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.

Poll

Ripping Programs

E.A.C
[ 216 ] (78.3%)
Plextools
[ 4 ] (1.4%)
CDex
[ 47 ] (17%)
Feurio
[ 2 ] (0.7%)
Audio Grabber
[ 7 ] (2.5%)

Total Members Voted: 329

Topic: Ripping Programs (Read 23179 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ripping Programs

Reply #50 –
Quote
If anyone can prove that EAC *ALWAYS*, *ALWAYS* reports errors it would be nice. But that would be very hard to prove. So, if anyone could prove EAC didn't report an error, it would be good. (i would try to, but have no scratched CD now)

Its impossible ever to prove that, filosofically, at least. By having seen a milion wonderful black ravens, one didnt prove there dont exist blue ravens... In fact, no one ever can prove that!!!
but the statement - all ravens are black - can be proven wrong easilly... you only have  to find 1 non-black raven.

just irritating, maybe
[span style=\'font-family:Arial\'][span style=\'color:red\']Life Sucks Deeply[/span][/span]

Ripping Programs

Reply #51 –
Quote
O.K I found a CD that EAC reports track quality 100% no errors detected with my plex 24/10/40a, full safety (no C2, cache on).  Plextools detected the errors & was the following:

heeej, shouldnt EAC only report errors if it has not been able to extract perfectly??? plextools said there where errors, but they where recovered, isnt it? and so did eac, so it didnt report errors.

??? isnt it???
[span style=\'font-family:Arial\'][span style=\'color:red\']Life Sucks Deeply[/span][/span]

Ripping Programs

Reply #52 –
EAC didn't correct any error, since track quality was 100%, and there were errors, since two different CRCs were returned. The two different readings can't be both right !

Ripping Programs

Reply #53 –
Just to finish my findings I tried on my Pioneer dvd slot DVD
& the errors where detected in EAC (but uncorrectable). The CD was from the library & has a plastic protection with a small barcode sticker on the label side that seems to make it hard for my plex to spin-up that could be a cause but its the first one that EAC couldn’t detect/correct & Plextools was still able to detect/correct. I also tried EAC with C2/cache on it detected errors & used error correction but also claimed an error free extraction although CRC's still didn't match.

Ripping Programs

Reply #54 –
If you really want to be sure whether your rips are 100% error free, I think the only way is to rip twice & compare. It doesn't matter if you use EAC or CDex, or what CD drive you own.
Since you're going to rip twice, you can also use faster modes, like burst. That's how I do it. I'm using EAC: first I rip all the tracks using the test mode so that I can get their CRCs, and then I really rip. If the CRCs match, you'll only see OK in the CRC column, but if some track has different read / test CRC you'll see # (I know you can use 'test and copy' option, but I like to do it this way).
Be sure to turn off option "no use of null samples for CRC calculations" so that the CRC is calculated for the whole WAV.
If some tracks have CRC mismatches, you can re-rip them using secure modes, but still you have to compare CRCs. The CDs I own (~70) are in good condition (even though some are over 14 years old), so I had no CRC mismatches even though I used only burst mode. But if the CD is scratched, then you could have trouble getting the same CRC (if EAC has to do many re-reads, even though it says OK in the end). You even might end up with more then one pair of matching CRCs (happened to me on a few CDs). In situations like these it's really hard to be sure which CRC pair is the real one - the best you can do is rip many times to see which CRC is the most often (also you can try to rip with another drive and then compare).

Ripping Programs

Reply #55 –
2 questions:

1)  Can Plextools be used with other drives,  for instance, my Hitachi HD-8500 DVD?

2)  Where can I find Plextools?
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'

Ripping Programs

Reply #56 –
I use cdparanoia for ripping with "abcde" (a great and flexible shell script)

Ripping Programs

Reply #57 –
Quote
Can Plextools be used with other drives,  for instance, my Hitachi HD-8500 DVD?

The use of Plextools is limited on non Plextor drives : the secure audio extraction is not supported.

Ripping Programs

Reply #58 –
Quote
But does it work if you're copying a live album or a mix CD? I remember getting some notice from Nero when I set the track gaps to 0 sec on a new Audio CD compilation that my burner didn't support this (which obviously is nonsense, because I can 1:1-copy live albums without any trouble, so it *must* be able to write 0 sec track gaps). And I'm pretty certain that I wasn't trying to write TAO.

Did you also set the gap for the first track to 0 sec?
You know it has to be set to 2 sec...

Ripping Programs

Reply #59 –
Gambit:

Quote
Did you also set the gap for the first track to 0 sec?
You know it has to be set to 2 sec...


That discussion was continued in the thread "Eac, Gaps And Cuesheets", where Pio2001 replied to all those questions.  Thanks for trying to help, anyway.

Ripping Programs

Reply #60 –
I use EAC because there's no way I'm going to listen to and verify 650+ megs of encoded audio before burning it to a backup CD-R.

Ripping Programs

Reply #61 –
My first option is always EAC, but I'd use CDex and PlexTools too. The new PlexTools v1.15 are quite good.

Ripping Programs

Reply #62 –
Quote
If you really want to be sure whether your rips are 100% error free, I think the only way is to rip twice & compare. It doesn't matter if you use EAC or CDex, or what CD drive you own.


this isn't right.

ripping twice and getting identical results only means that the TWO RIPS are the same...

no more.  no less.


happy halloween heathens!
mike

On-Topic:
i use EAC in windows.  GRIP in linux.  about evenly.


p.s. ... muahahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHA *eheh*

Ripping Programs

Reply #63 –
I have a hitatchi 8500 and a LG 8120B, can I use plextools with these?  and where can I get it?
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'

Ripping Programs

Reply #64 –
Quote
I have a hitatchi 8500 and a LG 8120B, can I use plextools with these?

Not with “secure” mode

Quote
and where can I get it?

This program is really only for Plextor owners.

Ripping Programs

Reply #65 –
Quote
this isn't right.

ripping twice and getting identical results only means that the TWO RIPS are the same...

no more. no less.


But how often are you going to get two rips that are 100% identical - and wrong ??? Especially when you use something like burst mode, because then there's practically no error correction/detection at all (which means that even the smallest error can pass through).
On some scratched CDs (when EAC still manages to 'correct' the errors), I had to do a couple of re-rips, using secure mode, before I got two identical CRCs. There were only a couple of cases when I had to do many (over 20) re-rips, but I got two or three pair of matching CRCs. That can be a problem because no I don't know which (if any) CRC pair is the right one.

Getting two identical CRCs on consecutive rips, when ripping a scratched CD, is VERY hard, practically impossible when using non-secure modes like burst.

Ripping Programs

Reply #66 –
dBpowerAMP Music Converter

Ripping Programs

Reply #67 –
I voted for EAC, I'm using it all the time, and am very satisfied with it :-)

About the problems of undetected extraction errors:

If one has a good cd-rom drive, wouldn't it be actually safer to ENABLE the "c2 error detection capable drive" checkbox ?

I mean, otherwise, what kind of error detection is in place in EAC, when ripping in single-pass secure mode (NO TEST, JUST COPY) ?

I really was under the impression, that relying on C2 errors reporting (only for detection purposes) was a good thing...
But what actually happens when you disable that ?

Pio2001, you probably know the answer..?

Edit: fixed typos.

Ripping Programs

Reply #68 –
Quote
If one has a good cd-rom drive, wouldn't it be actually safer to ENABLE the "c2 error detection capable drive" checkbox ?

I mean, otherwise, what kind of error detection is in place in EAC, when ripping in single-pass secure mode (NO TEST, JUST COPY) ?

I really was under the impression, that relying on C2 errors reporting (only for detection purposes) was a good thing...
But what actually happens when you disable that ?

This is how I understood things...

When using secure mode all sectors are read twice and compared. (This is the reason for the lower speeds compared two burst mode.) If the two reads don't match the sector gets reread (many times).
When using secure mode with C2 error "detection", only the sectors that the drive report will be reread.  Because of this the reading is much faster, but the correction will depend on the drive used (how good it's C2 detection is).

So the most secure setting, but also the slowest, is secure without C2.
If you know you can trust your reader you can use C2 detection to speed up things...

Ripping Programs

Reply #69 –
Quote
Quote
If one has a good cd-rom drive, wouldn't it be actually safer to ENABLE the "c2 error detection capable drive" checkbox ?

I mean, otherwise, what kind of error detection is in place in EAC, when ripping in single-pass secure mode (NO TEST, JUST COPY) ?

I really was under the impression, that relying on C2 errors reporting (only for detection purposes) was a good thing...
But what actually happens when you disable that ?

This is how I understood things...

When using secure mode all sectors are read twice and compared. (This is the reason for the lower speeds compared two burst mode.) If the two reads don't match the sector gets reread (many times).
When using secure mode with C2 error "detection", only the sectors that the drive report will be reread.  Because of this the reading is much faster, but the correction will depend on the drive used (how good it's C2 detection is).

So the most secure setting, but also the slowest, is secure without C2.
If you know you can trust your reader you can use C2 detection to speed up things...

Your interpretation makes perfect sense to me.

Here's a frightening scenario however:
- You have a drive capable of good C2 error reporting.
- You disable the "C2 error detection" checkbox in EAC, just to be safe.

So, EAC reads every sector twice, without exploiting any result of the underlying error detections by the drive.

Result: If you're unlucky, well, the same C2 error happens twice, and the drive returns the same wrong data twice...  which is treated as success by EAC 

Now I really hope I'm wrong !

Pio2001? Please... 

Ripping Programs

Reply #70 –
To make short the long threads about secure mode linked in the FAQ, the scenario you propose can occur, it was reported one or two times, but C2 failure is much more frequent than reading twice failure.
There was, AFAIR, not a single report of C2 working better than reading twice with the cache option ON.

You can try to measure the C2 accuracy of your drive with the DAEQuality package of Andre Wiethoff ( http://www.exactaudiocopy.de ). Here's an example of deep analysis, showing how it is possible to get the C2 accuracy vs error rate, with Andre's package : http://pageperso.aol.fr/lyonpio2001/dae/dae.htm
The Sony results are interesting : the analysis against the error rate shows that, depending on the state of the CD used, the C2 can be either very accurate (low error rates), or completely wrong (high error rates).


C2 accuracy on random errors, in % of errors detected, of the Sony DDU1621 firmware S1.6 DVD ROM drive, versus error rate in mono samples per second

Ripping Programs

Reply #71 –
Thanks Pio2001 !  Looks like you really have great background on audio extraction - and your graph is real interesting !

One last question:

When disabling "C2 error reporting" and ripping in "test & copy" mode, every sector will be read 4 times, right ?

I think that doing that is overkill (if the drive reports twice the same wrong data, there's good chance that il will always report the same values)...

For this reason, would a combination of "C2 reporting" and "reading twice" lead to safer results ?  In other words, I'm talking about ENABLING C2 error detection, to do a "test & copy" rip :-)

This way, we would combine the strength of C2 reporting (assuming the drive supports it), and also read twice, which helps in case the drive "forgets" to report a C2 error :-)

What do you think about this ?

Cheers

EDIT: replaced "correction" by "detection".

Ripping Programs

Reply #72 –
This is a good idea. Actually, that's exactly the way I rip my archives. Since C2 doesn't slow the Memorex DVDmaxx 1648, why not using secure C2 instead of burst mode for test and copy ?

The immediate advantage is for little glitches on the CD. Instead of having the whole track with different CRCs, noting CRCs, extracting again, seeing if the new CRC matches with one of the previous etc, usually, C2 detects the error, EAC corrects it, and the CRC match from the first extracion.

I think the added security over test and copy is marginal, the main advantage is error correction on the fly, for nearly no speed decrease (this last point depending on the drive used, I think).