CD Freaks' forum etiquette and other issues

vbimport

#1

[QUOTE=imkidd57;2144082]Right.

This is the last warning, sc_1004. You have been repeatedly asked NOT to create a new thread for every slight variation on a problem. Also you have been asked to post questions in the appropriate forum.

This is an Audio question, and we have a forum for that here:

http://club.cdfreaks.com/f57/

Please keep all your questions in the same thread and relevant forum if at all possible. We are going to start deleting threads otherwise, and you might find your forum access restricted.

Thread moved to Audio forum and merged with other EAC thread.[/QUOTE]

Under the “Burning Software” header, it reads “Discuss recording applications such as free recording software, music recording software, audio recording software and cd, dvd, blu-ray recording software.” I thought EAC fits under that description. Correct me if I’m wrong.

And this is only the second time you’ve fiddled around with my threads. So I think you’re being a wee bit harsh when you threaten banishment for such a slight indiscretion. I will certainly try to do better, but come on! This is only a message board for crying out loud! Don’t you think you’re over-reacting?


#2

[quote=sc_1004;2144099]Under the “Burning Software” header, it reads “Discuss recording applications such as free recording software, music recording software, audio recording software and cd, dvd, blu-ray recording software.” I thought EAC fits under that description. Correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]It’s not “recording software”, since you’re not burning anything with EAC. In fact it’s quite the reverse: you’re extracting data off a CD.

Rather than argue the point, please appreciate that other members trying to help you will eventually get very frustrated trying to help if they have to keep searching out new threads to answer.

BTW, CDA and WAV files are in virtually the same uncompressed format so there’s no quality loss in ripping the tracks off a CD and saving as .wav. Therefore it doesn’t really matter about an intermediate WAV stage on the way to .mp3.


#3

[QUOTE=imkidd57;2144108]It’s not “recording software”, since you’re not burning anything with EAC. In fact it’s quite the reverse: you’re extracting data off a CD.

Rather than argue the point, please appreciate that other members trying to help you will eventually get very frustrated trying to help if they have to keep searching out new threads to answer.

BTW, CDA and WAV files are in virtually the same uncompressed format so there’s no quality loss in ripping the tracks off a CD and saving as .wav. Therefore it doesn’t really matter about an intermediate WAV stage on the way to .mp3.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. But the description under “Audio” doesn’t say anything about software. In fact, the way it’s described, it sounds like a forum for music and audio equipment.

I know the CD audio format and WAV are nearly identical, but I thought the advantage of using EAC was its greater accuracy compared to other software and its ability to let you fix problem transfers. For example, when you rip WAV files, EAC generates a report that tells you how accurately each file was reproduced. When you rip MP3 files, this file isn’t generated (maybe it can be but I haven’t tinkered with it enough), so you don’t know how good the transfer really was. Will EAC rip WAV files of any quality? Or is there a threshold where it will not do the job? I’m trying to figure out how best to use this thing, and at first blush it seems that with more questionable CDs, it may be wise to see how well the WAV files can be transferred before taking the final step of burning it to disc.


#4

[QUOTE=imkidd57;2144108]I
Rather than argue the point, please appreciate that other members trying to help you will eventually get very frustrated trying to help if they have to keep searching out new threads to answer.

.[/QUOTE]

I’m not trying to “argue the point”. There is a genuine issue here about the extent to which similar threads should be merged. For example, in this case, someone searching for “installing EAC” would be well served by this thread. But someone searching for “encoding in EAC” would not because the thread for this subject has been submerged into a different thread. A search on thread titles would not turn up this thread. And while a search on the text of msgs would, a person would have to wade through a page of stuff about “installing EAC” before he found what he was looking for. It’s not hard to imagine that many people would confine their searches to the titles and never even turn up this thread. And of those who did find this thread, many, if not most, would not have the patience to make it down to the second page. Instead, most people will just start their own thread on “encoding in EAC”, but THAT is exactly the problem you’re trying to avoid!

So merging too many subjects defeats the whole purpose of merging!

It’s a fine balance. IMO, this board should resemble a well organized book, where all the material is sorted where it can be easily and quickly found using “chapter” headings and a functional INDEX. The threads play the role of that index. And if you want to enable a useful search function, you have to allow enough distinctions between thread topics. The alternative is the proliferation of redundant threads.


#5

Discussive posts split off and moved to Forum Talk; for comments from other forum members.