Splitting 24/96 (or (24/192) files using a .CUE file

[Cableguy]

(2011-03-10 06:04)linnrd Wrote:  

(2011-03-09 14:15)Cableguy Wrote:  Medieval cuesplitter destroys the musical qualities!! Don't use this one.
Cuetools is waaaay better! It also checks for verification against the accurip database. It is free.

Have you been able to use CueTools with hi-res files? I, thus far, have been unable to get it to oblige? Would appreciate any details on setup in case I have missed anything.

Sorry, I was a bit unclear and maybe even offtopic - No I haven't tried it with hires files. Only with 16/44,1 files.

But in that situation, Cuetools is superior to medieval cuesplitter. I really want those of you guys who haven't compared to know this because the difference is huge.

[murrays Linn Staff]

Foobar2000 is another option. I've not tested at 96/24, but Foobar's hi-res support is generally very good.

(2011-03-09 14:15)Cableguy Wrote:  Medieval cuesplitter destroys the musical qualities!!

Assuming this was a serious comment, this implies that Medieval cuesplitter is modifying the digital audio data as well as splitting the file. Do you have any evidence of this ? Have you done a binary compare of the split tracks created by Medieval cuesplitter and Cuetools ?

[Cableguy]

(2011-03-10 11:10)murrays Wrote:  Foobar2000 is another option. I've not tested at 96/24, but Foobar's hi-res support is generally very good.

(2011-03-09 14:15)Cableguy Wrote:  Medieval cuesplitter destroys the musical qualities!!

Assuming this was a serious comment, this implies that Medieval cuesplitter is modifying the digital audio data as well as splitting the file. Do you have any evidence of this ? Have you done a binary compare of the split tracks created by Medieval cuesplitter and Cuetools ?

Hello murrays,
Sorry I have no evidence and I don't know how to do a binary compare. All I have done is listen. The "sound" is the same using both methods, but files that I did split with the medieval software are just plain boring to listen to. The recordings appear uninteresting, worse using tunedem.

As a sidenote, some people claim that altering the idtags have a negative impoact on the musicality as well, and I wonder if that is detectable as well comparing the files (not by ear that is)? Even though the files obviously has been altered then. Maybe the Medieval software does/adds something very small to the files that somehow affects them? I am not so tech savvy though...

[Arnold]

I agree there is a (big) difference in sound.
I have the feeling that the Medieval splitted files are missing high details.

On the Medieval site they mention a known bug that jitter is added at beginning and ending of tracks.

When using Medieval Cuesplitter 1.2 the splitted file can not be verified as accurate. When using Cuetools, both the splitted and unsplitted file have the same verified confidence numbers.
So, yes I'm confinced Medieval Cuesplitter alters something when splitting and should not be used.

[Cableguy]

(2011-03-10 11:10)murrays Wrote:  Foobar2000 is another option. I've not tested at 96/24, but Foobar's hi-res support is generally very good.

(2011-03-09 14:15)Cableguy Wrote:  Medieval cuesplitter destroys the musical qualities!!

Assuming this was a serious comment, this implies that Medieval cuesplitter is modifying the digital audio data as well as splitting the file. Do you have any evidence of this ? Have you done a binary compare of the split tracks created by Medieval cuesplitter and Cuetools ?

Hi,
I stumbled across this link and remembered this thread. There is no evidence presented, I suppose in the below link, but at least there is some sort of explanation of why Medieval is not good.
http://dreamlayers.blogspot.com/2011/03/...roken.html

[Hansbeeman]

(2011-03-10 11:34)Cableguy Wrote:  

(2011-03-10 11:10)murrays Wrote:  Foobar2000 is another option. I've not tested at 96/24, but Foobar's hi-res support is generally very good.

(2011-03-09 14:15)Cableguy Wrote:  Medieval cuesplitter destroys the musical qualities!!

Assuming this was a serious comment, this implies that Medieval cuesplitter is modifying the digital audio data as well as splitting the file. Do you have any evidence of this ? Have you done a binary compare of the split tracks created by Medieval cuesplitter and Cuetools ?

Hello murrays,
Sorry I have no evidence and I don't know how to do a binary compare. All I have done is listen. The "sound" is the same using both methods, but files that I did split with the medieval software are just plain boring to listen to. The recordings appear uninteresting, worse using tunedem.

As a sidenote, some people claim that altering the idtags have a negative impoact on the musicality as well, and I wonder if that is detectable as well comparing the files (not by ear that is)? Even though the files obviously has been altered then. Maybe the Medieval software does/adds something very small to the files that somehow affects them? I am not so tech savvy though...

On the website of Medieval cuesplitter, it is mentioned that there is a known bug in the software (introducing jitter).

I have splitted a 44.1/16 FLAC file with Medieval cuesplitter and converted the FLAC files to WAV files. At the same time, I have converted the big FLAC file to a big WAV and splitted this WAV with EAC (which is unable to split FLAC files). IN EAC, you can compare the WAV files. They ARE different, but I have seen this happens mostly at the beginning or at the end of the songs. I presume, Medieval cuesplitter introduces some 0's or so.

So, if you want secure splitting, Medieval cuesplitter is to be avoided.

Hans

[phil23]

(2011-03-10 11:10)murrays Wrote:  Foobar2000 is another option. I've not tested at 96/24, but Foobar's hi-res support is generally very good.

I've used foobar for splitting hi-res flac files using the convert command, which in effect appears to be a decode - encode.
What puzzles me though is that the sum of the resulting file sizes can be significantly smaller than the original file size. This does not happen when splitting 16/44 files.
Any ideas?

[murrays Linn Staff]

(2012-03-28 07:34)phil23 Wrote:  

(2011-03-10 11:10)murrays Wrote:  Foobar2000 is another option. I've not tested at 96/24, but Foobar's hi-res support is generally very good.

I've used foobar for splitting hi-res flac files using the convert command, which in effect appears to be a decode - encode.
What puzzles me though is that the sum of the resulting file sizes can be significantly smaller than the original file size. This does not happen when splitting 16/44 files.
Any ideas?

Depends what you mean by 'significantly smaller". Differences of 5-10% could be the result of different compression levels. If the difference is larger it may be worth checking Foobar's convertor settings to make sure
24-bit output is selected. You could also examine the split files to see if the original bit-depth and sample rate are being preserved.

[dol]

Search for xrecode, free and extremly userfriendly. Works with hi res.