy? :crazy:Nope. It doesn't get any better than this. :imslow:

[feralicious]

:worthless


Haha.Feel free to post away! :D

[feralicious]

Could you be any more sexy? :crazy:Does this (http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showpost.php?p=90048&postcount=4)do anything for you? :naughty:

[Five]

geek girls rock my world

[U2Lynne]

Let's heat it for Geeks Girls!!! :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Lou]

Boo at me all you want but I track flawlessly the cheap way--take the wave file, make a .cue sheet and then burn it directly to CD as an image. Do not cut before that.

Every time, it's been flawless. I realize it adds a CD generation but I ain't paying for CDWave and I don't know of another free program that can track flawlessly, pre-CD burn.

[feralicious]

Boo at me all you want but I track flawlessly the cheap way--take the wave file, make a .cue sheet and then burn it directly to CD as an image. Do not cut before that.

Every time, it's been flawless. I realize it adds a CD generation but I ain't paying for CDWave and I don't know of another free program that can track flawlessly, pre-CD burn.I downloaded and use CDWave for free. It didn't tell me to pay and it's been on my computer for a while, though I just got around to using it. :confused:

[feralicious]

Let's heat it for Geeks Girls!!! :clap: :clap: :clap:Heat it up girlfriend! :lol

[Five]

Boo at me all you want but I track flawlessly the cheap way--take the wave file, make a .cue sheet and then burn it directly to CD as an image. Do not cut before that.

Every time, it's been flawless. I realize it adds a CD generation but I ain't paying for CDWave and I don't know of another free program that can track flawlessly, pre-CD burn.
It is possible to do with Audacity and/or FLAC frontend... I'll have to write up a visual guide for this because it's slightly tricky.

It is my understanding that CDWave is not free software, it just doesn't disable itself if you never register.

[Lou]

Another thing you can do, and I'm not sure if it's allowed here, is to encode the big .wav file as a FLAC if you want to spread it, and just provide the .cue sheet in the torrent. That way you're not adding a CDR generation for archiving purposes.

[jcrab66]

It is my understanding that CDWave is not free software, it just doesn't disable itself if you never register.


you are correct...

[uhclem]

Boo at me all you want but I track flawlessly the cheap way--take the wave file, make a .cue sheet and then burn it directly to CD as an image. Do not cut before that.

Every time, it's been flawless. I realize it adds a CD generation but I ain't paying for CDWave and I don't know of another free program that can track flawlessly, pre-CD burn.
What are you talking about?? :confused:

[feralicious]

Boo at me all you want...We're not booing, we're yelling "Lou, Lou!" :lol:

[feralicious]

Another thing you can do, and I'm not sure if it's allowed here, is to encode the big .wav file as a FLAC if you want to spread it, and just provide the .cue sheet in the torrent. That way you're not adding a CDR generation for archiving purposes.Tracking the show doesn't add a CDR generation, nor does archiving in flac format. I don't understand the benefit of doing what you mentioned. It seems like it would just confuse people. See? It's starting already. --> :confused:

;)

[Five]

Lou, post some more, between the lot of us we can find a way for you to track without adding a cdr generation...

[Lou]

OK here's what I've been doing:

I've gotten a lot of tapes recently that I'm converting using my new $300 Sony Standalone burner (off the top of my head I think the model number is RCD-W500C). I was lent a Sony tape deck, model number TC-WE635 I believe. I've been doing all tape transfers this way.

I have not been tracking using the standalone for a couple of reasons. A) you have to guess when to insert a track marker if you want to have the songs start right away with each track. B) there are gaps in the tapes which I'd like to edit out, and at times the tapes have been copied such that you can make a nice splice so that a song doesn't start and fade out, and then re-start up again. This takes place generally when the show was taped on a 110 minute tape, but then later copied onto 90 minute tapes.

So then what I do is I rip the big-ass wave files from my music CD's (which BTW, you have to buy special music CD's for standalones that cost more) onto the computer and edit out the gaps, do the splices and prepare for tracking. Since I don't know how to cut the .wav file on the hard drive without the risk of introducing SBE's, what I do is I burn the .wav file directly to CD as an image. I take a .cue sheet, mark out where I want the tracks to be split, and I don't cut it on the PC. It gets cut on my new CDR that I just burned.

Therein lies the rub. By doing this, I add another CDR generation. I already have my original CDR generation from the music CD I burned on the standalone. Now I'm adding another one because the only way I know how to track flawlessly is to burn right to CD. Thus if I want to spread it, I'll have to re-rip from that second CDR. But it's the only way I know to do this and get flawless track transitions.

I don't want to buy any software. I don't know how to split the .wav file before burning to CD and ensure that it comes out fine. I've tried splitting a wave file, WITH A CUE SHEET, on the pc, and yet there STILL seems to be one or two track transitions that are fucked up. I don't understand why this would happen because I'm using a .cue sheet, but it still happens. It seems the only foolproof way to track, without using CDWave, is to track via burning to another CDR.

So can anyone guide me through a free wave cutting program that's 100% effective in cutting the wave and never introducing SBE's?

This is what I was talking about when I postulated that if I want to spread something without going through another CDR solely for the purpose of ensuring flawless track transitions, I could just spread the big wave file and throw in a .cue sheet.

[pmonk]

So can anyone guide me through a free wave cutting program that's 100% effective in cutting the wave and never introducing SBE's?

CD Wave

http://www.sharewareorder.com/CD-Wave-download-6068.htm

[Lou]

CDwave is not free. It's shareware.

[pmonk]

Note that CD Wave is shareware. This means you can use it in any non-commercial way. You can try it for a period of one month (31 days). If you wish to continue to use it after that period, you must register. Instructions on how to register are also in the help file.

I downloaded this in August 2004 and still use it.

I used it to spilt the ELP and ARMS show I torrented on this site!

http://www.milosoftware.com/cdwave/

[Lou]

OK, I'll DL it when I get home. If I can use it for free, that's fine.

[pmonk]

OK, I'll DL it when I get home. If I can use it for free, that's fine.

It never asked my to register after the so-called 30 day trail and it still works fine.

[uhclem]

Fwiw, EAC can easily cut wave files along sector boundaries.

[Five]

Fwiw, EAC can easily cut wave files along sector boundaries.
really? how do you do that? I'd love to learn if you'd be so kind.

[Lou]

Yup, I've already tried cutting using a .cue sheet with EAC, and it still doesn't work to perfection. There's always a couple of tracks where SBE's are introduced. And I still don't understand why.

[uhclem]

The only track that can end up with an SBE if you cut it via EAC with a cue sheet is the last track. The time syntax used in cue sheets is always sector aligned.

If the Big Wave File that you are cutting into tracks is not sector aligned itself then the last track will always have an SBE on it. This is the case with CD Wave too. That is why you commonly find sets that have an SBE on the end of each disc. Use shntool to pad the end of the last track.

Perhaps the sector align feature of FLAC can also do it, but I don't know.

Five: I can show you how to use EAC for cutting wave files when I get a bit more free time.

[wazoo2u]

really? how do you do that? I'd love to learn if you'd be so kind.

When you select "Process WAV" from the Tools menu, it opens the WAV editor. If you select a random point and then select "CD Sector Alignment" from the Edit menu (in the WAV editor), you'll see your cursor jump (if it's not already positioned correctly) to a frame boundary. I'll assume that's what you're asking. There are also tools to remove or add null samples.

[wazoo2u]

Lou,

I'd be more concerned with incurring a DAE generation by recording on the standalone before I worried about SBE's. Can't you record to hard disk, do your edits and then compress to FLAC ?, or does your computer lack a CD burner ?

[dorrcoq]

Lou - even if you had to pay for CD Wave, surely the few dollars involved would be worth the savings in time and effort. Not to mention wasted audio CDR's. :hmm:

[Five]

The sector align feature of FLAC frontend will automatically strip all FLACs created of all non-canonical header data (this is good) and also will pad the final track of the files in its batch list.

Okay, maybe I can just bug you for a few hints uhclem. I can see an option for splitting a WAV using a cue sheet, but which option do I use?


With Gaps
With Gaps Corrected
Leave Out Gaps
Individual Indicies

[Five]

also, what is the best way to generate a cue sheet for this purpose? I want to split a big WAV into tracks without SBEs.

[uhclem]

You make the cue sheet yourself the way wazoo suggested. Open up the wave file in the wave editor, insert an edit point, select align on sector boundary, save the cue sheet, then repeat for each track start.

Once the cue sheet is completed I always cut the tracks using 'select individual indices'.

[uhclem]

Ignore the previous message as I didn't edit it in time.

You make the cue sheet yourself the way wazoo suggested. Once you've opened the wave file in the wave editor, do the following:


select CUE Sheet > Create new cue sheet
Now place the cursor at the start of track 2
select EDIT > CD sector adjustment
select CUE Sheet > Insert > Track start
select CUE Sheet > Save Cue Sheet ( I do this after every track start is made)
rinse and repeat

Once the cue sheet is completed I always cut the tracks using 'select individual indices'.

Strictly speaking you don't have to select CD sector adjustment since cue sheet syntax automatically places edit points on a sector boundary, i.e. the spot you have picked will be rounded to the nearest sector boundary when you insert it into the cue sheet. But I do it anyway so that I can get a look at exactly where the track will begin (and just to be safe).

[Five]

thanks so much, I'll try this out!

[Lou]

Lou,

I'd be more concerned with incurring a DAE generation by recording on the standalone before I worried about SBE's. Can't you record to hard disk, do your edits and then compress to FLAC ?, or does your computer lack a CD burner ?

With all due respect I have no desire to buy all the high-end sound card and computer equipment necessary to get the same quality you can from a standalone. I have an inexpensive, run of the mill Dell computer with a bargain basement Intel integrated sound card that sucks. No matter what I did I could never get the files to have the audio intensity that I like. There'd always be a lot of blue in the spectral analysis which convinced me that I had to get a standalone or new computer equipment to make things better.

My opinion is that a standalone burner gives you superior quality, even if it does record on a disc. I find the whole idea of computer transfers to be a complete pain in the ass. I think it's simpler to go from the tape deck to a component completely separate from any computer.

If a standalone CD burner isn't good enough for this site because it requires that the audio be burned to a CD instead of copied to a hard drive, I throw up my hands and give up as it seems I just can't win.

If someone wants to release a master copy of an older show, are you going to complain if it was transferred with a standalone?

[Five]

hey, if your standalone sounds better than your stock soundcard then that's your choice to make. I would prefer to do a direct transfer to HD, because that's how I can get the best sound at my house.

[h_vargas]

Lou - you raise some good points. for me, i think it's easier (and faster) to just record to my PC, because i eliminate the time it takes to extract the WAV files from the CD. with using a standalone CD recorder or with recording to PC, the transfer itself from analog to digital is still real time. and you still have to separate tracks at some point. (well, i guess you don't, but separate tracks for separate songs seems pretty standard.) so to me, it seems quicker to eliminate the time to use EAC to perform DAE. but i can understand where you're coming from. obviously, each person should use the best method(s) possible for transfers if they even remotely care about the quality, so kudos to you for not using the internal/integrated soundcard in your Dell PC.

if you use a standalone CD recorder, one thing to check out is the S/N ratio of the unit... if it's above about -75 dB, then you're actually adding in audible noise to the recording... which is like adding an analog generation to it. there are some consumer standalone recorders - i'm pretty sure there are Sony models in this respect - that have S/N ratios at -74 dB which is barely acceptable (IMO). of course, if you have something like an HHB 880, then that would work quite well for transferring analog tapes to CDR.

anyway, happy transferring!

[feralicious]

Hey! This thread started out being all about ME!!! Now it's all about Lou.

Boo hoo. :cry:






:D

[dorrcoq]

Hey! This thread started out being all about ME!!! Now it's all about Lou.

Boo hoo. :cry:



sniveller :D

[Lou]

OK here's what it says, verbatim with regard to the S/N noise ratio for Deck B (the recording deck) on my $300 Sony RCD-W500C standalone burner:

"Signal to Noise Ratio Over 98 dB during play"

True, on a standalone burner you then have to re-rip on the computer to get the tracks exactly perfect and to do splicing. Yes this requires some more work than to transfer directly to the computer. But it's worth it in my opinion not to have to investigate, buy and install sound cards and get into compatibility issues and all that shit. I just find that whole process of doing things via computer a complete pain in the ass. Plus when I'm recording with the standalone I'm not tying up the computer, and I can use the computer for other things.

In terms of CDR generations my attitude is who cares as long as there's no digital errors introduced. Of course no one would prefer that extra ones be added but my opinion is, if it's all within my exclusive control, does it REALLY matter? CDR generations have ZERO impact, ZERO on the audio quality. The impact is solely on introduction of digital errors down the line. This is a potential hazard when you have a chain of people trading with each other at arms' length. I don't see the problem when it's just me alone doing it. It may not be "preferable," but nothing in life is perfect is it? There's a difference between degrading the audio and introducing digital errors which have nothing to do with the actual quality of the audio.

[wazoo2u]

Lou,

I'm always in favor of the method that will yield the highest quality and least amount of audio error. I realize it's a tradeoff sometimes. In general, most of us are interested in offering advice on how to achieve the best results, and what methods are most prone to inducing errors. Is adding a DAE gen better than doing an A/D with a bad sound chip ? IMO, both aren't ideal. For a fairly small investment, you could get a DAT deck to do the E/E A/D conversion and then go optical into your computer. I understand that there are some really cheap soundcards that offer a non-resampled digital input, and that would eliminate much of the noise issues inherent in your PC.

There's lots of pitfalls in archiving audio and video. Ultimately, it's up to you as to how much effort and money you want to expend on this hobby, and how interested/dedicated you are to preserving the quality of the music that you have on tape. It's been said repeatedly here that the most important QC step you can take is to listen to your seed and make sure it's error free.

I'm not a MOD here at TTD, and can't say if your transfer methods would be considered problematic or "against the rules". You would need to ask that question of them directly.

[Lou]

Yeah I haven't actually seeded anything here for fear that it won't be acceptable. If I burn something to a standalone, rip for the sole purpose of splicing and tracking, do what I need to do, listen to it to make sure there aren't any errors (and frankly, I really don't see why there would be given it's all within my control) then I don't see what the problem is. CDR generations do not degrade audio. They don't remove frequencies, clip the highs or add noise.

I guess my problem is that if standalone transfers are frowned upon simply because of an extra CDR generation, then that really sucks.

[wazoo2u]

In terms of CDR generations my attitude is who cares as long as there's no digital errors introduced. Of course no one would prefer that extra ones be added but my opinion is, if it's all within my exclusive control, does it REALLY matter? CDR generations have ZERO impact, ZERO on the audio quality. The impact is solely on introduction of digital errors down the line. This is a potential hazard when you have a chain of people trading with each other at arms' length. I don't see the problem when it's just me alone doing it. It may not be "preferable," but nothing in life is perfect is it? There's a difference between degrading the audio and introducing digital errors which have nothing to do with the actual quality of the audio.

Lou,

The problem with DAE is that digital errors can only be corrected a finite amount of times before they can no longer be compensated for. It's like skating on clear ice that keeps wearing down. You can still skate on it, still see through it until it gets so thin that blammo.... you're in the lake. Your perception that digital errors have no impact on the "quality" of the audio isn't quite correct. They don't degrade the audio, they cause it to either exist, or not exist. I'll assume that you're in favor of the former, right ?

[Lou]

First off what does "DAE" mean, digital-analog extraction or something?

Well I won't post here since this is evidently a problem. It's clear there's only one acceptable method of transfer here, which is to spend thousands of dollars on a top-end PC with a top-end sound card. Any non-PC transfer is thus polluting the community.

[pmonk]

TTD is not totally anti-generational. The concern is the more generations the higher risk of error.

If you read the policy its states:

2. All seeds must be digitally pure (no diginoise) gapless audio files.
Digital skipping or clicking noises are the result of incorrectly ripped or burned CDs, and are explicitly prohibited at this site. Please listen closely to your files before seeding to ensure they are digitally clean. Also, your files must play back gaplessly without any skips or hiccups between tracks. For live shows this is important and clips in the audience noise or song transitions are extremely irritating. 2-second gaps are often the result of incorrectly burned audio CDRs (using track-at-once mode), and are not allowed for seeding here. Also, shows that are not aligned properly to sector boundaries may have short (~1/75 of a second) clips of silence that interrupt the flow between tracks. Ensure that your files are perfectly seamless before seeding.

[pmonk]

The majority of errors occur during improper rips and burns. Repeat the process over and over again and the chance of errors increase.

You make a complete error-free transfer (no clicks, no sbe's, etc...) I see no reason why it can't be torrented on TTD.

TTD just wants to avoid the problems eztree experience where 20% of the stuff you download have errors!

[Five]

thanks pmonk, that's right

In terms of CDR generations my attitude is who cares as long as there's no digital errors introduced. Of course no one would prefer that extra ones be added but my opinion is, if it's all within my exclusive control, does it REALLY matter? CDR generations have ZERO impact, ZERO on the audio quality. The impact is solely on introduction of digital errors down the line. This is a potential hazard when you have a chain of people trading with each other at arms' length. I don't see the problem when it's just me alone doing it. It may not be "preferable," but nothing in life is perfect is it? There's a difference between degrading the audio and introducing digital errors which have nothing to do with the actual quality of the audio.
nothing wrong with this. you burn the cdr on your standalone, then extract it 100.00% accurate to your computer. If the cdr isn't perfect then you just make another one and rip from that.

[h_vargas]

Lou - i apologize if i offended you. i did not mean to. i was just trying to state two simple things: (1) to me, it seems easier/quicker to go analog to PC (because thankfully, i haven't encountered any compatibility issues with my hardware), and (2) some consumer CD recorders have bad S/N ratios, which adds noise into the recording. of course, the 2nd item appears to not apply to your situation, as it looks like you have a good standalone unit.

personally, i have no problem with standalone transferred audio material. i have dozens and dozens of shows with that in the lineage (because it was either trade with the DAT taper who only used a standalone for transfers, or go without the recording period). none of said recordings that i received had any audible errors. and i promptly archived SHN versions after listening to them.

so, if it were my site, i'd say it's fine to seed analog > standalone > cdr > eac in secure mode > shn/flac recordings. but this isn't my site, so i cannot and will not speak for the moderators. just letting you know that i can't make that call here, but to me, i have no problem with standalone conversions. (IMO, the quality of audio shows converted with standalone recorders are MUCH better than video recordings converted with standalone DVD recorders!!)

oh, and "DAE" means Digital Audio Extraction (it's the process of ripping an audio CD to WAV format on your hard drive).

cheers.

[uhclem]

... There's a difference between degrading the audio and introducing digital errors which have nothing to do with the actual quality of the audio.
I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the standalone vs PC issue, but the above quote is simply false. The audio and the digital data are one and the same thing.

[Lou]

I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the standalone vs PC issue, but the above quote is simply false. The audio and the digital data are one and the same thing.

What I meant to say is that unlike tape generations, going from CDR generation to CDR generation doesn't reduce the highs or make the speed incorrect or introduce hiss. So if you burn something from one CDR to the next, the quality theoretically should be perfect. I contend that if you are in control of the whole process, and you listen to the CDR and it's fine, then it shouldn't matter that one CDR was in the lineage. Whereas it matters one hell of a lot if an extra tape was in the lineage years ago.

An extra CDR doesn't mean degradation in how the music sounds. It just means there's a chance that errors creep in. I contend one extra CDR in the lineage, when it's all under your control and you've listened to it to make sure, doesn't make any difference in sound quality.

[wazoo2u]

An extra CDR doesn't mean degradation in how the music sounds. It just means there's a chance that errors creep in. I contend one extra CDR in the lineage, when it's all under your control and you've listened to it to make sure, doesn't make any difference in sound quality.

This statement is simply untrue.

You really need to study a bit about CD technology and the hard numbers that make up the magic of digital audio. Errors occur that you cannot hear or see in the process. Jitter and Bit Error Rates both have an effect on the sound purity. Why do you think that there is such an emphasis placed on using EAC for DAE ?? These issues have already been studied and discussed at length in the technical community. I know it doesn't sound logical to you, but you need to account for the science of the technology before you let logic be your guide.

Read this: http://www.cdrfaq.org/ before you go any further in your deductions.

[Lou]

Well that's something I can't keep up with and don't have the time to read. Of course no one wants extra CDR generations. But I think it's ridiculously picky if someone has a serious problem with a standalone conversion versus a computer conversion, solely on the basis that there's one CDR involved as opposed to none.

The bottom line is, if you're looking for shows that were recorded on tape (which is all I look for as I'm only interested in classic rock and roll), are you going to complain if someone releases their master tape copy via a standalone transfer? I'd bitch if there were digital errors in the CD to be sure, but if you listen to the CD and hear nothing wrong, I think anyone who would complain is someone who's simply insatiable.

[Five]

a lot of ppl can't even tell the diff between lossless and lossy.

I've seen a couple threads recently were somebody has pointed out a "pop" sound in a show followed by a page of posts saying "I can't hear it" followed by "Okay, I listened to that portion 20 times and now I can hear it."

One of these situations happened on another site, where I was suggesting to the seeder they should use EAC since it gives error reports which can point out errors that not all of us can hear. My take on it is that when we've got the technology to make more perfect copies, let's use it!

So the cdr generation is of little consequence especially when it has been checked over carefully by the person who made the transfer, then ripped with EAC. That having been said, the TTD philosophy is to strive towards the highest level of perfection whenever possible, and it is for this reason that wazoo2u keeps belaboring these finer details.

A transfer made to a standalone and ripped with EAC is perfectly fine with the current TTD standards.

[RainDawg]

I agree with Five and wazoo. "Listening to it" is a completely unreliable method of checking the perfection of the digital copy. Using EAC (or equivalent error-correcting DAE method) is absolutely required because it is oftentimes not within the abilitity of the lister to scan an entire CD and listen for slight digital flaws. People miss them, and polluted digital copies are passed on. There is no reason to add CDR to any lineage, but if you must, EAC with proper offset correction is the only way you can be sure your copy was done correctly.

Five is right as well, that a transfer made to a standalone and EAC extracted is OK with TTD, so long as this information is made clear in the original post.

Standalone > CDR(0) > EAC > WAV is fine.

[oldbrokentapes]

I'm gonna drag this back on topic because I meant to post the following ages ago. In addition to archiving seeded filesets (obviously), I also archive everything as a disc image with cuesheet, if for no reason other than that I like this. Plus it means that I don't have to actually split up my masters, which still make up a large portion of what I'm backing up. Addawav (http://www.geffers.demon.co.uk/programs.html#addawav) is a fantastic little utility that joins together a group of wave files, making it dead easy to combine a fileset into a disc image with no CDR stage. Cuesheet can then be made (yes, I retrack literally every show I download because, well, I do!), and the image converted to FLAC and burnt to DVD. Hooray :)

[wazoo2u]

I'm gonna drag this back on topic because I meant to post the following ages ago. In addition to archiving seeded filesets (obviously), I also archive everything as a disc image with cuesheet, if for no reason other than that I like this. Plus it means that I don't have to actually split up my masters, which still make up a large portion of what I'm backing up. Addawav (http://www.geffers.demon.co.uk/programs.html#addawav) is a fantastic little utility that joins together a group of wave files, making it dead easy to combine a fileset into a disc image with no CDR stage. Cuesheet can then be made (yes, I retrack literally every show I download because, well, I do!), and the image converted to FLAC and burnt to DVD. Hooray :)

Good ideas. I generally don't retrack before burning because I'll do a track layout in CD Architect with all my edits and crossfades (if necessary). I'll save the .cdp files and hope I can find them later :D . My problem with your method of archiving (for my situation) is that it involves way too much work, given the number of shows I collect. I burn a very small percentage of shows, and the increase of archive space necessary with the addition of image/cue files would be extreme.

[Lou]

I agree with Five and wazoo. "Listening to it" is a completely unreliable method of checking the perfection of the digital copy. Using EAC (or equivalent error-correcting DAE method) is absolutely required because it is oftentimes not within the abilitity of the lister to scan an entire CD and listen for slight digital flaws. People miss them, and polluted digital copies are passed on. There is no reason to add CDR to any lineage, but if you must, EAC with proper offset correction is the only way you can be sure your copy was done correctly.

Five is right as well, that a transfer made to a standalone and EAC extracted is OK with TTD, so long as this information is made clear in the original post.

Standalone > CDR(0) > EAC > WAV is fine.

I always use EAC for extraction and didn't mean to imply that I would haphazardly rip it to my hard drive.

I still can't get over that some people have a problem with a standalone, notwithstanding its acceptability here. Because there are a lot of Van Halen tapes at least that wouldn't even be circulating if not for one guy out in California doing standalone transfers and getting them out there.

[benjamin]

Far as I know, CDWave is free....how's that for in depth technical insight...

[jazzbo]

Far as I know, CDWave is free....how's that for in depth technical insight...

Free to download, yes. But if you check the license, it's shareware. You're supposed to pay for it after the first month.