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: Cuesheet (Read 3887 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Cuesheet

I understand how important the cue sheet is when you want an exact copy for backup but if you don't plan on burning is it needed at all? (assuming the tracks have the gap post-appended)

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=47071
I was reading this and, assuming the above, if you burn a cd without any gaps added in (tracks played back-to-back), would that be identical to the original?

Cuesheet

Reply #1 –
If you don't plan on burning I see little point.

If you do burn without a cue sheet all you will do is lack INDEX 00 indices, which does mean that it will not be 100% exact, but the audio at least will be.  If the CD had no INDEX 00 indices then, as you say, there will be no difference, but of course you shouldn't buy CDs based on this trait.
I'm on a horse.

Cuesheet

Reply #2 –
... so in a FLAC collecton, do I need to keep any of these other files such as .md5, .log etc etc.???

Seems the types of files included in a flac folder is growing - and i just get the feeling it effects smooth playing.

Cuesheet

Reply #3 –
@tigertales: I would be very careful asking these types of questions. It would appear that you download the files (illegally?) rather than ripping them yourself, as there is no need to generate an md5 file or log file unless you specify it.

However, it does not affect any "smooth playing", whatever that means.  And .md5 file is a hash checksum of your files to test the integrity, and the .log file should be self explanatory. If you have issues with the .cue file not linking properly to the files you have ripped, you can manually edit the location of the flac file itself, as the .cue file simply is a text document with information mentioned above.

Cuesheet

Reply #4 –
Cuesheet files may contain interesting informations, such as:

- pre-emphasis flag (which isn't corrected by secure rippers at the moment -> weird sound on audio players)
- index (in some cases, long tracks may have a kind of internal splitting ; cuesheet reveals it and it could be interesting to accurately split the long tracks on shorter ones)

I would say that the pre-emphasis flag is the most worrying one (but only if you have several old recordings - modern ones don't seem to have this flag anymore) which could really justify the creation of a cuesheet for multiple-files-album-rip. For more informations :
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=38312
Wavpack Hybrid: one encoder for all scenarios
WavPack -c4.5hx6 (44100Hz & 48000Hz) ≈ 390 kbps + correction file
WavPack -c4hx6 (96000Hz) ≈ 768 kbps + correction file
WavPack -h (SACD & DSD) ≈ 2400 kbps at 2.8224 MHz

Cuesheet

Reply #5 –
Personally, I'm more interested in track/audio integrity rather than being able to put the CD format back bit-for-bit 1:1. What's more important for me is that the disc is read accurately and the tracks split properly according to the cue file at ripping time.

Plus with my Sansa Clip (supports flac!! so does Sansa Fuze), I don't see any reason to carry or even worry about CD's except for building your collection or novelty - as long as I got the audio lol

Thanks for the responses.

@Synthetic Soul
Reading some more:
http://www.digital-inn.de/exact-audio-copy...es-like-me.html

Still learning some stuff on cue sheets lol

1. Are you saying there is a pre-gap on the first track?

2. I thought if the gaps are apprended (1st track + gap before 2nd track), then playback would be same as original? if back-to-back without any additional gaps added in by the program.

3. I understand that the ideal way for exact copy would be gap preppended (gap + track). If someone kept their tracks as (track + gap) can they convert it back to (gap + track) like the original (the negative count)?

Cuesheet

Reply #6 –
Quote from: KCEII on
@Synthetic Soul
Are you saying there is a pre-gap on the first track?
I'm not sure I understand the question.  Bear in mind that INDEX 00 indices can occur on any track; they are often discussed here as HTOA hidden tracks when used on track one, but I was not specifically speaking about these.

In general, INDEX 00 indices will be apparent when playing a CD in a CD player as you will see the time display count up from a negative number, generally for a few seconds.  This is the period between INDEX 00 and INDEX 01 on a track.

As guru rightly points out, cue sheets may actually record other index values (02+).

I have no knowledge about CD players being able to use these indices, or being able to skip to or from INDEX 00 indices.  This is why (guru's pre-emphasis flag point aside, this is the first time I've ever heard of this!) I would not worry about cue sheet info if you are not interested in burning 100% accurate CDs from rips (which is not necessarily achievable in any case, depending on your drive's capabilities and the CD).
I'm on a horse.
 

Cuesheet

Reply #7 –
Quote from: KCEII on
2. I thought if the gaps are apprended (1st track + gap before 2nd track), then playback would be same as original? if back-to-back without any additional gaps added in by the program.

3. I understand that the ideal way for exact copy would be gap preppended (gap + track). If someone kept their tracks as (track + gap) can they convert it back to (gap + track) like the original (the negative count)?
I'm no expert on gaps, so I think it's worth pointing you to two wiki articles on the subject:For my part:

2. I would say that it wouldn't matter if you appended or prepended gaps in this instance: you still get the audio with correct gaps when playing (in sequence).  Of course, if you chose to remove gaps then it will be different.
3. I would say that appending the gaps to the previous track is the best option, although this is - in EAC's own words - "non-compliant".  Users tend to use this method so that, when playing tracks, skipping to a new track does not begin with silence or talking between songs, but the beginning of the song, just as skipping on a CD moves to the INDEX 01 indices (if you prepended you would be skipping to the INDEX 00 indices).
I'm on a horse.