I heard that Ashampoo's Mp3 scanning program will detect if your mp3s are currupt or not. Even when i rip 192 cbr and --alt-preset standard with 3.90.2 using EAC , all the files are currupt. Ashampoo says they can fix them but by reencoding with their crappy encoder. I wonder if my collection is truly corrupt or if Ashampoo is messed up! some one please tell me im very confused and go to www.ashampoo.com and test the shareware and tell me what results you got. Thanks!

I just ran that app over one --alt-preset standard directory and it reported it as being OK.

What does encspot tell you about these problematic files?

I personally dont like ashampoo apps.
Use EncSpot with full scan enabled.
It can tell you if the file(s) have bad last frame and/or
sync errors.
Its a good start point to know how your files really are.
The "bad last frame" error sometimes has no effect on the sound.

Some suggestions:
Bad RAM modules, faulty HDs etc can cause corruption also.
Maybe the files are being written already corrupted to the CDR.
Cheap media being burned at higher speeds may lead to similar problems.
Do you use ID3 v2 to tag the files? I had some corrupted files in the past by using a combination of idv2 and EAC/Gogo.dll.

Nice Tip! I full scanned with EncSpot and most were green. Few were Red (if that means its currupt), few had bad frames but not all or anywhere near all were currupt. Did ashampoo give away bad results? and does red stand for currupt?

oh and to clear "currupt" in ashampoo it re-encodes with gogo that sucks i suspect they say currupt because they want to reencode with theirs but thats just me

red indicates that Encspot rates this as a poorly encoded file (bitrate too low, lousy encoder, or both)

Found a faster, easier, non-corrupt ripping solution! Media Center 9! It rocks and is all that and a bag of chips for audiophilers!!! It rips secure mode at double the speeds EAC does! Nice program!! and better yet with 3.90.3, its fast and non-currupt! im starting fresh on my collection and deleted 900 last mp3s.

don't you think there's a reason why it's 2 times faster than eac? B)

maybe you should find out what *corrupt* actually means in your case befor stating something is corrupt or non-corrupt

Its 2wice as fast as EAC because its a better program! Maybe it does just a good a job just not as paranoid B). and currupt means its a bad file!!!!! if anyone can prove with some RAW evidence that MC9 is worse than EAC please feel free to post. But so far its an amazing program!! I deleted my huge collection and am restarting with MC9 its awsome u guys gotta try the trialware!!!

We don't need to prove anything. It's already known in this forum that EAC is the most secure ripper.

The burden of proof lies with you. You must prove us that MC9 is not worse if you want to go around saying it's secure, and "better", at twice the speed.

Else, it's just fallacy.

Edit:

Just brilliant. 3 hours ago you "found" this program, and it's already the best thing ever? Even going so far as deleting your colection for no apparent reason? Do you really expect us to take you seriously with such attitudes?

heh your a CDex developer you don't have much room to speak ill admit MC9 has its share of bugs and although it was false to throw out that its more secure than EAC, i'll say that IT IS very good and a good alternative/competition. I'm sorry for stating "it was better" but i like the GUI and speeds better and the secure mode SEEMS secure because i can't prove its better than EAC. Try it anyways! Its pretty neat all-in-one jukebox!



PS Your avatar is brokeN!

Duh. So what? We aren't discussing CDex here. And, as I told, EAC is more secure than CDex. I have no time to lose crying around that the CD ripper I help develop is better than the others. I try to make it better instead.

And I have room to speak. I know much more about rippers that you.



That's called placebo.



I have it.



http://l337images.com/images/picture115.jpg

It's ignoramus bashing time huh ? feces1223, you're in the wrong place to rant without evidence. EAC's performance have been proved on and on and on. If something is faster than EAC (or CDEx), it's because that software is not as careful and probably doing a burst read.



Good for you. I hope you won't restart with EAC later if you happen to realize glitches. But please don't post misleading messages.





:x

kool nice replies!!! i was just joking when i said you dont have much room to speak . you mightve taken it the wrong way. And you do know more than me about ripping. Im not saying you don't. But out of curiousity, what gives you the feeling that EAC is better ? and do u like MC9? I'm sorry again I don't mean to dispute with you, i'm just a naudiophibie (newbie and audiophile LOL) thats interested

It's been tested countless times. Usually against other rippers. And it usually wins.



I like it for some things, and prefer other solutions for other things.

I wouldn't use it for simple playback for instance. Lately, I've been developing a taste for playing back with command line utilities. Don't ask.
(how anti-bloat can you get? :B )

I'd rather use EAC or CDex for ripping, for reasons already explained.

But it's very good for cataloguing, for instance.

kool thanks!! i think thats about all i got left to question on this thread

Feeling? Do a search and read the test results. There's probably no way that any ripper could be faster and as secure as EAC unless it's using some proprietary mechanism (like plextools) because it has to go through the same steps. Yes, you might have an identical file in the end with MC9. But all the problem arises from this possibility. HA people want to make sure that they have an accurate read.

I think we need to make this rule sticky: If you like some software or feel attached to it without no solid reason (like most ATRAC or Ogg fans) then go and be happy with it. If you really care about quality of your music then care to listen to arguments and reasoning. If you don't what the heck are you doing on HA? When you start spreading misinformation without providing any evidence, that's something people here won't tolerate.

that was mean!!.It's funny , anyway all my respect for people with down syndrome.

back to EAC!!! Its interesting i found MC9 as an alternative because EAC was currupting my files but somehow I adjusted settings and got it to not be currupt re-ripping collection for 3rd time and the MC9 arsenal is deleted i switched because u guys are always right and if testing says EAC is better, it is~!!!

It seems the stability of your computer may be questionable

Maybe you should add a checksum and/or recovery record to them, right after ripping ?

Cheers

Edit: I meant add recovery record "along with them", not "to them".

By the way, feces1223, since you've been using the word "currupt" and "currupting" countless times in this thread already, I just wanted to point out that the correct spelling is cOrrupt, since apparently reading other members spelling the word correctly didn't ring a bell.

~Dologan

feces1223:

Sorry to tell you that you are wrong about everything you stated in this thread. Your posts are completely in violation of the following forum rules:

8. Statements on technical or quality oriented matters are expected to be supported by the author responsible for such statements.

To quote the rules further:

You are wasting not only your time, but the time of everyone else participating in the forums here.

Keep up the violations of the few (10) simple rules that exist here and you'll find yourself banned.

Wow...a little bit of arrogance here.

It was as unnecessary for me to respond to trnsz post here as it was for him to respond to ...1223's. C'mon, unless he's been warned before I see no reason for lines like "You are wasting not only your time, but the time of everyone else ...". I mean, you have the ability to ignore or reply to posts such as this. Any threats of banning should be made by people who can deliver (but that I hope are not that reactionary). Food for thought.

xen-uno

Xenno: if you've spent much time on these forums you might have noticed that feces1223 has done this (posting threads in the general forums with claims (such as that mp3 is better than mpc)) countless times and it becomes annoying after about the second. But you're only trying to do the right thing .

i greatly apologize for all my ignorance. I never knew I was breaking a rule i REALLY am sorry. Anyways I came on this forum to learn from my mistakes and to test out things; after all we all started somewhere. And I thought what better place than HA for escaping the 128k Kazaa-esque realm. I will read threads now before I have to have my 2 cents. Again for anyone's time i've wasted or inconvinnce i apologize

Well at least that was a mature response, feces1223, but I've seen you do that before (jesus, I must look like a hardcore forum-addict). But I urge you to read more of the posts on these forums, re-read the forum rules and I think an excellent reference for posting on ANY forums is this post on the fb2k general forum How To Ask Questions The Smart Way.
It's a fairly long read but it's worth it .

I personally wouldn't rely too much on a piece of software telling me that my audio files are corrupt.

I've seen MP3Trim state that a few beginning and/or ending frames were missing from freshly encoded LAME APS mp3's however upon listening to the mp3's there were no audible errors that I could hear, and it didn't make much of an impression on me since Winamp, CoolPlayer, and Foobar2000 played the files without a hiccup.

This reminds me of the System File Checker in Windows stating a file may be corrupt when in fact it isn't.

Oh. I probably shouldn't rely on a piece of software either but another reason why i re-ripped is because of using 3.90.3 rather than 3.90.2 as I like the integrated -Z feature!

Does anyone know where there is a version of EncSpot later than 2.0?

AFAIK, there isn't any. I hope I'm wrong, though.

~Dologan

is there some sort of integrated -t test switch in lame or something? that might be something to try.

anyway I wouldn't worry if a proggie says your files are corrupt. If they sound fine to you then deleting them and reencoding is pointless.

See this thread. The question comes up fairly often. Try the search function using "EncSpot" for other related threads.

May I just say, with the amount of ripping you do you'd probably be better off with lossless. I mean, if you're gonna scrap that many files and then re-rip/encode with the next very minor upgrade, you'll be a very busy person. At least with lossless you wouldnt have to worry about constant upgrades to keep the quality good.

heh i wish i could go lossless! i'm dying for an ipod firmware update for mpc or other lossless but so far its not happening. thats all thats holding me back and as far as the new "AAC Support" i have no use for it because I have a "placebo" that mp3 feels more comfortable

Oh yea. I always forget about portable use, mainly cos I don't use it

I'm quite sure Roberto will have something to say in response to that...

Dude, read the first page of this thread. Arguing with feces is of no use...

Dude, if you say "curupting" or whatever one more time i'll scream. It's CORRUPTING.

That is all.