Hmmm... since SQ in Win2000/XP seemed to suffer (from time to time) from changes made for the better
of XX/Vista, i kept asking myself if it weren't better soundwise (and hopefully even easier to develop for Peter)
to have two different Versions of XX. One for Vista Users only, the other for Win2K/XP users. My PCs are Vista ready, but i am not, so i'd like to stick with Win2k as long as possible.
I know that XX *is* a Vista Player at first, but I'd love the idea of having the best possible sound out of my windows machines not only as a byproduct, and from what i thought to read between Peter's lines, i had the feeling that Engine #1 and #2 [a dedicated 2000/XP player] could be sounding even better if some changes hadn't been necessary for the better of Vista. 

Hmmm... I'm using Windows2000, which I think makes me pretty open for attacks...
I'm directly connected to the web, didn't have any trouble with cover-paradise yet.
I do use a scanner, Avira AntiVir, updated on a daily basis.
Scan report is o.k., Guard says it's o.k. BitDefender at my office also thinks it's o.k. 
What scanner do you (or somebody else) use that can detect viruses on that site?

Hope the recommendation didn't cause any trouble...

Moderator Edit : Do not use below link, unless you've read this : http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=121.msg1434#msg1434
(I did dot check anything, so it's just a warning).
Peter


http://www.cover-paradies.to/

may have some things too, there are about 300.000 Covers downloadable. *One* banner/advertisement
getting in the way while you first use it, from then on it's ok.
(and there are absolutely no women with no clothes on appearing on your desktop after you've visited it...)
It's german though, but "Suchbegriff" is the word over the Search Field so it's pretty easy.
Covers are user-scanned and uploaded, quality differs from medium to superb but they really do have some covers that
amazon or walmart i.e. don't have.

Phew, 

thanks for the reply Peter, a number of questions has been answered now...
Having comparable Wav Files on HDD which can't be readout wrongly is some good point to start from!

I don't know how "intelligent" the foo_bitcompare is, but i didn't have to alter or find anything in the music files manually and i still was able to produce some tons of files which seem to be identical, as the tool says, though i used all-brakes-on secure mode as well as e.g. burst mode test & copy.
Seems to work, another good thing then. 

So, for now I'll just keep an eye on my Plextor and give the guy something to do.

Thanks again,
Boggie

Hi Chris,

In case of Cache issue i completely agree. I have all the CD/DVD Devices checked and configured properly, and i use the EAC Profiles for reading. The only thing i used to change, was that i didn't leave it to my DVD device to report C2 Errors, i unchecked only that thing against EAC's proposition.
My problem is that I don't feel all files with so called "Track Quality 100%" read by different devices sound the same. One of the promising things of PC/Hifi seemed to be having my music bit-by-bit at least on the HDD.
Now even *that* seems to be compromised or at least reeeaaally difficult. Earlier on in this thread I also learned, that EAC saying "Track Quality 100%" doesn't necessarily mean i've got all my music absolutely right, running through the EAC-FAQ then confirmed that it's more of an "how easy was the reading process of this cd" than a real statement about having bitperfect copies. 
What is or who can give a statement on what we have on HDD then?
Very well possible that i misunderstood Peters post, but i thought he was even questioning the "simple" bitcomparation tools. At that point i would have to set up EAC best i can and simply live with the results instead of wearing an all-day smile because of my bitperfect copies...
That is acceptable at least, but in the beginning it all started with that "perfect" attitude...

So, do you feel that it's not a problem if you read your CDs with different devices and speeds?
Do you think bitcomparing is obsolete or does it tell everything about the track?
Really having to listen to the reading results of different devices is a thing i preferably wouldn't want to do.
One step ahead of fumbling with tonearms, vtas and cartridges - and back again...

Cheers,
Boggie

Hi everybody,

I'm very glad someone else shares the troublesome way of somehow ripping music on hard drives...
What always troubled me was the feeling that I can't make audio files sound the same when reading them with two different drives, or even with the same drive using different speeds. Even foobar (again, sorry) playback wasn't the same two times in a row. This (and the situation in the hifi forums, where PC/Hifi was just perfect and no problem) disappointed and discouraged me many times and made me keep my CD Player and forget about PC/Hifi time and again. But I always loved the idea of a PC as a source a lot, so i'm back at work reripping my collection and trying to learn to tame the beast somehow. (Not simply getting eaten by it would be a great start, as i can see from here)
Some great deal of motivation came from your site, which i accidently discovered and immediately loved. Thanks from the heart for this dedicated act of love and labour and for the patience and friendliness around here.

Now, for hopefully being not completely off topic:
Even if the CD/DVD Drive supports C2 Error detection, i used to uncheck the option because i *want* EAC
to re-read the data and look for these errors.
I also use the slowest speed possible, and, though i'm just listening to the files like i listen to records and since i don't ABX or... whatever... i felt the slow readings were clearly superior to the faster ones.
The readings of my Plextor 716 in external FireWire housing (with all sorts of brakes i can find  , resulting in 1.0-1.5x Speed) sounded better to my ears than my internal LGs or my Laptop Combos.
Does anyone share similarly sad experiences  ?

As a "solution", i recently found that foobar 0.943 has the "bitcompare" utility downloadable, where foobar does *something* and then tells me if the files contain differing samples or not. I hoped i could avoid furthermore painfully listening and worrying and just continue the ripping of my collection. (Convenience, anyone?)
Now i read Peters words "Better compare the two files then (which is not so easy, for reasons)"
Did you try some bitcomparing tools (maybe the foobar one) and did the sound prove the tools wrong, or, even worse, is there a reason why what we look at when we compare just isn't enough or the wrong thing?
( I still hope it's a dream and tomorrow foobar knows who's good and who's bad)

Cheers,
Boggie