TOSEC ISO Redumped Trurip SegaCD and NeogeoCD ???

[F0XHOUND]

In last DATs some profiles ISO formats seems to be changed from ISO+WAV to CCD+SUB. Is this the new dump format? ISO+WAV can be converted to CCD+SUB with some patches?
ISO+WAV wont be never necessary for this profiles???
Thanks

[PandMonium]

Hey F0XHOUND,

Some of the sets in those dats were replaced by newer sets dumped by Trurip due to some improvements. As for the rest of your questions i can't answer you properly because i lack the knowledge, anyway just keep the files for now, don't remove any because some might have been wrongly removed and might come back in.

[Maddog]

Currently in talks about the future of the ISO side of the project. There are several possible courses to take.
You might see radical changes in the future, but if I were you I wouldn't delete anything yet.

[xvid]

That is funny TOSEC-ISO without ISOs.

I don't like this change, ISO is a open standart, CloneCD is it not.

[F0XHOUND]

i think same of xvid

[xvid]

I think the "Trurip" dumper should not replace the ISOs from TOSEC project  with his CCDs. If he likes the CCDs so much he should use it for his own Trurip Project and not remove the ISOs without a reason. We do not need a mirroring from the Trurip Project to the TOSEC project. If somebody wants this CCDs he can get it from the Trurip Project.

[Maddog]

Just a notice, don't blame the Trurip dumpers for replacing the ISOs with CCDs.
This is done by dat maker, not the dumpers. IMO it was a bit premature removing the ISOs completely at this point and they might actually come back since several people have complained about the change.

Below are personal thoughts, not something official
Perhaps in a future day there will be dats for all flavors of dumping groups.
I am personally supporting this notion, which keeps TOSEC as a renaming group (which it historically was) and allows people to choose their own flavor on the ISO dats. A nightmare for completists that would like to have all dats complete, since completing TOSEC ISO in both Trurip and ISO flavor might be too much (not to mention of the possibility of adding other groups like Redump, Darkwater etc), but noone is forced to do that! You like one group, you complete that dat and ignore the others. This might keep everyone happy. Or annoy everyone, too.

[bierbaron]

I think the "Trurip" dumper should not replace the ISOs from TOSEC project  with his CCDs. If he likes the CCDs so much he should use it for his own Trurip Project and not remove the ISOs without a reason. We do not need a mirroring from the Trurip Project to the TOSEC project. If somebody wants this CCDs he can get it from the Trurip Project.

This is actually quite hilarious.

[PandMonium]

As Maddog said it is something still open and being debated. The future about TOSEC ISO (as in the datting project, to catalog disc media) and which formats / dumping processes should be used will be clarified in some days/weeks (hopefully).

Anyway we are open to discussion / suggestions and critics about this, just as usual

[xvid]

I hope for a rule for TOSEC-ISO entrys, like the TOSEC Naming Convention.

I think CUE+WAV/ISO/BIN/RAW should be allowed.

Not allowed should be CCD because CloneCD is not a open standart, otherwise what it the next? CHD, NRG, C2D, ...

[bierbaron]

This is getting better and better.

[Ian]

If ccd img sub format stores more information then who cares. Don't see many complaining about sps images and normal adfs so why the fuss now. Considering sps have diverted from their original mo people are collecting thousands of images they will never be able to use as there is no manual at least we can use the trurip images.

Got to say im pleased they are being added properly to tosec as i dont like the naming or the way the images are packaged by trurip.

[IguanaC64]

I'm sorta new (I used to work on renaming in the past and I'm getting back into it).  I don't know for sure how the ISO section of Tosec works, but the C64 section I worked on was only to catalog what dumps were actually out on the net.  We weren't changing dumps or necessarily making new ones (although, I'm sure releasing good dumps of stuff that didn't exist would always be welcome).  That being said, if we're making new dumps, I'm sure it wouldn't be an issue to standardize on one particular type.  Regarding which one to use if *we* are involved in the dumping, it should be discussed what formats are best suited.  ISO has some serious limitations in regards to audio tracks that would affect dumping retro stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_image (go down to the disadvantages section)

...this is why you see a lot of older stuff dumped .cue/.bin.  CDRWin was the best software to use back in the '90s because a lot of companies did weird things with audio tracks that ISO dumpers flat out couldn't do (my personal opinion is that it was an easy way to keep people from copying the disks).  CDRWin only used .cue/.bin.  You can read a bit about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDRWIN

I agree with you that we should try to go with an open standard, but ISO may not be the best one to use in all cases.  In this wiki article it specifically mentions CloneCD as a replacement for CDRWin because of it's ability to handle weird disk formats.  I do not believe the ISO format was ever similarly updated, but I could be mistaken.

The best software to use nowadays for PS1 ripping is Alcohol (actually has a PS1 ripping mode), CloneCD, Nero, and Imageburn.

Wikipages for various formats...

ISO - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_image
NRG - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRG_(file_format)
IMG/CCD - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.img
CUE/BIN - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cue_sheet_(computing)

...it looks like all of these pages mention ISO's weak audio track support.

Wiki article comparison of burning software - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_disc_image_software

Software websites -
ImageBurn - http://www.imgburn.com/
Nero - http://www.nero.com/
Alcohol - http://www.alcohol-soft.com/
CloneCD - http://www.slysoft.com/en/clonecd.html

[Cassiel]

Yeah… massive can of worms you've just opened there.   

A (VERY) brief (and slightly biased) bit of history re ISO. Originally (main) and ISO had no distinction, it was all just 'TOSEC' (and it was good). Then [idoru] decided he wanted to spin off TOSEC-ISO as a side project, so he did. They developed their own dumping methodology and had their own website, but used TNC standards (and broadly co-operated with main TOSEC project). It was good-ish (for awhile).

Then, a lot of internal ISO politics happened. I'm not going to comment, because I wasn't directly involved and tried to stay out of it all. Other people came along with different ideas about how to run ISO. It got messy. [idoru] packed up his toys and left (and without notice deleted the TOSEC-ISO website). TOSEC-ISO stagnated for awhile, unsure of status or direction. Other people came back and aggressively tried to dictate their will on TOSEC-ISO direction, with an almost perversely irrationally uncooperative behaviour and attitude. Things got REALLY messy and ugly.

Now… TOSEC-ISO is back under control of TOSEC proper. The current status is there is no official methodology or 'dumping' project. It has gone back to its roots of being a pure cataloguing exercise. The plan is to document existing dumps, and a plan has been put in place to begin this new direction though obvious this won't happen overnight.

Thank you for your research and links however, if we decide to ratify an 'official' dumping method again then this may be useful. Though frankly given previous and current (frankly comedic at times) political drama around ISO, I don't see this happening anytime soon…

[Maddog]

A couple of corrections:
ISO per se doesn't support audio tracks, but the old TOSEC ISO dumping method solved that by including dumps as ISO+WAV+CUE, which in effect work just like BIN/CUE files, with the only drawback being that you need more files to represent a disc with CD Audio, instead of the two files of a normal BIN/CUE. Also the frequently cited by certain competitors (Redump, cough, cough) "drawback" of TOSEC ISO being 2048 bytes/sector and therefore "missing" error correction of the 2352 bytes/sector dumps is not an issue, since the old TOSEC ISO only included dumps where two independent dumpers got to same results using different discs, which is obvious to anyone with half a mind that excludes any possible errors of the data sectors. All burners recreate the remaining error correction bytes when burning back such an image.
The really serious drawback was inability to support weird formats, like JaguarCD, PCE, PCFX, CDi-ready and discs with protections.

Also, [idoru] didn't delete the old TOSEC ISO on purpose after leaving. He just didn't renew the subscription to the host (wouldn't make any sense since he stopped bothering I suppose...) and so the site got deleted after said subscription expired. That said, he obviously could have handled his "disappearance" a little more graciously giving others a chance to salvage the old work, which was impossible since noone else had full access to said site.