Help! (understanding my accuracy... cd rips)

[Pogre]

I selected the option for Acu-rip(?) when using Foobar2000 and it gave me this:

I have no clue...

 

[lovinthehd]

While I use foobar2000 I don't use it for ripping, I use Exact Audio Copy which gives you the accuracy rip stat in terms of percentage; I have no idea what the offsets mean in your screenshot. Have you checked for help for understanding the rip status either in the foobar help or over at hydrogenaudio (where a lot of help for foobar2000 resides) ?

 

[Pogre]

I didn't, but I shall. I thought mebbe someone here would know. Why don't you use it for ripping? My main reason for using it is it's free, and I really like the remote app.

I wonder what the minor problems were... That just bugs the poop out of me.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

I wonder what the minor problems were... ....

Maybe it will be backwards.

 

[lovinthehd]

I didn't, but I shall. I thought mebbe someone here would know. Why don't you use it for ripping? My main reason for using it is it's free, and I really like the remote app.

I wonder what the minor problems were... That just bugs the poop out of me.

Maybe someone does, just asking more what the help from foobar2000 indicated or if you'd checked the foobar2000 help at hydrogenaudio. I went with someone's recommendation with Exact Audio Copy as a ripper, and it's free; I was doing a complete rework of my ripped collection and also upgrading it to FLAC from the lossy stuff I'd mostly done before that.

I downloaded foobar2000 and a few other management tools at that time as I wasn't sure where I was going post-iTunes; I was really pissed at iTunes screwing up my ripped collection when transferring laptops from old to new and was more concentrating on getting the 1000 or so cds ripped and organized....don't remember checking out foobar2000 capability in the ripping respect so will have to go check it out.

 

[Pogre]

I'll dig in some more tomorrow. I have 75 ripped so far. It would kinda suck to find out they're all flawed and foobar isn't the best for ripping, but I'm not too deep in at this point. It's probably nothing audible, if anything. I did some quick A/B switching with a couple songs I know well couldn't hear any difference.

One thing I noticed, a lot of the older stuff has a lot less data on the discs than the newer stuff does.

 

[lovinthehd]

I don't think I've seen a huge discrepancy in data file size by new vs old, but I suppose that would depend on what that is and how much of it I've got, thought it was mostly time related. Now I'm gonna have to go look at some

 

[Bucknekked]

I didn't, but I shall. I thought mebbe someone here would know. Why don't you use it for ripping? My main reason for using it is it's free, and I really like the remote app.
I wonder what the minor problems were... That just bugs the poop out of me.

I think your conclusion after you take a look at the logs from ripping is that you're just fine where you are.
The best check on your rips is to play a sampling of them and make sure they sound the way they should : no gaps where gaps shouldn't be, or things that cause the audio to be imperfect. I believe from another conversation, you have already done this.

You can follow up that first check (listening to a sampling) with ripping a CD 5 times consecutively. If foobar2000 (or EAC, or XLD or iTunes or whatever program) is working correctly, you should get a file size on your rip that is internally consistent: foobar2000 should rip the same CD with the same file size time after time. That may be a different file size than EAC produces, or XLD. As long as your ripper is consistent from one rip to the next and your audio is playing like it should, you can figure you are on the right path.

I understand your concern and desire to be as perfect as possible with the rips. As you know from another conversation, I re-ripped my entire collection just recently not because of a real problem, but just because the possibility bugged the crap out of me. I am now lossless and uncompressed and I've checked my rippers (I use two to compare against each other) so I can let my OCD nature rest in peace.

 

[sterling shoote]

OP,
Step back, obsessing about this stuff is very bad for your health. Unlike just a few years ago, importing a CD into your computer's music library these days, which is in every manner identical to the CD, usually only requires you to choose a file type which yields a 16/44.1 bit and bite rate and select whether to import uncompressed or with lossless compression. Either way you end up with CD quality imports. If you have gobs of hard drive space go uncompressed, no reason not to today. Lossless will get you the same result without loading up the typical computer to where it can't function. Now, as you have become aware many of the players out there, which you have to pay for, feature all sorts of monitoring functions which are there to keep their buyers amused or be involved. It's what makes those players interesting to folks who are bored or just like to be involved. They're kinda like turntables, folks like to fiddle with them to get the best sound; but, with computer players whether you fiddle with it or not you are still going to get CD quality with just a few instructions given by you to the player for how you want the cd imported.

 

[Pogre]

OP,
Step back, obsessing about this stuff is very bad for your health. Unlike just a few years ago, importing a CD into your computer's music library these days, which is in every manner identical to the CD, usually only requires you to choose a file type which yields a 16/44.1 bit and bite rate and select whether to import uncompressed or with lossless compression. Either way you end up with CD quality imports. If you have gobs of hard drive space go uncompressed, no reason not to today. Lossless will get you the same result without loading up the typical computer to where it can't function. Now, as you have become aware many of the players out there, which you have to pay for, feature all sorts of monitoring functions which are there to keep their buyers amused or be involved. It's what makes those players interesting to folks who are bored or just like to be involved. There kinda like turntables, folks like to fiddle with them to get the best sound; but, with computer players whether you fiddle with it or not you are still going to get CD quality with just a few instructions given by you to the player for how you want the cd imported.

I appreciate the reply and I get what you're saying. I have gobs of space and ripped everything into lossless WAV files. I have an obsessive personality and recognized pretty quickly that I could get lost in obsessing over my rips. I did some more A/B switching and determined that I can't hear a difference so I let it go and moved on.

 

[sterling shoote]

I appreciate the reply and I get what you're saying. I have gobs of space and ripped everything into lossless WAV files. I have an obsessive personality and recognized pretty quickly that I could get lost in obsessing over my rips. I did some more A/B switching and determined that I can't hear a difference so I let it go and moved on.

I'm glad, very glad for you. I have a tendency to get "into" a hobby and just suck the fun right out of it with my persuit of perfection. When CD's came out I was relieved of this obsession since there was no fiddling with CD's. Just drop into player and push the start button; then, sit back and enjoy sound without mistracking, distortion, and annoying snap and crackle, such as would be produced by a turntable. Now, I am being lured back into LP mania from those who tell me it's better than CD quality. So far, I've resisted the madness of it; but, nevertheless, I've found myself shopping for a cartridge to replace my 20 year old one, which appears to have worn out. I know this sort of action just does not make any sense but I'm drawn to it like a moth to a flame.

 

[Bucknekked]

Now, I am being lured back into LP mania from those who tell me it's better than CD quality. So far, I've resisted the madness of it; but, nevertheless, I've found myself shopping for a cartridge to replace my 20 year old one, which appears to have worn out. I know this sort of action just does not make any sense but I'm drawn to it like a moth to a flame.

sterling
At the risk of angering the voices of the LP lovers, I lived through the years of vinyl from the early 1960's to the original demise of the platform when CD's finally hit the market. I can say with some confidence that my own personal OPINION is there are plenty of reasons 100's of millions of people switched from vinyl to CD. Not the least of which is the sound quality.

Vinyl is making a comeback for some folks, and it never left for the original diehards. For the diehards, there's nothing like the sound of vinyl and anyone who disagrees can go do physically impossible things to themselves. If you've ever tried to argue a common sense point with an audiophile on an audiophile topic, you may understand my point.

For those who are getting back in to vinyl, I think there's a wide range of reasons to do so.

I got rid of vinyl as soon as CD's and my budget made it possible. This last year, in 2016, I bought a nice new turntable and started a new small vinyl collection. Why? I think nostalgia played a huge part. Is the sound better than CD? In my opinion, nope. Is it as good? In my opinion, sometimes. Why do it? Well, i grew up with vinyl records. I really enjoy the media and the experience of playing an album. There's a lot to like about records since I grew up with them. But, I wouldn't fall for any bologna about vinyl sounding better than CD's. This is a situation where a 100 million people weren't wrong when they switched.

Everything expressed in this post is plain old opinion. Its worth exactly what you paid for it to read it.

 

[sterling shoote]

sterling
At the risk of angering the voices of the LP lovers, I lived through the years of vinyl from the early 1960's to the original demise of the platform when CD's finally hit the market. I can say with some confidence that my own personal OPINION is there are plenty of reasons 100's of millions of people switched from vinyl to CD. Not the least of which is the sound quality.

Vinyl is making a comeback for some folks, and it never left for the original diehards. For the diehards, there's nothing like the sound of vinyl and anyone who disagrees can go do physically impossible things to themselves. If you've ever tried to argue a common sense point with an audiophile on an audiophile topic, you may understand my point.

For those who are getting back in to vinyl, I think there's a wide range of reasons to do so.

I got rid of vinyl as soon as CD's and my budget made it possible. This last year, in 2016, I bought a nice new turntable and started a new small vinyl collection. Why? I think nostalgia played a huge part. Is the sound better than CD? In my opinion, nope. Is it as good? In my opinion, sometimes. Why do it? Well, i grew up with vinyl records. I really enjoy the media and the experience of playing an album. There's a lot to like about records since I grew up with them. But, I wouldn't fall for any bologna about vinyl sounding better than CD's. This is a situation where a 100 million people weren't wrong when they switched.

Everything expressed in this post is plain old opinion. Its worth exactly what you paid for it to read it.

I just purchased a new Ortofon 2M Red cartridge to replace a worn Shure V15V-MR, which I was using to digitize LP's. Based on reviews, I perceived this cartridge would be ideal. I was wrong, the cartridge did not seem to present the music accurately. Now, with this disappointment, I went back to the drawing board, thinking I might need to spend vast amounts of money to get the accuracy I sought. But, before insanely jumping into this I used better judgement; and, based on professional reviews, I purchased a Shure M97xE thinking perhaps it would an economical means to get the job done.

Then, listening to the LP of Diana Krall's 2016 re-master of her 1993 debut album Stepping Out, I compared it, as reproduced by the M97xE cart, to a 24/96 download of same; and, honestly, I could hardly discern any difference in sound between sources. I could not say the 24/96 file sounded better or worse than the LP. Seems the Shure is certainly delivering CD like quality. Still, seems the only sane purpose for a turntable today is to digitize an existing collection of LP's, since overall, CD's just sound better. In fact, it probably makes sense to just buy the CD version of LP's, which have a CD version, since the digitizing process usually takes about 3 hours to get an LP into iTunes. At any rate, I'm glad I discovered the economical Shure M97xE cartridge as I was beginning to relapse into obsessive, compulsive behavior which may have caused me to upgrade my turntable and cartridge with something ridiculously expensive to assure satisfaction, which would have led to financial ruin.

 

[Bucknekked]

I just purchased a new Ortofon 2M Red cartridge to replace a worn Shure V15V-MR, which I was using to digitize LP's. Based on reviews, I perceived this cartridge would be ideal. I was wrong,
Still, seems the only sane purpose for a turntable today is to digitize an existing collection of LP's, since overall, CD's just sound better. In fact, it probably makes sense to just buy the CD version of LP's, which have a CD version,

Sterling
We have an interesting hobby. So much expectation and so much opinion in many areas it can be difficult to weed out what the outcome of a purchase may be. I enjoyed reading your post. I can sympathize with the struggles to achieve a goal when you're dealing with sound.

There are a number of recent posts, even Gene has a couple, about the differences between formats. I believe a common thread is that there are more differences in quality regarding how an album was recorded in the studio than there are between the formats themselves in terms of what you will actually hear coming out of your speakers. Restated, an album will sound great on vinyl if the recording effort was great and it will sound about the same on CD if the folks who mastered it for CD did the same level of work. The format doesn't necessarily dictate a better sounding song nearly as much as the quality of the original recording work in the studio.

My own listening experience agrees with that point of view. For me, and this is just an opinion, I buy CD's or HDtracks for new music (or new to me music) because I can digitize them and use a computerized library to store and play them. With CD's, I can have a perfect copy and the original becomes the backup stored in a safe. The audio quality, if I choose good studio recordings, is great.

I will also buy the occasional vinyl LP. Usually, this is music I already know and love and have played for years. The album experience is unique and when I have an itch for listening to an album, only an album will get the job done. I certainly don't think they sound better than CD's, but, they do have their own experience and its satisfying in its own way.

Its nice to have a hobby where you get to choose what you play and many or most of your choices will still sound great. I hope you keep finding ways to enjoy your hobby and not get too wound up with compulsive behavior and financial ruin. I am subject to both

 

[Blue Dude]

IIRC, the Accurip offset refers to the number of bytes (or is it samples? I think it's bytes) that your ripping hardware differs from the audio track on the disc. It's hardware dependent and constant, so once your ripping software figures out what your drive's offset is, or if you supply an offset to work with, it will automatically overrun or underrun the requested track by that amount to give you a perfect copy. Exact Audio Copy in particular is very good at this. The report indicates that your copy matches the Accurip checksum fingerprint by such and such an offset, along with the number of reporters who matched that offset.

It looks like most reporters ripped those tracks with either a 36 or 48 offset, meaning that your track start and end points differ from the disc by either 9 or 12 samples. This means that you have an extra 9 or 12 samples at the beginning of the first track and are missing the same amount from the end of the last, and the track breaks are likewise off by the same amount. (Or maybe it's the other way around!) You can "fix" this by specifying either +36 or +48 offset for your hardware. Or you can just go with it and enjoy your rips. There's no error and the difference is undetectably small.