Re: [slim] IMG + CUE vs. separate tracks

2007-03-27 Thread TimothyB
JJZolx;190372 Wrote: > Good grief... How is that easier than using a tag editor??? I've used MP3Tag for my few .MP3 files. It took me more time to get things straight than if I could have simply edited a cue sheet. Also I've already taken care of the sorting info for artists and albums to prin

Re: [slim] IMG + CUE vs. separate tracks

2007-03-26 Thread JJZolx
TimothyB;190367 Wrote: > Amen, brother! > > I use images and cues, and like having a set number of files per album. > Wrote a Ruby script to sync all my cue sheets to my local CDDB. The big > thing I'm missing is ARTISTSORT and ALBUMSORT, but I can easily add to > the Ruby code to insert those

Re: [slim] IMG + CUE vs. separate tracks

2007-03-26 Thread TimothyB
325xi;190302 Wrote: > But ability to edit cue sheet to change tag info instead of dealing with > tag editing software is very appealing to me. Amen, brother! I use images and cues, and like having a set number of files per album. Wrote a Ruby script to sync all my cue sheets to my local CDDB. T

Re: [slim] IMG + CUE vs. separate tracks

2007-03-26 Thread 325xi
Well, I didn't notice a problem with gaps, need to pay more attention... But ability to edit cue sheet to change tag info instead of dealing with tag editing software is very appealing to me. -- 325xi 325xi's Profile: http

Re: [slim] IMG + CUE vs. separate tracks

2007-03-23 Thread JJZolx
smc2911;189675 Wrote: > While I don't use images and cue sheets myself (only came across the > idea well into ripping my collection to individual flacs), the purists > could point out that images preserve the exact gaps of silence between > tracks without attaching them to the individual tracks s

Re: [slim] IMG + CUE vs. separate tracks

2007-03-23 Thread Greg Erskine
Peter;189677 Wrote: > > True, but I hate them nevertheless. > I hate them so much that I wrote a little tool to chop them > (WAV/FLAC/APE) into bloody little FLAC pieces and set the tags from the > > CUE sheet. > > http://213.84.196.8/flacsplit.pl > > Regards, > Peter Hey Peter, if you use

Re: [slim] IMG + CUE vs. separate tracks

2007-03-23 Thread Peter
smc2911 wrote: > While I don't use images and cue sheets myself (only came across the > idea well into ripping my collection to individual flacs), but the > purists could point out that images preserve the exact gaps of silence > between tracks without attaching them to the individual tracks so tha

Re: [slim] IMG + CUE vs. separate tracks

2007-03-23 Thread smc2911
While I don't use images and cue sheets myself (only came across the idea well into ripping my collection to individual flacs), but the purists could point out that images preserve the exact gaps of silence between tracks without attaching them to the individual tracks so that those gaps are there

Re: [slim] IMG + CUE vs. separate tracks

2007-03-23 Thread Greg Erskine
325xi;189512 Wrote: > I know this subject has already been discussed to death, but I couldn't > find an answer on this particular question - are there any advantages > of ripping CD to separate tracks? SB seems to handle images with cue > sheets very well, and such images are actually easier to m

Re: [slim] IMG + CUE vs. separate tracks

2007-03-23 Thread Peter
Robin Bowes wrote: > Peter wrote: > >> 325xi wrote: >> >>> I know this subject has already been discussed to death, but I couldn't >>> find an answer on this particular question - are there any advantages >>> of ripping CD to separate tracks? SB seems to handle images with cue >>> sheets ve

Re: [slim] IMG + CUE vs. separate tracks

2007-03-22 Thread Robin Bowes
Peter wrote: > 325xi wrote: >> I know this subject has already been discussed to death, but I couldn't >> find an answer on this particular question - are there any advantages >> of ripping CD to separate tracks? SB seems to handle images with cue >> sheets very well, and such images are actually e

Re: [slim] IMG + CUE vs. separate tracks

2007-03-22 Thread Peter
325xi wrote: > Peter;189534 Wrote: > >> (I wonder why people bother with that cue-img stuff, it's not like >> you're using audio CD's anymore, are you?) >> >> Regards, >> Peter >> > > Oh yes, I do use audio CDs - mainly for ripping :) > Risking to add insult to injury, I'm even going to

Re: [slim] IMG + CUE vs. separate tracks

2007-03-22 Thread 325xi
Peter;189534 Wrote: > (I wonder why people bother with that cue-img stuff, it's not like > you're using audio CD's anymore, are you?) > > Regards, > Peter Oh yes, I do use audio CDs - mainly for ripping :) Risking to add insult to injury, I'm even going to say that I still use my CD player -

Re: [slim] IMG + CUE vs. separate tracks

2007-03-22 Thread Peter
325xi wrote: > I know this subject has already been discussed to death, but I couldn't > find an answer on this particular question - are there any advantages > of ripping CD to separate tracks? SB seems to handle images with cue > sheets very well, and such images are actually easier to manage...

[slim] IMG + CUE vs. separate tracks

2007-03-22 Thread 325xi
I know this subject has already been discussed to death, but I couldn't find an answer on this particular question - are there any advantages of ripping CD to separate tracks? SB seems to handle images with cue sheets very well, and such images are actually easier to manage... Everyone however se