Transcodes VS BAD rips aka WMP rips.

[Guest Magatsu]

I really think, sometimes we TAG something as TRANSCODE but actually it isn't a Transcode. It's just ripped with windows media player.

 

I will show you a good example

 

Larme d'ange - Departure

 

MP3 windows media player

MP3 iTunes

MP3 Switch sound file converter (WAV -> to mp3)

 

FIRST SONG

 

THE OTHER TRACK on the SINGLE

 

 

 

WAV (lossless)

 

 

 

The 320kbps Mp3 windows media player really looks like a transcode HOWEVER the settings of windows media player are 100% correct.

I did choose 320. however it shows us more a 128kbps rip -> aka TRANSCODE in our eyes.

 

 

What are you guys think about this?

 

Of course windows media player is simply a bad programm to rip with. but with this we cannot blame someone to have ripped in a transcode.

Since it's not ripped from a youtube video or any other video.

It was directly ripped from the CD!

 

Also if you look at the itunes specto (MP3 NR 2) you also see that itunes has many qualityloss if you compare it with "Switch sound file converter" <- it doesn't matter if you choose rip from CD or rip from WAV or FLAC files. quality in MP3 is always the same.

 

However Windows Media player is still good for ripping lossless into WMA or WAV.

 

 

Interesting huh?!

 

 

Or are you guys now saying

 

Windows media player give us TRANSCODES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~

 

 

[JukaForever 758]

 

 

The 320kbps Mp3 windows media player really looks like a transcode HOWEVER the settings of windows media player are 100% correct.

 

 

 can you explain your procedure to rip?

 

I disabled WMP and everything Windows Media a long time ago, banished along with the various dead codes windows bundles in its OS...as it is evil.

[Guest Magatsu]

There is not much to explain how to procedure to rip.

 

 

However it's okay to use format: WMA (lossless) and WAV (lossless) <- 100% no quality-loss. I also can prove that if needed with a FLAC file. 

 

 

 

EDIT:

However this CD was a damn good sample to show us that probably many users did rip their CD with windows media player and that we kinda FLAGGED it as transcode.

Of course there are also other CD's which give a kind of different Spectrogram.

Just go play with Windows Media player to check out those other spectrogram samples

Edited March 21, 2014 by Magatsu

[237Q 154]

It's weird, though. By now I have uploaded 4 or 5 cds, but I'm only going to refer to the last three I uploaded ( 1) Jackman - GIGA, 2) DOG inthe PWO - Doggy style III, and 3) Masa - Life). I always make a rip with windows media player, with all the same settings (same as Magatsu posted a printscreen of). With 1 and 2 I didn't have any problems at all, and the graphs were perfect.

With Masa I had to rip the damn cd 3 times before it was good. That might show that windows media player doesn't always mess up? Or the files didn't get checked, I don't know.

First I used windows media player in 320 kbps  and got a message from the admin that it's a transcode. Don't have the screenshot of that one, though.

 

After that, following the admin's suggestion, I downloaded dBpoweramp but it let me rip with the highest possible bitrate at 240 kbps for some reason

With that looking like transcode aswell (even though better than wmp rip), I got the suggestion to download itunes and try there, and, finally, got this

 

As the admin has told me when I got worried that maybe the cd is in lower quality no matter how unlikely it is (it's 2013. cd by Fuji production - Dolly, Liphlich and Yazzmad's label), it is possible. It wasn't the case with my cd, but my guess is that some older presses from 90's maybe do have problems like this.

 

And after listening to all three rips of a song from the cd on regular earphones (very good quality, the noise canceling ones) and played from the same device, I couldn't hear a difference and honestly from that experience, I don't really care if what I'm downloading is labeled transcode or not

[Guest Magatsu]

Then we need to put "dBpoweramp" into the list -> makes bad rips too. I don't know that program at all.

 

I actually do recommend you to download WINAMP and Switch sound file converter.

With Winamp you can easy RIP for free to FLAC and with Switch sound file converter you can convert your files easy to PERFECT 320kbps. even better than Itunes can do.

However you also can rip into itunes lossless and then to convert your files to 320kbps with Switch sound file converter. 

You also can rip your CD's with Switch sound file converter however then you need to TAG all your files again. since it's unable to recognize the file names correctly ^^"

 

But just keep in mind. if you rip with windows media player only use it for WMA lossless or WAV.

 

But your example of "dBpoweramp" shows us again that files got "flagged as transcode" even if it's a CD rip.

 

if you want to know more about Switch sound file converter I can tell you easy (^.-)

[Biopanda 2675]

Or you guys can just follow the guide posted here about EAC and make perfect rips all the time lol

[Zeus 7997]

Then we need to put "dBpoweramp" into the list -> makes bad rips too. I don't know that program at all.

 

I actually do recommend you to download WINAMP and Switch sound file converter.

With Winamp you can easy RIP for free to FLAC and with Switch sound file converter you can convert your files easy to PERFECT 320kbps. even better than Itunes can do.

However you also can rip into itunes lossless and then to convert your files to 320kbps with Switch sound file converter. 

You also can rip your CD's with Switch sound file converter however then you need to TAG all your files again. since it's unable to recognize the file names correctly ^^"

 

But just keep in mind. if you rip with windows media player only use it for WMA lossless or WAV.

 

But your example of "dBpoweramp" shows us again that files got "flagged as transcode" even if it's a CD rip.

 

if you want to know more about Switch sound file converter I can tell you easy (^.-)

dbPowerAmp is just fine. Sometimes it is just the release and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

We have a policy of "tag first, ask questions later" because if we were to ask everyone who uploaded a release what they used to rip it, we'd only get a response back 5% of time. And that's before we even start determining if it is a transcode or not. It's a sad fact that people here will claim credit for releases that aren't theirs and then disappear when it's discovered to be a YouTube rip or if someone asks for a higher quality re-rip.

Every once in a while there is just a CD that looks to be low quality, but isn't. We flag it just to be on the safe side, but if you know it isn't you have two options:

1. (If you bought the actual CD): Just send back a picture of your CD case. That's all you need to show me for me to know that you bought it.
2. (If you bought it online): Tell us where you got it from. Sometimes online vendors put up low-quality MP3's for sale. I point the finger mostly at iTunes, but I've been caught with it too. Since in this case it isn't your fault, we'll leave the tag there so other people know what the deal is and then you can just mention that you bought it online but the quality is crap and that you are getting your refund / a higher quality copy as soon as possible.

 

Note that "my rip" means that your only option is 1 and "bought online" means your only option is 2. If you say "my purchase", you'll have to specify to us which one it is.

 

People seem to think that the transcode tag means that we're going to ban you next time you do it. It doesn't. All it is is a way for people who do care about musical quality to know that we think the file may be suspicious and to check for themselves with both eyes and ears. If you don't care, it shouldn't matter. We only come for your head if you consistently ignore us like Demon Android.

 

[Guest Magatsu]

You still didn't really answer the thing zess.

Files still got tagged as transcodes.

Even if sometimes SPEK shows us its a BAD RIP, not transcode made from a youtube video.

The versailles upload from jpopsuki is a good example, I already see that it is a legit CD rip just ripped with WMP or with that other proggie.

So not transcode just a BAD rip.

So maybe there should be a new topic tag?

For those legit bad CD rips.

And you know that I know as so long uploader tells the truth and kinda prove it nothing will happen.

Its yet my feeling says sometimes stuff got flagged while its a legit cd rip but just is a bad rip.

[Qliffot 118]

In my humble opinion best thing, You could do, is to make some official regulations of approved and unapproved ripper's software. I fancy it would be a paradise, if everybody used solely EAC, CueRipper and dBpoweramp, simply because they are probably the only applications, which can submit results into CueTools and AccurateRip databases. Banning WMP, Winamp and all similar applications would easily eliminate, or at least limit the issue with bad rips to sporadic, separate cases (I obviously know my suggestion be never put into practice though).

 

Personally, just like I stated so many times before, I just do not use MP3 at all. However, recently I was thinking so often about making some new topic, where I could explain, how important should be for everyone not only the quality of rips itself, but also the possibility of obtaining certainty that: 1) a particular rip is not bad somehow anyway (one could lose some bites because processor had a lag for a second; anything can happen and one never knows for sure); 2) a particular rip is original disc, has not been somehow spoiled; 3) a disc itself may have scratches, perhaps even microscopic, which influence playing. To avoid all this and many more similar accidents, I would strongly suggest everybody, especially ripping discs in lossless, to submit their rips into CTDB. You cannot do this through WMP, I-Tunes, or Winamp; even Easy CD-DA Extractor cannot submit results anymore, even if rips will appear as accurate, if somebody else has submitted them previously (although initially it was capable of submitting, for some reasons has been formerly banned out of doing this). Wherefore, if somebody would share such a lossless rip, even in case it would be terribly produced, if one check it with CueTools, it's possible to obtain at least confirmation that it's not only this particular disc, but that other discs have been produced identically; thence it's not a single case of this particular rip. From my Japanese recent downloads, it reminds me about Linh-san's Girugamesh's "Monster" case. I already mentioned it in that topic, but I can repeat it here as well. This disc looks just horribly. Half of tracks seem to be mpeg by auCDtect and Audiochecker. However, it has been submitted into CTDB and we at least know that two other persons (not counting Linh-san, since she didn't do this because it's rip made with Easy CD-DA Extractor) had have exactly the same discs submitted.

 

Moreover, I fancy, sincerely, that I don't need any disc to be perfectly produced, and I don't care of music quality itself anymore, since I must listen to music using actually really poor, cheap headphones, as my speakers do not work anymore. The only thing I need is however to obtain this little confirmation that the rip, I'm actually listening to, has been made properly, sans issue and that it's just a copy 1:1 of actual disc itself. The question for persons listening to mp3s which comes to my ridiculous mind is always the same: why should one lose one's precious, the most precious of all things in this earth, so quickly fleeting time of life for listening to something without obtaining at least this little certainty that one's time is in fact dedicated for contemplation of original product, in quality, wherefore has been wished by the artists themselves to contemplate their work? And to listen to this so called "transcodes", bah! even to download them, seem to me like in some way an offense of the artist. Of course, I don't talk about piracy, and let's put this subject outside; but generally, if one is condemned to download music because of inability to buy original albums out of various reasons, then one should, methinks, at least listen to music in format and quality close as much as possible to the original product. For this way one at least comes closer to the holiness of associating oneself with the original product itself. And in this personal, ridiculous, naturally, philosophy there's no place for mp3s at all.

 

Whence, to somehow conclude my above confessions, I strongly believe Monochrome Heaven's users should use EAC and CueTools (and perhaps some similar applications for the usage at Linux and OS X) more often and abandon WMP, Winamp and I-Tunes at all in usage of ripping discs; although I don't force anybody to stop listening to music via the above mentioned programs. Sometimes I'm still listening to music through Winamp, if the disc has no unicode/utf8 titles, but ascii only, since this application screws cue sheets with all special diacritics, etc.

 

However, despite the all of above reflections, I truly know this will never happen and there's no way everybody would ever come to mind and start to care of no quality but accuracy of the rips itself

[Guest Magatsu]

Ah but with WINAMP you cannot make mp3 rips if you don't pay for it. so why to ban it? *lol*

But you can make perfect FLAC rips with WINAMP.

 

Let's list up stuff for ya.

Windows media player: WMA & WAV lossless = 100% perfect quality

WINAMP: FLAC = 100% perfect quality | I never tested other was.

Switch sound converter  = 100% perfect mp3 320kbps quality

Itunes = ripping in lossless = 100% perfect quality.  mp3 = losing quality.

 

EAC = difficult  to use, but 320kbps still not full quality it will be cut at 20khz.

CueRipper = no idea, never tried. But name sounds perfect quality.

dBpoweramp (can, give a bad rip, aka what ZESS said)

 

And I truly can promise you can convert any lossless with Switch sound converter into perfect mp3 320kbps quality.

[Naaaaani 1172]

Use foobar2000 + lame encoder and your rips will be perfect

[nick 10212]

IMO, transcode is a term referring to either a said bad rip using some faulty encoder or literal transcode i.e. a file being converted from lossy to lossy, which is not a preferred type of audio rip anyway.

What would you call it if I ripped a CD to MP3 using Windows Media Player and converted it to 320 kbps later on? A bad transcode rip?

Practically, no one can tell how a file online is initially ripped unless it's their own rip, though.

 

As being said, it is just a term that everyone here can understand that it refers to a low quality file, so that they can consider if they should download it or not.

[Guest Magatsu]

In the transcode FAQ it's written

 

Q. What is a transcode?
A. A transcode is file of lossy quality (mp3, Youtube audio, etc.) re-encoded into another file, which usually results in some loss of quality. More to the point, in the context of the download forum, a transcode is almost always a file of lossy quality that has been re-encoded to a higher bitrate. For example, a 192k file transcoded into a 320k file.

 

RE-ENCODED -> so not ripped from CD. At least if I should believe Champs EXAMPLE.

 

 

What would you call it if I ripped a CD to MP3 using Windows Media Player and converted it to 320 kbps later on? A bad transcode rip?

That's a real transcode in my mind.

 

Still yet, sometimes it's just nice to know if the RIP has been made from a REAL CD.
Or that it's a re-encoding from a youtube video or something.

Also there are here files around. which are not tagged as "transcode" but which are just a "bad cd rip"  but which don't have the transcode tag.

But actually this TOPIC is not for. OH how would you call it then?!

No, it's only to show that there are transcodes around which are just bad rips, made with windows media player or any other bad rip program and that we don't always can flag them as "THE" transcode which is re-encoded.

[Zeus 7997]

So we have a few options then, none of which I really like.

• Force everyone to use EAC and upload the logs it spits out with your upload.
• Upload an image of your CD case and include it in the post.
• Create a new tag [LQ] which includes real transcodes and "bad rips".

I don't like number one because I wouldn't want to force anyone to do anything. People upload music because they want to and telling them to use EAC because "Zess said so" isn't a good enough reason. It also brings up the question of what do people that repost interesting releases do? Also, the people that don't use Windows have no equivalent program. iTunes + EAC + dbPowerAmp should be enough to cover 95% of people's use cases.

 

Number two is only slightly inconvenient and was my proposed solution before - the same thing you claimed as not being a solution. But if they have a picture of their CD case (with a sticky note with their screen name on it so no one else can "take it"), then that's all the proof you need that it's off the real CD.

 

Number three will clear up misconceptions around the name, but it doesn't achieve anything new.

 

 

Also there are here files around. which are not tagged as "transcode" but which are just a "bad cd rip"  but which don't have the transcode tag.

That's because there are 7 of us and 7000 of you. We miss a few from time to time. We actually rely on you guys to help us find the releases we miss. If you see one and say nothing, that helps no one.

[sai 868]

Even if said thing is the case, can you really expect from the the staff that they'll have to contact the uploader of every file that comes out weird in spek? Only if they're the original uploader they'd be able to tell us what settings/program they used to rip CDs, and plenty of people here post rips that aren't theirs, meaning we can not always tell what the cause of the distortion is. Not every staff member can tell the difference between a transcode and a "bad rip" from a mere spek photo.

 

Like Zess says, there are 7 of us and 7000 of you. If it really bothers you that a file is tagged as a transcode when you think it's just a bad rip (which you could only know if you knew what programs the person ripped with but whatever) just use the report button.

[Guest Magatsu]

@Sai

 

Even if said thing is the case, do you really expect the staff to contact the uploader of every file that comes out weird in spek?

Dear, where did I write that I do EXPECT such idiotic thing????
So no I don't expect that. That's not even WHAT I say. That's maybe what "Qliffot" actually want. But me? not at all. As I also said. this thread is only for TO show users WHY things sometimes get flagged even if they did rip it from their OWN CD.

 

 

@Zess

 

 

That's because there are 7 of us and 7000 of you. We miss a few from time to time. We actually rely on you guys to help us find the releases we miss. If you see one and say nothing, that helps no one.

Oh really? I never reported those because I always was thinking, Oh bad rip made with windows media player or something, no need to report.

 

 

Number three will clear up misconceptions around the name, but it doesn't achieve anything new.

It maybe doesn't achieve anything new, but yet maybe it's better to use [LQ] instead of [Transcode] -> since it all clear up all misconceptions and everything fit's inside.
also a changing doesn't need to achieve something new. If it's gives a better view and no misconceptions its maybe better to use.  

 

 

But yet, one more time. You guys don't need for me to CHECK everything shizzel, or to Say to people USE THIS PROGRAM etc.

If I wanted that, I would have dropped this thread into "SUGGESTIONS"  if you did read my FIRST post you did notice that this isn't a suggestions or something similar.

It's only to show that a normal CD rip which is made with a bad proggie could been seen as a RE-ENCODED file.

-.-

[nick 10212]

But actually this TOPIC is not for. OH how would you call it then?!

No, it's only to show that there are transcodes around which are just bad rips, made with windows media player or any other bad rip program and that we don't always can flag them as "THE" transcode which is re-encoded.

 

But what you have been trying to do is to split faulty rips into "bad rip" and "transcode" after all.

[Guest Magatsu]

Yes, because I was always thinking that you guys meant with TRANSCODE a RE-ENCODE file. so ripped off from youtube or something.

And that it didn't include the files which are ripped with Windows Media player or any other bad rip program.

 

And the answer is simply: YES, everything with LQ = Transcode, including the WMP rips etc.

[seratonin 43]

Yes, because I was always thinking that you guys meant with TRANSCODE a RE-ENCODE file. so ripped off from youtube or something.

And that it didn't include the files which are ripped with Windows Media player or any other bad rip program.

And the answer is simply: YES, everything with LQ = Transcode, including the WMP rips etc.

Thank you for bringing this up, I thought I was the only one who noticed

that 320 rips can be badly encoded, either by settings or an old/unupdated encoder.

There are examples on this site of people uploading their 320 rip but it sounds bad,

but I think its for one of the reasons i stated.

A real 320 in fact is insanely good quality and in my personal experience, if the 320 is ripped correctly,

(WITH CORRECT SETTINGSS AD UPDATED LAME 3.99/itunes 10 or 11, which are FREE!!)

will sound like a lossless considering i can hear up to 18kHz frequency

and have tried many expensive listening equipments including home theater surround sounds.

And by the way, high end headphones can show difference between 320 and AAC ,

but surround sounds system will rip a itunes format AAC 256k VBR to trash! Its very interesting

Use foobar2000 + lame encoder and your rips will be perfect

This. They are also free so there should nbe no excusse!

[Champ213 1858]

Okay, enough of this already. This discussion is going nowhere.

 

 

1. The fact that legit rips can be mistaken for transcodes has been covered in the Transcode FAQ. ("Many people use a programme called Spek to analyze the spectograph of the file. This can give you some valuable insights, but it's by no means 100% conclusive. I could show you several Spek images of files I ripped from original CDs according to our guidelines, that could be easily mistaken for transcodes, if you only look at the spectographs.") That's just a technical limitation we have to live with.

 

 

2. There are 2 kinds of people: those who don't care if something is a transcode and those that do. The latter one will also not want to download a bad rip. By labeling something as "Transcode" this group of people know what to avoid. If it helps anything we can use the label "Low Quality" for both transcodes AND bad rips. But seriously, you are fighting about semantics here.

 

 

3. If you want to avoid making bad rips, we have guidelines here to help you. If you upload stuff that isn't your own rip, check the quality first. If things look fishy, just say so in the description or attach a Spek image, and you won't get any trouble. We don't want to overly restrict uploading, but we want that people know what to expect when downloading something.

 

 

4. When you find a upload that looks like a transcode OR a bad rip and it doesn't say so in the description, feel free to report it.

 

 

@ Magatsu: quit the whining. You are just being butthurt because a mod labeled your upload as transcode when it actually was a bad rip. It doesn't matter. If someone doesn't want to download a transcode, they certainly don't want to download a bad rip either. Those who don't mind transcodes won't mind bad rips either. Do you own the CD? Rip it again according to our guidelines. You don't? Check files you get from other sources and upload them with appropriate description. It's not rocket science.

 

 

Seriously, a few months ago people were whining that we didn't do enough against low quality files, now that we try to do more, it's still not okay. *facepalm*

[Guest Magatsu]

I FUCKING DON'T WINE!

 

I SIMPLY DID MISUNDERSTOOD THAT BAD RIPS ALSO WILL BE LABELED AS TRANSCODES.

 

And the answer is simply: YES, everything with LQ = Transcode, including the WMP rips etc.

 

 

But I'm so fucking done with MH.

 

goodbye. I will never speak a word nor contribute something to this forum.

[CAT5 9075]

 

But I'm so fucking done with MH.

 

goodbye. I will never speak a word nor contribute something to this forum.