Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Is EAC default gap handling wrong? (Read 26548 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #150 –
Dead argument for someone that does not want to have a full song in one file, rather than scattered throughout several files,

Why a vital portion of one song should be cut away from that song and placed to a file with a totally different song then.

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #151 –
Because that was the way the CD was authored for individual track playback.  If you as an artist don't want it done that way, then don't have the CD authored that way.  If it was beyond your control, that's too bad; make a formal statement.

Mommy, where's fluffy?

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #152 –
The CD is intended to be played from start to finish, not how individual, isolated songs, as the compact disc player does change the numer of the song to next when pregap begins, so it literally means that this pregap is part of this next track, so this is how a separate isolated after ripping tarck should sound like, it should begin with it's pregap audio part.

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #153 –
You already said that and the logical conclusion would be to do away with track numbering altogether (also already mentioned).

Still nothing new or compelling.

Mommy, where's fluffy?

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #154 –
Hypothetical situation:
A Various Artist compilation, some of the tracks have pregaps, one puts the CD into the drive starts up EAC and Shift+F6, the result of default settings would be a song of one artist containing a portion of another artist's song at the end simply because that's what the default gap handling is, so thet person then takes this files and expects it to contain a song by one artist, he playes it and all of a sudden there is a part of another artist's song.

This is the result of the default setting of the EAC, now if someone would start up the brain and do a little thinking is that if he goes against the established default and do thing different way that almost noone does he will get songs from ths VA disc properly ripped with pregap being with the song of the same artist thus having full song without any parts of another artist's bit.

This is a more extreme example of albums that contain pregap with intro, based on simple "what if treat the songs on the album as if they were created by totally different artist", well, then we'd get the described situation.

Another one for using non-standard, unpopular, seemingly-incorrect gap handling.

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #155 –
So now we're grasping at hypothetical examples? Seriously?!?

OK, I'll bite...

The hypotetical CD would have been authored in error: defective by design.

I've seen it done with huge discrepancies in a pressing offset.

Does that mean everyone should be forced to contend with a large compensatory offset applied to non-defective pressings that is employed by default?

How would new users who don't understand anything about offsets react?

Something along the lines of, "I ripped the same disc with iTunes and the result was far better. I'm never using EAC again."  Similarly, employing the idiotic approach of placing the 00 index first by default:  "I just ripped a track that began with the tail-end of the last track and five seconds of silence using EAC. iTunes doesn't give me that problem. I'm never using EAC again."

Mommy, where's fluffy?

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #156 –
The TOC only lists index 01 start points. In a real CD player, when you play a track, using track-number buttons or the next/previous track buttons, the playback begins at those points. Clearly the intent is for the track to be experienced in the same way it is normally ripped...

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #157 –
Quote from: greynol on
So now we're grasping at hypothetical examples? Seriously?!?

OK, I'll bite...

The hypotetical CD would have been authored in error: defective by design.

I've seen it done with huge discrepancies in a pressing offset.

Does that mean everyone should be forced to contend with a large compensatory offset applied to non-defective pressings that is employed by default?

How would new users who don't understand anything about offsets react?

Something along the lines of, "I ripped the same disc with iTunes and the result was far better. I'm never using EAC again."  Similarly, employing the idiotic approach of placing the 00 index first by default:  "I just ripped a track that began with the tail-end of the last track and five seconds of silence using EAC. iTunes doesn't give me that problem. I'm never using EAC again."

Mommy, where's fluffy?

It's neither defective, not it's about the offset. If mastering audio of next track in pregap was defective, noone would do that.

The pregaps are mastered purposefuly as in this hypothetical case, that only hypothetical part is that rattist of each track is different, while the situation of songs and pregaps is exactly the same as described.

Thus in this hypothetical case as well as in case of all mentioned real examples the only way is to go consider a full song everything from the start of index 00 until the index 00 of next track.

The pregap/index 00 is not the end of previous track. When the pregap starts the CD player changed the track number to next, if it was part of previous track something like this would not happen.

New users does not have to doanything in offset, it's automatically sensed and adjusted when a CD is placed in the drive.

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #158 –
Quote from: SF01 on
If mastering audio of next track in pregap was defective, noone [sic] would do that.
...just as no one would intentionally create this hypothetical disc!

Again, you are still trying to argue the very same rejected point.  Contriving this "new" scenario doesn't change anything except to better illustrate how asinine your position is.

Quote from: SF01 on
not it's about the offset.
"not it's," indeed!

...and it isn't about hypothetical examples of defective-by-design titles

...and It isn't about ending movie credits, either.

Quote from: SF01 on
The pregaps are mastered purposefuly as in this hypothetical case, that only hypothetical part is that rattist of each track is different, while the situation of songs and pregaps is exactly the same as described.
Track start times, as specified by the disc's TOC, do not give the intended results and this was done intentionally: defective-by-design.

Quote from: SF01 on
Thus in this hypothetical case as well as in case of all mentioned real examples the only way is to go consider a full song everything from the start of index 00 until the index 00 of next track.
Thus providing further evidence that your presence in this discussion has been reduced to that of a clown.

Now let me have Porcus again tell you what continues to fly over your head:
Quote from: Porcus on
What part of the word "hidden" suggests that the artist wants you to hear it first? I am fairly sure that Mayhem intended Grand Declaration of War - the title track - to open the album.  If they intended you to first hear the backwards version of the last track, they would not have hidden it in the pregap, would they?

Quote from: SF01 on
The pregap/index 00 is not the end of previous track.
Based on the disc's TOC, it most certainly is.

Quote from: SF01 on
When the pregap starts the CD player changed the track number to next, if it was part of previous track something like this would not happen.
Again, I point you to the disc's TOC.  Now if the artist wanted the TOC to start direct access to the track is at a different location it would have been authored that way.

Let's take a closer look at what your player actually shows you, shall we?  Yes the track number changes, but now the player counts down to the track starting, with 0:00 being the start time ("by definition" ;)).  It's funny how you want to dismiss CD player behavior until you think it suits you (though in reality sill contradicts your claim).

Quote from: SF01 on
New users does not have to doanything in offset, it's automatically sensed and adjusted when a CD is placed in the drive.
That's not entirely true; though it doesn't matter.  What does get sensed is the disc's TOC, you know, where the explicitly defined start points of each track reside?

Mommy, where's fluffy?

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #159 –
1.  Bringin in an entirely hypothetical disc was not the best way. Only later I thought of a thought experiment of simply considering an already existent disc be it "Svantevit" for example to consider each track by separate artist. This is a concept album, so each song tells a story and each pregap is an intro to that story (as can be easily listened to), but if those were made by different artists the issue remains the same the pregap of track by one artist get's chopped off and sewn to a track by another artist. And it's exactly what happens a story continuity is disrupted as the intro is stucked to a song about different events with the differance being that all of them areperformed by oen artist.

2. The disc with programmed pregaps is not fefective, it's the wrong starting assumptions that pregap is part of previous tarck, which in fact is not, as shown by the CD player that is definitely not defective.

3. TOC points the start of a physical sector on the disc, it shows where to direct the laser to play this particular sector it irects to INDEX 01 of TRACK 04 (for example) but TRACK 04 also has INDEX 00 if it wasn't part of track 4 it would be listed within TRACK 04 and CD player won't change the track number when this INDEX 00 starts.

4. They haveclearly intended to have in hidden ON CD, if they wanted it to be hidden everywhere the tape would be sold fast forwarded to the moment where the audio corresponding to INDEX 00 starts, or the vinyl would have it who knows how cut.

5. The CD does not solely rely on TOC, someone mentioned Q-channel.

6. The CD player indeed starts the countdown from negative time to 0, but if the pregap was part of previous track the trach number won't change and the counting would continue to the length of this previous track.

7. The TOC point not where the TRACK starts but where the physical sector of the disc starts. And physical sector does not have to always start where the TRACK starts as being shown here. Taking an index of one track and puting it along different track is incorrect. As in the quoted Stones' disc the TOC redorects to the index 01 of the tarck but that's not where the song starts, it starts at the index 00 where the first drum bit is, you know the drumbit they composed to open this song in the first place before soneone mastered this CD this way.

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #160 –
I see you are still very mistaken and confused about the purpose of 00 indices.

If the artist intended to have a directly accessed track start with audio that was indexed as 00, then he is either ignorant about the purpose of a 00 index, or the disc was otherwise authored against his wishes. Unlike with your cherry-picking of examples, this is not a false dichotomy.

There is no equivalent with cassette because the medium doesn't lend itself to direct track access. With vinyl one can alter the pitch between grooves up to the position of the 01 index in order to provide the user with a visual cue.

Despite your unwillingness to accept the reality of the situation, your issue is ultimately with how these CD titles are authored.  This really isn't about a piece of freeware specifically designed to preserve as much information on a CD as practicable, including the ability to capture and preserve 00 indices.

That you wish to pervert a CD's track start positions when extracting digital audio to separate files is your business.  There's no need to be so blindly self-righteous about it.

Mommy, where's fluffy?

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #161 –
The purpose in the first place was to somehow contain the silence that existed between tarcks on a vinyl master, because when CDs were put to marked all major labes rushed to issue as many titles as possible to capitilize on the new medium.
Later as artist learned how they can exploit this index and how it's connected with TOC and skipping they thought it was perfect to include hidden portions of audio that would make a track whole if not skipped with next button which would jump to index 01 of the track and the address of the sector encoded by TOC, but had they put the index 00 that made the actual song start there. That's the purpose the song still makes sense without this intro because that's how this was composed and how carefully the location of index 1 was chosen, but the song is full with it's audio from index 00.

Those are not carefully picked examples, but actually all CDs from my collection that can be reviewd on metal archives that contain audio in pregaps.

The audio was intended to be hidden on CD and someone skips tracks on CD, not hidden form the entire world, hence their appearance on vinyls and tapes where indeed there is no automatic index, well, unless someone has a badass tape deck with some autosearch.

My position of self-rightousness is based on the analysis of all those CDs I own that have audio in pregaps and examination of which song they belong to and in all cases they are composed by artist to be part of the song that this pregap leads to, so logically when ripping those songs should be preserved in their fullness.
The sector markers on TOC does not have to reflect how the songs are spanned on the CD, if that was the case then there would be no need for indexing those tracks, but indexing is present to for example exploit the pregap. So that people would blindly rip from start sector to end sector, rather than stop and think outside of the box for themselves for a while and have awareness what settings would give them full songs rather than thoughtlessly slice the CD simply by TOC. TOC is not the oracle of Cd, there are other subtle tools to guide where the particular song starts.

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #162 –
For 00-indexed audio belonging to the end of the previous track, you're just going to have to deal with it using whatever tools are at your disposal.  I can assure you that EAC will never change what it does by default.  Arguing in a community where no one so far agrees with you isn't going to get you anywhere.

Mommy, where's fluffy?

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #163 –
Had index 00 belonged to previous track in reality, there would be no discussion. Real life use of pregaps says otherwise, as artists use them to contain portion of audio before index 01.

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #164 –
Doesn't the fact that CD players are unable to jump directly to index 00 say that that is not where the track starts?

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #165 –
This fact simply means all CD players are wrong.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #166 –
Quote from: SF01 on
artists use them to contain portion of audio before index 01.
With the portion of audio belonging to the previous track defined by how the CD was authored which can be verified by the time displayed on your CD player (counting down to 0:00 at which point the next track starts, again, by definition).  If artists intend otherwise they would have (should have, if they are otherwise confused like yourself) made sure to put the 01 index at that point.

Mommy, where's fluffy?

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #168 –
I cannot believe this thread has actually reached nearly 170 replies, just because one stubborn megalomaniac wants to change a default behavior that exists for very good reason - and I admire greynol for his patience and politeness in dealing with this.

SF01, standards and defaults are based on what is the rule, not on exceptions. The rule is that pregap content is silence and that nobody wants his tracks to start with silence. We don't want silence. We don't want it on a standalone CD players and we also don't want it on our PCs, MP3 players and smartphones. Yes, there are some releases that have actual audio content instead of silence, but this is a very small minority. Listing examples, like you did, is just futile and pointless. You can list ten, hundred or even thousands of CDs here - and they will still be nothing but exceptions to the norm.

"The whole point is to update the default settings so that people with no experience would be able to have songs properly extracted with all their structure retaines, that contains everything hidden in the intro, be it musical intro, spoken intro, etc, the main part of the song in index 01 and other indexes, so when playing just one song in PC, or portable song player, they'd listen to the entire composition, rather than from an abrupt beginning through part of another song at the end."

The only effect of this would be that "people with no experience" are suprised, irritated and possibly slighty annoyed that playing a track now works differently from what they are used from their standalone players - just because you insist on telling all these people that they are listening to their music the wrong way.

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #169 –
Quote from: SF01 on
Why a vital portion of one song should be cut away from that song and placed to a file with a totally different song then.
The exact reason behind index 0 content is that it is not vital. If it was vital it would be index 1 content.
 

Re: Is EAC default gap handling wrong?

Reply #170 –
When you rip special, not ordinary CDs, you use special commands like Action -> Copy Selected Tracks Index-Based -> Uncompressed (Alt+X)" or "-> Compressed (Alt+Shift+X)
And you have each index in separate file. And deal with them how you want.
That's what is good with EAC, versatility.

Defaults were carefully chosen to work with majority of CDs that were authored in a standard way.
If age or weaknes doe prohibyte bloudletting you must use boxing