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: CDex, has it improved since... (Read 5315 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CDex, has it improved since...

I read through the two threads Pio2001 made on CDex vs. EAC, they were great, and very professionally done. Yet that was with a way old version, there is a new one up on sourceforge from Feb 1, 2003. I could do a test with a scratched CD-R I have now and compare it to EAC, but it won't be nearly as good as Pio's, all I'll be able to base it on is if all the skips are still there.

Has it improved since that version? EAC hasn't been upgraded in a long time, and it'd be nice to have a change...

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #1 –
Hmmm, I think I answered my own question here. I just tried the latest version of CDex, and on one of my extremely scratched CDs, one of the tracks EAC tried repairing for two hours and would wind up freezing on and getting nowhere(secure mode, I don't have C2, high error correction and priority), CDex ripped with no noticeable skips on paranoia full, and a lot faster. 

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #2 –
CDex is based on the cdparanoia libs which, as far as I know, haven't been updated in quite some time, so it's unlikely that the performance of CDex has changed any in that regard.  Newer versions probably reflect other changes.

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #3 –
i can tell your from my experience the EAC will report errors and CDex will give me no jitter errors
Chaintech AV-710

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #4 –
Just because a program does not detect errors does not mean they are not there.  The EAC vs. CDex discussion seems to always come down to whether you feel perfection or time is more important to you.
WARNING:  Changing of advanced parameters might degrade sound quality.  Modify them only if you are expirienced in audio compression!

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #6 –
CDEx's read performance hasn't changed AFAIK. Neither has EAC's, so PIO's findings are still valid from my point of view.

When it comes to error reporting or the possibility to check the tracks for audible clicks & pops, EAC is still unbeaten. PlexTools (with plex drives, of course) are still the best choice when it comes to error logging ...
The name was Plex The Ripper, not Jack The Ripper

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #7 –
I see.

Time is no object for me, but when it spends two hours hanging, I tend to think it froze. I just restarted and kept it  on all night with nothing else on so it could rip the CD scratched, in secure mode, hihg priority and error correction. it reported no errors.

Just for fun; I tried musicmatch with error correction, it skipped all over the place!   

Thanks 

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #8 –
Beware that letting EAC correct errors all night long can wear the drive very much.

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #9 –
Quote
Beware that letting EAC correct errors all night long can wear the drive very much.

How? Just wear and tear on the laser, or if I use C2? That was the only CD that I had to do that to so far. To be honest, I don't care what happens to this laptop at the moment, I really need to learn how to build my own PC(I know the basics, but not everything) so I can dump this thing, heh  B)

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #10 –
just set the spindown setting to 15 minutes for every 45-60 minutes of ripping.  your drive should be ok.

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #11 –
Do not forget that drives are not built/optimized for continous operation over hours ... e.g. heat removal is very inefficient in 5,25'' casings.

During EAC error correction, the drive servos will be stressed very much, as well as the laser diode (which shows wear due to a lack of heat removal as well) ...
The name was Plex The Ripper, not Jack The Ripper

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #12 –
Maybe it is the pickup movements that are stressing, during the 80 rereads for each piece of error correction, the drive seeks back several times a second, while it should normally do it only when the user skips to another track, or when a new file is read on a CD ROM.

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #13 –
Now I'm getting confused, EAC and CDex ripped good copies of this scratched CD-R I have(by good, I mean, that unlike musicmatch, I don't hear skips and stuttering after playing through all the songs). EAC ripped a perfect copy of it, in secure mode, on high error correction and high priority in secure mode, and it said it had no errors, but it took all damn night. CDex took about 15 minutes on paranoia full and I don't know if it had errors since it doesn't tell you as well as EAC did.

I would like to see if the program eMule gives the CDex WAV and the EAC WAV the same filehash though, or see some way to tell if the CDex WAV was the same as the EAC WAV that had no errors to see if the CDex file had no errors...

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #14 –
Just use EAC : tools/compare wavs

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #15 –
It said the tracks were the exact same, the CDex one on paranoia full that ripped in a few minutes, and the EAC one that ripped in over 30 minutes. It was the worst one on the CD.   

My head hurts...

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #16 –
Quote
It said the tracks were the exact same, the CDex one on paranoia full that ripped in a few minutes, and the EAC one that ripped in over 30 minutes. It was the worst one on the CD.    

My head hurts...

Just a suggestion, ok?
On a troublesome (scratched) cd, try EAC first. It is still the unbeaten champ on perfect DAE, as Pio2001 has already stated. If your CD gives it too hard a time, try CDex. Listen to the resulting file. If it sounds OK, it should be OK. Maybe it is not a totally accurate file, but if you get "perceptual transparency", who cares?
I mean, it is just this one time, right? It's not like all your CDs are in a shameful condition or anything, right?
That's what I do, whenever EAC fails (very seldom) to do it's job, I give other software a try. Maybe it is not as exact as EAC, but in such cases, as far as I'm concerned, I will settle for "perceptually transparent" files.
Does this make any sense?
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #17 –
Rip twice and compare, if it's the same it's as secure as with EAC.

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #18 –
Pio2001 has a point.  Also, I've noticed that a lot of people troll-push EAC, even under circumstances that would benefit from a different ripper.  Don't be afraid to try different things, and don't suppose that just because it takes longer, it's better.  I've used EAC, and I can attest that it's one of the single best ripping programs out there.  I use Audiograbber religiously, though, having had a fantastic history with it, and being very comfortable with its GUI and ins/outs.  However, like Differenciam I too have found CDs that are very scratched, and I want to get the best possible rip I can.  At this point, however, one must understand that your CD-ROM plays a large part of the ripping process.  While EAC may have many on-the-fly scratch detection/removal features, it does take a very long time and (in my experience) is better at telling you about errors rather than fixing them (this is just my personal experience).  Now, I can detect errors with Nero CD Speed, and have no use for EAC's time-consuming nature.  Frankly, if you're worried that your disc may be too scratched, my advice would be to *first* run a CD error detection program, such as Nero CD-Speed or Plextools, to see if your drive, in fact, does detect unreadable sectors on the disc.  If it does, then perhaps EAC will be able to recover audio data which other programs are unable to at this point.  If your CD-ROM is able to read through the scratches without the aid of software, however, it's a useless and time-consuming effort to doggedly use software which bogs down your system and puts extra wear on your drive.  I hate to sound self-important (I'm sure I do), but these threads normally bother me for the sole fact that people forget the hardware that's involved in ripping.  Don't just think it's the software!!!!  Speaking of hardware, the EAC site (to my knowledge) suggests several CD-ROMs capable of high-quality audio extraction.  My personal favorites, in order of preference, are Plextor, TDK (my current, and a very faithful drive), and Lite-ON (a very cost-effective solution, if you still want quality).

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #19 –
Quote
EAC ... is better at telling you about errors rather than fixing them (this is just my personal experience)

This is also what most people say about their results.
 

CDex, has it improved since...

Reply #20 –
Quote
Rip twice and compare, if it's the same it's as secure as with EAC.

Or Rip once and let AccurateRip compare it to results of other users.  Any opinions on this option?