IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

It is safe to use Medieval CUE Splitter?
quisnox
post Oct 11 2010, 14:19
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 21-August 10
Member No.: 83251



I have big collection of music ripped to 'file.flac' & 'file.cue', so I need to split it to separate files.

Currently tested a lot of tools, but Medieval CUE Splitter does task fastest. But is it safe to use for whole collection?

I don't need CRC checksums, just want to split my collection.



p.s. sorry for my poor English..
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Takla
post Oct 12 2010, 20:35
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 169
Joined: 14-November 09
Member No.: 74931



I was feeling bored so I downloaded and used flacon, comparing it with shnsplit in Debian and with foobar in XP. I had intended to try cuetools as well but I don't have a copy and cuetools.net is down at the moment.

Anyway I split a cue+ape into wav and then ran an md5sum on the first and the last track. The cue was of the type that indicates a hidden pregap which should be ignored or discarded or at least not mistaken for track 01. The pregap is 427 ms long. I had noticed that shnsplit warns about this and using its naming option '-t' it correctly ignored the splitted pregap and it applied number and name info from the cue file to the correct audio tracks. Neither foobar nor flacon gave any indication that the pregap existed/had been dealt with appropriately. I wondered if shnsplit was actually working as it should but I also didn't know if the other apps were doing the same but silently, or doing something else. Anyway, one easy way to check:

foobar and shnsplit output has matching md5sums. flacon's is different and all the track lengths are very slightly different than those produced by shnsplit or foobar. There was no audible difference that I could hear between flacon's output and the others. Of course it's possible that flacon is getting it right and the other two apps both make the same error or even that foobar reuses shntool code or somehow exactly reimplements an erroneous method, but I doubt it.

Personally I'm sticking with shntool in a simple script. if I mostly used Windows I'd probably use foobar.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th April 2014 - 15:02