can I rip a CD as if it's one track using EAC?

[brigstockedavid@yahoo.com]

I've been ripping some classical CDs using Exact Audio Copy (I'm a
beginner and most of its features are a mystery to me), and LAME.

One problem is that some of these CDs have 'tracks' that aren't really
separate tracks - the music is continuous, and the track number is
really just a way of letting you get to that part of the symphony or
whatever.

EAC treats these as separate tracks, however, and the result is that a
fraction of a second of the music is missing at the beginning of each
track. It even sometimes misses a bit off the beginning of a track
that really *is* a separate track.

One solution would be to have it rip the whole CD as if it were one
big track, but I can't see how to do this.

Is there a way?

Thanks in advance

Dave

 

[§|ª®T?ߪRt?@$t]

You can do it with CDEX
http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/


<brigstockedavid@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183714431.905674.19200@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> I've been ripping some classical CDs using Exact Audio Copy (I'm a
> beginner and most of its features are a mystery to me), and LAME.
>
> One problem is that some of these CDs have 'tracks' that aren't really
> separate tracks - the music is continuous, and the track number is
> really just a way of letting you get to that part of the symphony or
> whatever.
>
> EAC treats these as separate tracks, however, and the result is that a
> fraction of a second of the music is missing at the beginning of each
> track. It even sometimes misses a bit off the beginning of a track
> that really *is* a separate track.
>
> One solution would be to have it rip the whole CD as if it were one
> big track, but I can't see how to do this.
>
> Is there a way?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Dave
>

 

[NRen2k5]

brigstockedavid@yahoo.com wrote:
> I've been ripping some classical CDs using Exact Audio Copy (I'm a
> beginner and most of its features are a mystery to me), and LAME.
>
> One problem is that some of these CDs have 'tracks' that aren't
> really separate tracks - the music is continuous, and the track
> number is really just a way of letting you get to that part of the
> symphony or whatever.
>
> EAC treats these as separate tracks, however, and the result is that
> a fraction of a second of the music is missing at the beginning of
> each track. It even sometimes misses a bit off the beginning of a
> track that really *is* a separate track.
>
> One solution would be to have it rip the whole CD as if it were one
> big track, but I can't see how to do this.
>
> Is there a way?

Yes. “Action†→ “Copy rangeâ€

By the way, it isn’t EAC that’s missing a bit of music at the beginning
of each track. Either your CD drive isn’t ripping the CD audio properly,
or your MP3 player isn’t playing the MP3s properly. EAC is a very good
ripper, and LAME MP3s contain metadata that allows them to be played
back completely and without gaps.

 

[NRen2k5]

"�����������������������������������������������������" wrote:
> You can do it with CDEX http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/

1) Would you appreciate bringing your Chevy to a mechanic only to have
him tell you to get a Dodge?
2) Don’t top post.

 

[Ron Badour]

1. When a poster does not know the answer to a question, it is perfectly
permissible to offer an alternative solution.

2. I have been posting here regularly since 1996. Why is it that I should
not top post? In my view (which is just as valid as the people who made up
many of the lame posting rules), bottom posters are the problem in that I
some times have to scan through reams of text just to see what one person
has to say. However, I do not try to foist my posting preferences onto
others.

--
Regards

Ron Badour
MS MVP 1997 - 2007


"NRen2k5" <nomore@email.com> wrote in message
news:flpji.37604$HP3.247283@weber.videotron.net...
>
> 1) Would you appreciate bringing your Chevy to a mechanic only to have
> him tell you to get a Dodge?
> 2) Don't top post.

 

[RobertVA]

Ron Badour wrote:
>(snip)In my view (which is just as valid as the people who made up
> many of the lame posting rules), bottom posters are the problem in that I
> some times have to scan through reams of text just to see what one person
> has to say. (snip)

THE problem is posters who quote every character of several levels of a
thread (top OR bottom posters). Many news servers make the articles
posted over the last couple of weeks available. Unless the previous
posters added an archive blocking flag, the earlier long winded articles
are available for a LONG time on Google Groups. When the quotes are
trimmed down MUCH less scrolling is necessary.

When several generations of top posts quote the entire content of ALL
the earlier articles it's VERY difficult to figure out who is responding
to which earlier articles. Imagine ripping an audio book novel to your
MP3 player with each chapter a separate track and then playing them in
shuffle mode. Wouldn't it be pretty difficult to decipher the novel's
plot? Would it be that much easier listening to them in reverse order?
Would you appreciate a set of mystery audio book CDs that had the last
chapter recorded as track 1 and the first chapter as track 12 on the
second disk?

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Trimming is always an issue, but it is MUCH more an issue for
bottom-posters. And you aren't listening to an audio track, you're reading a
post. What does it really matter is you look down one step or up one step to
see the post being replied to? Either top-posting or bottom posting, if done
properly, maintain a decent order. In my case, I usually top post, but some
posts do better with an inline reply style. I think bottom posting is the
least comfortable to read, whether indented content is an issue or not. I
think top-posting is the easiest to read when reading a conversation, for
the obvious reason that scrolling is not immediately required.

Personally, my least favorite habit is when people reply immediately after a
line or paragraph and don't bother to leave a blank line that positively
sets it off from the indented content. Worst is when there isn't even a
CRLF. Reply looks like another sentence of the indented content.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"RobertVA" <robert_c72athotmail@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:uKIBhiAwHHA.3444@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Ron Badour wrote:
>>(snip)In my view (which is just as valid as the people who made up many of
>>the lame posting rules), bottom posters are the problem in that I some
>>times have to scan through reams of text just to see what one person has
>>to say. (snip)
>
> THE problem is posters who quote every character of several levels of a
> thread (top OR bottom posters). Many news servers make the articles posted
> over the last couple of weeks available. Unless the previous posters added
> an archive blocking flag, the earlier long winded articles are available
> for a LONG time on Google Groups. When the quotes are trimmed down MUCH
> less scrolling is necessary.
>
> When several generations of top posts quote the entire content of ALL the
> earlier articles it's VERY difficult to figure out who is responding to
> which earlier articles. Imagine ripping an audio book novel to your MP3
> player with each chapter a separate track and then playing them in shuffle
> mode. Wouldn't it be pretty difficult to decipher the novel's plot? Would
> it be that much easier listening to them in reverse order? Would you
> appreciate a set of mystery audio book CDs that had the last chapter
> recorded as track 1 and the first chapter as track 12 on the second disk?

 

[Bill in Co.]

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Trimming is always an issue, but it is MUCH more an issue for
> bottom-posters. And you aren't listening to an audio track, you're reading
a
> post. What does it really matter is you look down one step or up one step
to
> see the post being replied to? Either top-posting or bottom posting, if
done
> properly, maintain a decent order. In my case, I usually top post, but
some
> posts do better with an inline reply style. I think bottom posting is the
> least comfortable to read, whether indented content is an issue or not. I
> think top-posting is the easiest to read when reading a conversation, for
> the obvious reason that scrolling is not immediately required.
>
> Personally, my least favorite habit is when people reply immediately after
a
> line or paragraph and don't bother to leave a blank line that positively
> sets it off from the indented content. Worst is when there isn't even a
> CRLF.

0D0A

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

If only you'd top-posted, that would have been a perfect response, <eg>

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%236NcT0BwHHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> Trimming is always an issue, but it is MUCH more an issue for
>> bottom-posters. And you aren't listening to an audio track, you're
>> reading
> a
>> post. What does it really matter is you look down one step or up one step
> to
>> see the post being replied to? Either top-posting or bottom posting, if
> done
>> properly, maintain a decent order. In my case, I usually top post, but
> some
>> posts do better with an inline reply style. I think bottom posting is the
>> least comfortable to read, whether indented content is an issue or not. I
>> think top-posting is the easiest to read when reading a conversation, for
>> the obvious reason that scrolling is not immediately required.
>>
>> Personally, my least favorite habit is when people reply immediately
>> after
> a
>> line or paragraph and don't bother to leave a blank line that positively
>> sets it off from the indented content. Worst is when there isn't even a
>> CRLF.
>
> 0D0A
>
>

 

[Bill in Co.]

Sorry about that. I often do, too.

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> If only you'd top-posted, that would have been a perfect response, <eg>
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%236NcT0BwHHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>> Trimming is always an issue, but it is MUCH more an issue for
>>> bottom-posters. And you aren't listening to an audio track, you're
>>> reading
>> a
>>> post. What does it really matter is you look down one step or up one
step to
>>> see the post being replied to? Either top-posting or bottom posting, if
done
>>> properly, maintain a decent order. In my case, I usually top post, but
some
>>> posts do better with an inline reply style. I think bottom posting is
the
>>> least comfortable to read, whether indented content is an issue or not.
I
>>> think top-posting is the easiest to read when reading a conversation,
for
>>> the obvious reason that scrolling is not immediately required.
>>>
>>> Personally, my least favorite habit is when people reply immediately
>>> after
>> a
>>> line or paragraph and don't bother to leave a blank line that positively
>>> sets it off from the indented content. Worst is when there isn't even a
>>> CRLF.
>>
>> 0D0A

 

[Ron Badour]

Thanks Gary

We see eye to eye.

For Robert

I would not appreciate a set of mystery audio book CDs period--I love to
read and my hearing sucks

--
Regards

Ron Badour
MS MVP 1997 - 2007


"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message news:%

> I usually top post, but some posts do better with an inline reply style. I
> think bottom posting is the least comfortable to read, whether indented
> content is an issue or not.

 

[Jesse]

Joel <joelx@usa.net> wrote in news:i8jv83tne9nndbhmqa9i34l3h0fsocm710@
4ax.com:

> "§|ª®T?ߪRt?@$t" <§|ª®T?ߪRt?@$t@norway_coastline.net> wrote:
>
>>No, just observant....not direct at you BTW!
>
> You've observed all the millions of Americans? And commenting on them
> all isn't directing it at potentially any of them?
>

And he just so happened to have hit a direct mark with YOU, Blowel.
Haven't you died yet ?
I thought HIV patients were a bit short on time ....

 

[Joel]

Jesse <org@org.orgy> wrote:

>And he just so happened to have hit a direct mark with YOU, Blowel.
>Haven't you died yet ?
>I thought HIV patients were a bit short on time ....


You also thought you had a life, so, I wouldn't put much stock in
anything you say about my HIV status.

--
Joel Crump

It's my own design ... It's my own remorse ...

 

[d'Wooluf]

According to brigstockedavid@yahoo.com (and I quote):

>I've been ripping some classical CDs using Exact Audio Copy (I'm a
>beginner and most of its features are a mystery to me), and LAME.
>
>One problem is that some of these CDs have 'tracks' that aren't really
>separate tracks - the music is continuous, and the track number is
>really just a way of letting you get to that part of the symphony or
>whatever.
>
>EAC treats these as separate tracks, however, and the result is that a
>fraction of a second of the music is missing at the beginning of each
>track. It even sometimes misses a bit off the beginning of a track
>that really *is* a separate track.
>
>One solution would be to have it rip the whole CD as if it were one
>big track, but I can't see how to do this.
>
>Is there a way?

Action -> Copy Image and Create Cue Sheet. Leaves you with one big WAV or
MP3 file (and a cuesheet).

The gaps are nothing to do with EAC but are a 'feature' of mp3 encoding. As
someone else pointed out, if you encode in LAME, there is metadata in each
mp3 file that can be used to enable gapless playback if your music playing
software or device supports it. Foobar2000 definitely does. I *think* you
need a plugin for Winamp.

An alternative if you player supports it is to encode in OGG which is
natively gapless.