Setting up CUE tools 2.1.4 Options

[Cha0s_Th3ory]

Hi,

I was using Cue Tools around a year ago to split cue files into separate tracks however, i have downloaded the newest version and i can't seem to get it working properly.

When i activate the split all i get is an Accurip file ?

Could someone guide me through the set up process so i can use CUE tools to split my tracks ? It would be a pain to resort to Medieval due to the incorrect splitting method.

Cheers
James

[korth]

I could use some more info on your settings. What you describe can happen in certain situations when using batch input modes.

Try this:
Input: Folder Browser (select file, not folder)
Output: your choice as long as path is to a CUE file
Action: Encode (Script: default)
Mode: Tracks (I assume your input is image+cue or embedded)
Audio Output: Lossless (I assume, you gave no info)

This post has been edited by korth: Jul 27 2012, 23:09

[Cha0s_Th3ory]

Hi korth,

Thanks for your response. Sorry for the lack of information.

It is for FLAC format. All i want to do is split large singular flac files with cue into separate tracks. I was doing it fine last year but can't seem to make it work anymore.

Input is folder browser
Output is manual using template [%directoryname%\]%filename%-new[%unique%].cue
Action is encode
Mode is tracks (which one is best to use for track splitting?)
Audio output is lossless

Cheers
James

[korth]

That should work. No error messages?

Mode is tracks (which one is best to use for track splitting?)

Well Embedded and Image + Cue are both one big single audio file.

[Cha0s_Th3ory]

Here is the reading from CUETools...

[CUETools log; Date: 27/07/2012 20:35:57; Version: 2.1.4]
[AccurateRip ID: 00158b7c-009fa411-7a0ffd09] found.
Track [ CRC | V2 ] Status
01 [eb98ed9d|b7b16d99] (1+0/1) Accurately ripped
02 [cac0925d|5b5e5633] (1+0/1) Accurately ripped
03 [652d1359|b2a48766] (1+0/1) Accurately ripped
04 [ad4bee8f|1f6b4ce7] (1+0/1) Accurately ripped
05 [17c84128|68faed07] (1+0/1) Accurately ripped
06 [02bbe753|83bba8a8] (1+0/1) Accurately ripped
07 [597d8a62|3e827b20] (1+0/1) Accurately ripped
08 [d41df2b2|f5703b62] (1+0/1) Accurately ripped
09 [9ac62eca|1650fbdb] (1+0/1) Accurately ripped

Track Peak [ CRC32 ] [W/O NULL]
-- 100.0 [DDBEEC08] [CDAD2762]
01 100.0 [6FCE3192] [4EFEB43E]
02 100.0 [53DE818D] [91FBA575]
03 100.0 [F55010F5] [FDED6931]
04 100.0 [E5351C66] [305D2B0F]
05 100.0 [3938CB42] [5498640C]
06 100.0 [AA22917E] [5D43D6FE]
07 100.0 [98BEFBB4] [8F5136FC]
08 100.0 [1BA0FF9B] [0DD73AF1]
09 100.0 [8CE44EA7] [DFA3DA4A]

It creates an Accurip file but not the separated tracks. Any ideas ?

[korth]

The Script (the drop-down list, bottom of Encode) is set to 'default'? (not 'encode if verified')

[Cha0s_Th3ory]

I've set it default and gave it a try. It starts okay but then this appeared

Exception: EnqueueNDRangeKernel failed with error code
MEM_OBJECT_ALLOCATION_FAILURE

My system is Win7 x64 incase that makes a difference.

[korth]

Not familiar with the error. I'll contact the current developer.

[Gregory S. Chudo...]

You have selected FLACCL encoder (that's the box between the format choice and compression level).
It's an experimental hardware accelerated encoder and doesn't work on some hardware.
Choose libFlake instead.

[Cha0s_Th3ory]

Cheers for the advice...

CUETools now splits the tracks and generates an accurip file and a cue file.

The only remaining problem is the cue file won't play correctly. Any ideas ?

[Dario]

The only remaining problem is the cue file won't play correctly. Any ideas ?

That's because it is a non-compliant CUE sheet, that you are supposed to use for burning in order to create a 1:1 copy, and not for playing. Why would you need the CUE sheet when you have separate tracks anyway?

[Cha0s_Th3ory]

So the cue sheet that is generated in CUETools, when we separate tracks, is only to be used for burning the tracks to a CD ? What other purpose does it have, if any ?

This is all new to me so please bear with me

[db1989]

You might not even need a cuesheet to burn a CD. Other uses for cuesheets alongside file-per-track rips? There are a few, but they may not matter to you. Kindly search and see if that is sufficiently informative, to save people having to repeat themselves. Having said that, the potential utility of a cuesheet in a track-based rip can depend upon how your tracks are split.

Which brings me to Dario’s statement that your cuesheet is non-compliant. This seems to me quite presumptuous, since you don’t seem ever to have specified which track-splitting mode you are using. Still, I’ll continue as though it’s correct. The term non-compliant is usually used here to describe a cuesheet for a file-per-track rips in which the INDEX 00 (a.k.a. ‘gap’ in a great example of imprecise naming making possible infinite confusion) of a given track is not appended to the previous track, as is customary, but rather is prepended to the track itself. Various applications can/will not support cuesheets of this type. Your choices are to use an application that doesn’t mind or to rip in a different manner.

This post has been edited by db1989: Jul 28 2012, 16:34

[korth]

The only remaining problem is the cue file won't play correctly. Any ideas ?

CUETools will create a playlist (M3U) file. The setting is on the CUETools tab of Advanced Settings. Click the gear cog icon in the upper right corner to open Advanced Settings.

[Cha0s_Th3ory]

korth, you have scored the winning goal

I have populated the relevant tick box for create .m3u playlists and it works. Just like it used to - before i clearly messed the settings up.

Sorry to be a pain but another question i have is on gaps handling. Which setting is best for lossless splitting ? Gaps Appended + HTOA ?

db1989, all i use CUETools for is to split singular FLAC files into their separate parts/tracks. I then keep the original download on another hard drive (for safe keeping) and use the separated 'copy' for general use.

[db1989]

Sorry to be a pain but another question i have is on gaps handling. Which setting is best for lossless splitting ? Gaps Appended + HTOA ?

None of them are not lossless, if that’s what you’re implying. Besides, I already went over this.

db1989, all i use CUETools for is to split singular FLAC files into their separate parts/tracks. I then keep the original download on another hard drive (for safe keeping) and use the separated 'copy' for general use.

download

Super cool story, bro. In that case, you should depend only on the gracious providers of these downloads to help you, rather than us. Hydrogenaudio could do well to work this into its rules, as well as offering this general truism: ‘You don’t pays your money and you takes your chance.’

[Cha0s_Th3ory]

I hear what you're saying db1989 but I didn't ask for your personal opinion on the moral ethics of downloading or sharing files.

I was merely asking for guidance on a technical issue/question regarding the software that is CUETools. Forgive me if i am mistaken, but i assumed that would be one of the services that this forum provided ? Both korth and Gregory S. Chudov have been happy to assist me and have been extremely helpful in their sharing of knowledge. Why does this seem so laborious to someone who has a Super Moderator tag ?

The question, rephrased... Is there any significant difference, when splitting FLAC files into separate tracks, between the four gaps handling choices present in CUETools ? For instance, i have heard people say that for true lossless, programs like Medieval are not suited due to the way they separate the tracks. Is this true ? Is any one of these four choices better than the others, and for what reason ?

This post has been edited by Cha0s_Th3ory: Jul 28 2012, 18:20

[korth]

Recommended setting: Gaps Appended + HTOA which will preserve anything before the start of the first track as an audio file.
More here.

[db1989]

Is there any significant difference, when splitting FLAC files into separate tracks, between the four gaps handling choices present in CUETools ?

There is no difference to either the audio itself or the timings of the boundaries (a.k.a. split points, etc.) between tracks. The differences concern the location of INDEX 00 regions (‘[pre]gaps’) in the resulting individual files.

For instance, i have heard people say that for true lossless, programs like Medieval are not suited due to the way they separate the tracks. Is this true ?

It’s true that many people recommend against MCS, because it does not preserve correct timing of boundaries; the excuse is that this is to facilitate splitting without re-encoding, but all it actually accomplishes is to shift between-track boundaries, and thereby compromise accuracy, merely to save someone a small amount of time. CUETools, in contrast, is sane. Anyway, the actual audio data is not affected by the splitting method in any case (although MCS will give tracks incorrect starting points).

Is any one of these four choices better than the others, and for what reason ?

Between korth’s and my previous posts, I thought this had been covered, but to make it explicit: the answer depends upon which you value most out of (1) compatibility with various applications and emulation of the seeking behaviour of an actual CD player; vs. (2) having the INDEX 00 region of a given track stored in the same file as its INDEX 01, which might seem nice logically but introduces other issues including the ones I’ve already outlined.

[Cha0s_Th3ory]

So gaps appended + HTOA would be considered an 'exact' copy of the audio file, with correct gaps included ? Remember, i am a layman when it comes to CUETools and especially with the terminology/phraseology used in the GUI and readouts. It might as well be in Japanese

Anyways, i can now successfully split the single audio tracks into their separate parts.

Thank's for the assistance i have received in rectifying this issue... and that includes you db1989. I hope there's no hard feelings