Skip to main content

Topic: Ripping bottleneck (Read 2840 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ripping bottleneck
Hello,

first post...so be gentle.

I run a PC with an I7 920 chip, 5GB RAM, an RME HDSPe AIO soundcard but only have one DVD writer installed in terms of optical drives. I listen through Sennheiser HD 650's so want the best possible sound quality. I am playing back through Foobar. Got two internal hardrives and a USB 3 external.

I have started ripping my CD collection with EAC, both to archive and play them back but it seems to take about 30+ minutes per CD, and I have a couple of hundred.

I have a lack of technical knowledge at the moment and wondered if you could help. From what I have read it is not the drive but the software that determines the rip accuracy. If I purchased another drive for reading discs either internal or external, could I rip several CD's at the same time to speed up the process?

I don't need to write CD's just rip.

Many thanks

Chimmy


  • pdq
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Ripping bottleneck
Reply #1
First, I would consider paying the quite reasonable price and purchasing a copy of dBpoweramp. It only takes me 5 or 6 minutes total per CD using it.

Second, it sounds like you are using secure mode to rip your CDs. It will go MUCH faster if you rip in burst mode and then verify your rip with AccurateRip. If the CD is not verified in this way, THEN use one of the secure modes.

Ripping bottleneck
Reply #2
Are you ripping in EAc using Secure mode? If that's the case, that would explain your slow ripping times. You should rip with EAC in burst using test & copy, and only used Secure mode for tracks that don't have a CRC match. It's a lot faster, and it puts less stress on the drive. Your rips will go by much faster. And, unlike dBpoweramp, Accuraterip and (if your drive supports it) C2 are used with EAC after the fact to give you an idea of how your rip compares to others. dbpa, on the other hand, will let a track get ripped and say it's "accurate" just because it gets an AR match with a track on the 1st pass. Sure, it's faster. But it faster always better? I don't think so.
ghostman

  • Apesbrain
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Ripping bottleneck
Reply #3
EAC is plenty capable of accurately ripping/tagging/encoding a clean CD to FLAC in well under 5 minutes. If you install a second CD drive, you can have both going simultaneously into separate sessions of EAC. Ripping 200 CDs should take a week if you invest a few hours a day; you'll need to decide if cutting that time in half is worth the expense and hassle of a second CD drive.

BTW, if you also have a laptop PC (or can borrow one) you can get them both going and cut some time out of the process.  An added benefit is that a CD that initially throws errors may rip fine in a different machine/drive.

I listen through Sennheiser HD 650's so want the best possible sound quality.

P.S. I listen through two tin cans connected by string and still want best possible sound quality.  (Welcome to the forum.)
  • Last Edit: 09 January, 2013, 04:43:44 PM by Apesbrain

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Ripping bottleneck
Reply #4
You should rip with EAC in burst using test & copy, and only used Secure mode for tracks that don't have a CRC match.

You'll do better if you reserve test CRCs for tracks that cannot be verified by AR.  For titles where your pressing is not in the AR database, use CUETools.

Quote
unlike dBpoweramp, Accuraterip and (if your drive supports it) C2 are used with EAC after the fact to give you an idea of how your rip compares to others.

C2 pointers after the fact? WTF?!?  I'm not sure what you're getting at but it doesn't appear that you're going in the correct direction and/or providing reliable information.

Quote
dbpa, on the other hand, will let a track get ripped and say it's "accurate" just because it gets an AR match with a track on the 1st pass. Sure, it's faster. But it faster always better? I don't think so.

It can't possibly be any worse.  Perhaps you can explain how two consecutive matching burst rips with the same disc and drive can ever be better than a positive match against a public database.  If it was against your own previous submission of the same disc and drive then the result is no less reliable (let alone different) than burst T&C. If it was against another physical copy of the disc do you think the odds of a reliable result magically go down?

Provided you don't use paranoid settings, dBpa implements the most efficient and reliable strategy and does so automatically. You can get EAC to do the same thing manually; up to the point where C2 pointers may come into play (if your drive provides them), at which time EAC falls short.  If your discs are in good shape or your drive doesn't provide C2 pointers, then I don't think spending money on DAE software is warranted; not for extraction functionality (save for the automation), at least*.  For discs that can't be ripped accurately, consider using the CUETools database, which is free.

(*) Read: there are other features that may make purchasing premium software more worthwhile.  No need for off-topic discussion, thanks.
  • Last Edit: 09 January, 2013, 08:22:52 PM by greynol
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

Ripping bottleneck
Reply #5
Thanks for the responses, EAC got past the first 10 rips and crashed, when I restarted it was no longer in "beginner mode" so went reasonably fast.

Can I rip and then set it up to check the rips on AR later?

  • pdq
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Ripping bottleneck
Reply #6
Can I rip and then set it up to check the rips on AR later?

Is that because you are offline and don't have internet access while you are ripping?

Ripping bottleneck
Reply #7
You can tell I don't understand how this works can't you.....

I just wondered if it would be quicker that way. I thought I might be able to put the CD's in, do a fast rip, put another CD in etc. and let it do the AR overnight.

If you could point me in the right direction to read up the basics on how the ripping process works then I probably won't ask so many stupid questions

  • pdq
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Ripping bottleneck
Reply #8
Checking the AR database while you rip does not add any significant time, and gives you the added advantage that you can immediately take additional steps when you do not get a match.

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Ripping bottleneck
Reply #9
Yes, the ripping itself is a lot more time-consuming than calculating the checksum for AccurateRip.

  • 2Bdecided
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Ripping bottleneck
Reply #10
greynol is right.

I kind of know what I'm doing, and I use dBpoweramp. If you're self-identifying as not knowing what you're doing, it's probably an even better buy for you, including for reasons not even yet discussed. But EAC burst mode + AR + look at the metadata with your eyes and fix any titles that are wrong is free.

Most of the CDs I have that have errors, still have errors whatever I use (haven't tried CUETools database yet). There's clear proof that some people find that some damaged/difficult CDs rip better with some software than others, but I find different drives make more of a difference, and significant label-side scratches are unrecoverable. (I polish out play/under-side scratches if they stop a disc from ripping without errors).

Cheers,
David.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Ripping bottleneck
Reply #11
I've found CUERipper to be much slower than using EAC with my drives, in the way that I configure and use EAC [C2 + FUA + AR + Test CRC (when needed) using no C2 and/or different drive] with no little to no added benefit in terms of accuracy.

I agree, drives make a much greater difference at getting accurate rips with borderline troublesome discs than software.  And while I haven't relied on it much, CTDB is a far better solution to correcting errors when ripping commercial discs than that offered through secure ripping algorithms.
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • Eli
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Ripping bottleneck
Reply #12
I agree, drives make a much greater difference at getting accurate rips with borderline troublesome discs than software.  And while I haven't relied on it much, CTDB is a far better solution to correcting errors when ripping commercial discs than that offered through secure ripping algorithms.


I just wish CTDB could be used real time. Best case scenario would be

Burst Rip Track (would require track based CTDB)
Code: [Select]
Compare with AR
-Accurate?
   -Yes - Done
   -No - In CTDB?
      -Yes - Repair
         - Repair successful?
              -Yes - Done
              -No - try traditional secure ripping
      -No - try traditional secure ripping
  • Last Edit: 10 January, 2013, 03:11:54 PM by Eli

Ripping bottleneck
Reply #13
Okay, followed the advice and got dBpoweramp. The first 9 tracks went on real quick, the 10th is red and insecure....I know how it feels  And the 11th is counting down really slowly from 342 frames. It's a good job I work from home as it going to take a lot of reading to work out what it all means

Ripping bottleneck
Reply #14
Try to slow down the extraction speed.
20X or 24X is ok.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Ripping bottleneck
Reply #15
That depends on the drive.  Sometimes slowing down the speed makes things worse.
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • 2Bdecided
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Ripping bottleneck
Reply #16
Okay, followed the advice and got dBpoweramp. The first 9 tracks went on real quick, the 10th is red and insecure....I know how it feels  And the 11th is counting down really slowly from 342 frames.
Look at the disc - is it scratched, or has a finger print or other mark?

It's quicker to physically fix the problem (where possible) than wait for the attempted secure rip IME. (True with all the rippers I've tried).

Cheers,
David.

Ripping bottleneck
Reply #17
Would it be okay to polish out small scratches in the CD's with T cut

  • 2Bdecided
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Ripping bottleneck
Reply #18
I don't know about t-cut. If you search these forums for toothpaste and/or brasso you'll find some suggestions, and the same advice and warnings may apply to t-cut.

Generally, polish radially (never circumferentially). Expect the disc to look worse but play better afterwards. Do not polish (or scratch, or get any polish on) the label side. Label side scratches cannot be repaired this way (or any physical way - the data has gone).

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
David.