On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 12:42:12PM +0100, David Wright wrote: ... > Yes, I was going to point out to the person that suggested using
I think that was me:) > index points instead of tracks that many players can't handle them, > and that using tracks should not require any gaps. Most classical > CDs will illustrate this point. not sure i understand and/or agree here. Maybe it all depends on what you call a track? To me a track is (in the context of burning cd's) the entity that is burned on a cd in TrackAtOnce (TAO) mode. The CD-standard prescribes two second pauses in between those tracks. There are some writers that can produce gaps of different length (even 0), but not many. When burning such a track it is quite feasable to combine several wave files on the fly to fill that one track without any pause in between those wav files. Normally, for each track an entry is added to the TOC (table of contents, located at the beginning of the cd prior to any track). But there is nothing stopping you from adding top-level indices to the TOC that point inside those `real' tracks. And then there is this notion of tracks when *playing* audio cd's. Those tracks are the parts of the cd as decribed by the top-level indices in the TOC. So when I advised to use indices I ment to add entries to the TOC such that tracks (in the context of TAO-burning) got split up in tracks (in the context of audio-cd playing). > However, just as some very early CD players would cock this up, there > are still some computer players making this mistake and inserting > silences into continuous music CDs. That's the player's fault, not the > fault of using tracks. yep. (tracks here in the context of "playing audio cd's") -- groetjes, carel