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: EAC Secure Rip -vs- dBpowerAmp Ultrasecure - Which Is Superior (Read 11379 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EAC Secure Rip -vs- dBpowerAmp Ultrasecure - Which Is Superior

Hi,

I use both EAC and dBpowerAmp as CD ripping tools, and very good indeed they both are. Unfortunately my large CD collection contains quite a high percentage of CDs not present in the AccurateRip database. In the absense of AccurateRip verification, which is superior at obtaining highest quality rips? EAC at its highest Secure setting, or dBpowerAmp at its Ultra Secure setting?

Or is the answer to this question "It depends"? (I really hate that answer  )? Are there variables which qualify the answer?

Phil

EAC Secure Rip -vs- dBpowerAmp Ultrasecure - Which Is Superior

Reply #1
In case you don't know how the two methods differ, have a look at this link.

dBpoweramp ultra secure passes are nothing more than additional burst reads through an entire track in an attempt to find additional discrepancies from the first pair or reads (or initial read if using C2 pointers).

When you say EAC's highest secure setting, are you referring to the "Error recovery quality" or something else?  I have found that increasing EAC's error recovery quality setting increases the chances that the program will incorrectly tell you that no errors have occurred.

To answer your question, if your drive provides C2 pointers than dBpoweramp will be more effective than EAC otherwise I'd say they're more comparable to one another.

EAC Secure Rip -vs- dBpowerAmp Ultrasecure - Which Is Superior

Reply #2
In case you don't know how the two methods differ, have a look at this link.


Yes, I've seen that in passing. Must get a detailed look at it, and take notes in my "little black book".

Quote
dBpoweramp ultra secure passes are nothing more than additional burst reads through an entire track in an attempt to find additional discrepancies from the first pair or reads (or initial read if using C2 pointers).


Thanks for this info. I wasn't sure of the mechanics of how Ultra Secure did its thing.

Quote
When you say EAC's highest secure setting, are you referring to the "Error recovery quality" or something else?  I have found that increasing EAC's error recovery quality setting increases the chances that the program will incorrectly tell you that no errors have occurred.


I set pretty much everything to its highest setting. But, yes, I'm referring specifically to the Error Recovery settings. You say that setting EAC's error recovery to the highest level produces incorrect error messages. Why is that? And what settings would you recommend?

Quote
To answer your question, if your drive provides C2 pointers than dBpoweramp will be more effective than EAC otherwise I'd say they're more comparable to one another.


This is more like the sort of info I was looking for. Yes, both my drives provide C2 pointers. So, by that reckoning, dBpowerAmp should be the better tool to use for both drives.

Many thanks for this. It was becoming a bit tiresome duplicating rips with both programs in an attempt to find the most secure rips.

Phil

 

EAC Secure Rip -vs- dBpowerAmp Ultrasecure - Which Is Superior

Reply #3
>to the highest level produces incorrect error messages. Why is that?

The more reads that take place, the higher the chance of an error being duplicated on those reads and matching (so the ripper thinks there is no error, when really there is).

C2 pointers helps remove this 'consistant matching errors' problem almost completely.

EAC Secure Rip -vs- dBpowerAmp Ultrasecure - Which Is Superior

Reply #4
>to the highest level produces incorrect error messages. Why is that?

The more reads that take place, the higher the chance of an error being duplicated on those reads and matching (so the ripper thinks there is no error, when really there is).

C2 pointers helps remove this 'consistant matching errors' problem almost completely.


Thanks for the explanation, Spoon. I'm actually starting to get the hang of this now.

I used to use EAC for almost all of my ripping. But that has recently changed, since I've started using dBpowerAmp Reference R12.3. From all of the discussions I've been reading on here, I've started to understand  the fact that because both my drives are C2 pointers "capable", this makes dBpowerAmp the more effective and reliable program for my uses.

I guess I'll have to re-rip all of those old CDs that I've previously ripped "securely" in EAC, since they (undoubtedly) are not error-free, despite my thinking that they were.

Phil

EAC Secure Rip -vs- dBpowerAmp Ultrasecure - Which Is Superior

Reply #5
If you are uncomfortable with the idea that there may be an inaudible error (most small errors are not even detectable as a small click) somewhere on one of the CDs and you don't mind spending the time, by all means, rerip.  However if all of the CDs were ripped straight through with no errors and no error recovery (the series of red dots that light up when EAC rereads) it is very unlikely that any of them have any errors.  I would only rerip if EAC slowed down a lot or if there was an uncorrectable error on any of the CDs.  Under ideal conditions both applications are near perfect.

edit: Its only on really damaged CDs that dBPowerAmp significantly outperforms EAC, at least in my experience (using accurate rip and monitoring the results).
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame

EAC Secure Rip -vs- dBpowerAmp Ultrasecure - Which Is Superior

Reply #6
However if all of the CDs were ripped straight through with no errors and no error recovery (the series of red dots that light up when EAC rereads) it is very unlikely that any of them have any errors.
I concur with this sentiment.

Its only on really damaged CDs that dBPowerAmp significantly outperforms EAC, at least in my experience (using accurate rip and monitoring the results).
In large part, this depends on the drive.  Also, the CD need not suffer from severe damage or defect to fool EAC.  It's usually the case when EAC says things are ok and they really aren't that the amount of damage is only slight.

EAC Secure Rip -vs- dBpowerAmp Ultrasecure - Which Is Superior

Reply #7
If you are uncomfortable with the idea that there may be an inaudible error (most small errors are not even detectable as a small click) somewhere on one of the CDs and you don't mind spending the time, by all means, rerip.  However if all of the CDs were ripped straight through with no errors and no error recovery (the series of red dots that light up when EAC rereads) it is very unlikely that any of them have any errors.  I would only rerip if EAC slowed down a lot or if there was an uncorrectable error on any of the CDs.  Under ideal conditions both applications are near perfect.

edit: Its only on really damaged CDs that dBPowerAmp significantly outperforms EAC, at least in my experience (using accurate rip and monitoring the results).


Thanks for this. I tend to look at ripping from two perspectives: as an audiophile who is archiving his huge CD collection to digital form, and as a DJ who plays music at gigs.

As an audiophile home listener/obsessive music collector, I want bit-perfect rips for my archives. I have rather expensive audiophile equipment (particularly the speakers), so top sound quality is a priority, and my desktop computer (via MediaMonkey) has become the centre of my digital music playing system. My CDs are put away after ripping in storage for safe-keeping, and only brought out if I need to re-rip.

As a DJ, I'm a bit more forgiving - as long as there are no audible pops, clicks, or distortions, that is fine (the audience doesn't have a clue if the music is AccurateRip secure or not), so less than absolutely perfect rips can often be used. I play only lossless quality tunes at my gigs, so I already have a huge advantage (re: sound quality) over the vast majority of other local DJs who are not audiophiles, and who play only MP3s (often of quite bad quality).

As for damaged CDs, I have quite a few old/deleted cds which have quite a lot of surface scratches. As dBPowerAmp outperforms EAC on damaged disks, I'm glad it's my audio extraction tool of choice.

Phil

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021