Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping (Read 7013 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

I understand EAC is ripper of choice here, though my brother is burning his collection and has choosen to use CDex 1.51 (192kbps, MP3, default LAME, Quality = normal (1=5), VBR-Old/VRB2).

Assuming that that format is is good for him, my question is what are the "cons" of using CDex to create such files (verses something like EAC).  What is he missing out on?  What technologies are not making his MP3's better (if that makes any sense)?

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

Reply #1 –
* CDex is less secure at ripping
* the MP3 setup is crap

i'm sure everyone will be shouting "EAC + lame 3.90.3 --alt-preset standard" here

if you are on linux, then it would be "Grip + ..." (or anything that does cdda2wav/cdparanoia, really...)

linux has less secure ripping than windows(EAC) but it isn't a big deal.  the biggest problem here is the MP3 setup


later

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

Reply #2 –
Sorry, I don't understand the details:

What does "less secure" mean?

What is wrong\worse\less with the CDex MP3 setup?

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

Reply #3 –
I'd say CDex is secure enough with Paranoia, Full. Same goes for cdparanoia -Bz. I don't worry about cdparanoia failing on CDs with holes in them; I don't have any.

edit: and I don't mean the hole in the middle.

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

Reply #4 –
Quote
What does "less secure" mean?

From the Coaster Factory:

"Contrary to most other audio extractors EAC uses a Secure reading method. That means that all audio sectors are read at least twice (other rippers just read it once). That makes the level of error detection a lot higher. When a read error occurs EAC will reread the audio data up to 82x to get the correct data. If the data couldn't be read after 82x retries due to serious damage to the CD for example, EAC will report a read error and give the exact location so you can listen to it and decide whether or not you can hear an artifact in the music. In many cases you will not hear artifacts, even when EAC reported a read error. This makes EAC the only audio extractor for the Windows platform that can extract badly scratched CDs."

I'll let the pros field the other question.
I just discovered Opus. Holy mackerel!

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

Reply #5 –
Quote
EAC will reread the audio data up to 82x to get the correct data.

cdparanoia can be configured to read more than 100 times.

edit: I'm sure CDex's "Paranoia, Full" mode also rereads the audio data when neccessary.

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

Reply #6 –
CDex is unreliable when used with a drive that caches audio (which is true for the majority of modern drives). This has been reported many times on this board.

"Unreliable" in this context means that reading errors will not be noticed and thus you risk having glitches in the ripped audio files.

IIRC, this is not a cdparanoia flaw as such, but a flaw in the way cdparanoia is integrated in CDex.

Edit: For more information, please read this - interesting - thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=16188
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

Reply #7 –
Regarding the mp3 setup, its a bit hard to tell if you are going with 192 CBR or some High V VBR setting.

CBR 192 is not transparent on lots of material. Using --alt -preset standard will give you transparent files and averages only a bit higher for file size.

IIRC, CDex requires a special .dll to use aps, available at the website.

CDex is a pretty good ripper but you should really confirm the encoder settings because that will make a huge difference in the quality of your file library.

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

Reply #8 –
True, cdparanoia is old. It has not been optimized for drives with a lot of cache. However, it will still work just as well as EAC with drives with less than 1 meg of buffer.

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

Reply #9 –
As far as I know, there is no ability to specify offsets in CDex more accurately than one sector at a time (588 samples / sector if I recall correctly). On EAC you can define offsets with one sample accuracy.

For those who care about those missing samples at the end/beginning of tracks, this alone is reason enough to use EAC. IMHO, of course.

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

Reply #10 –
you can use CDex to encode with the LAME presets.....to do that, do a forum search for "hardwired lame settings" and maybe the keyword "ini". Using this modified build you can encode to lame presets with cdex. So, the encoder-settings are no prob anymore then.

About the ripping-quality: i think with full paranoia its okay for non-gapless CDs. For gapless trackchanges i would instead use EAC because it is more precise.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

Reply #11 –
i love and use EAC, but for me is only necesary if the cd looks bad ... 99% of the time, i use dbpoweramp ... and EAC only on those scratched cds

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

Reply #12 –
I've ripped over 1200 cds with cdex at alt-preset standard, and have yet to hear a glitch. When you have that many disks to go through I found cdex to be much quicker than EAC. Though I used EAC on scratched CDs just to be sure.

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

Reply #13 –
Quote
From the Coaster Factory:

"This makes EAC the only audio extractor for the Windows platform that can extract badly scratched CDs."

That must have been written before PlexTools Pro was released.

Quote
you can use CDex to encode with the LAME presets.....to do that, do a forum search for "hardwired lame settings" and maybe the keyword "ini". Using this modified build you can encode to lame presets with cdex. So, the encoder-settings are no prob anymore then.


It is the Encoding smaller files / fixed-quality encoders, ... thread.

edit: I'm sorry for the flood. I keep getting HTTP 400 - Bad Request error, had no idea all those tries actually went through, dangit.

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

Reply #14 –
Quote
I'd say CDex is secure enough with Paranoia, Full. Same goes for cdparanoia -Bz. I don't worry about cdparanoia failing on CDs with holes in them; I don't have any.

There was no hole in the CD on which CDex failed in this test : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=ST&f=20&t=3164

It would be very useful if other people could post similar experiences. So far I never hear of anyone else checking that CDex paranoia works at all. Take a CD with a lot of errors, read twice with CDex and if it reports no errors, compare the resulting files.

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

Reply #15 –
I did (more than 2 years ago) test comparing EAC and Cdex CDparanoia (on lite-on burner and Samsung DVD player). I also noticed that CD paranoia offered wore results than EAC. More annoying: no log with Cdex. With EAC, errors are reported, and you don't have to discover them some weeks later.
Wavpack Hybrid -c4hx6

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

Reply #16 –
I've been using CDex for a while now - mainly because with classical music it's useful to be able to rip and encode the seperate movements of a piece into one MP3 track which is a major Pro for me.  When I looked at EAC it wouldn't do this.

Had to use Lame as an external encoder for a while to get the presets, but they seem to have fixed the .dll now (and I think it will also use the Lame Codec but haven't tried that).

Never suffered from any glitches etc...but all my CDs are pristine.

Pros\Cons of using CDex for Ripping

Reply #17 –
Quote
I've been using CDex for a while now - mainly because with classical music it's useful to be able to rip and encode the seperate movements of a piece into one MP3 track which is a major Pro for me.  When I looked at EAC it wouldn't do this.

Have another look. Either Copy Image & Create CUE Sheet or Copy Range should accomplish what you  want.