Hydrogenaudio Forums

CD-R and Audio Hardware => CD Hardware/Software => Topic started by: airtas on 07 March, 2010, 01:38:09 AM

Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: airtas on 07 March, 2010, 01:38:09 AM
I have been using foobar and or winamp with lame to rip my mp3s and flacs.


What benefits do I get from EAC?  Is it better error correction? If my cds have no scratches do I need EAC?

Please explain as when I looked into EAC settings I found a 6 page guide on customizing settings, and with winamp everything is auto, am I missing something, quality wise?
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: Sycraft on 07 March, 2010, 01:56:17 AM
More or less EAC seems to do the most through job of checking for errors of any ripper out there. It does this in all kinds of ways like testing the CD-ROM to see how it rips, what kind of errors it can detect and so on, and also by checking against a database. If EAC says your rip is good, it is extremely likely it is good. If there's a problem, like damage to a disc that causes read problems, EAC very often can find a way to compensate for it and still get a good rip.

So it is kind of a quality assurance thing. Rip with EAC, you probably have no problems.

How much does this matter? Hard to say. It partially depends on your discs. If they are in good condition then there is less likely to be any trouble reading them and thus you are more likely to get a good rip regardless. However just because they look ok doesn't mean there isn't damage that you can't easily see with the naked eye. Remember that the pits on a CD are very small, so there could be damage smaller than you can see that still causes problems. It also partially depends on your drive. Some drives do a really good job reading audio CDs, others are very poor at it. So if you have a good drive, you aren't likely to have a problem, but if you don't you may.

As an example with drives back in the day they used to have real problems with accurate seeking. The computer would say "Go read data from this spot," and they'd just kinda go to the general area. That meant to get a good rip you had to have your program compensate for this, read more than it needed to, and correct all the read jitter. As far as I know, drives these days don't have that issue. The one I have doesn't at least. I'll seek accurate to a single sample and start reading again, meaning that no correction needs to be done.

I personally just use EAC because it is free, works well, and is the best way to guarantee a good rip. I probably don't need to, something else would probalby work fine, but since EAC doesn't cost anything, I figure why not?

The reason why this is necessary is that audio CDs don't have as good an error correction as data CDs. You can actually see this in sizes. A normal CD these days holds 700MB of data, or 80 minutes of audio. Well CD audio is 44.1kHz, 16-bit stereo. That equals 172 kilobytes per second, or about 10MB per minute. That means that 80 minutes of audio needs 800MB. So how's that work? Well in data mode that extra 100MB is used up in the additional error correction that is done. In audio mode, it isn't there. As such audio CDs can have errors much easier than data CDs that can't be corrected.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: Light-Fire on 07 March, 2010, 02:14:43 AM
What benefits do I get from EAC? ...


Use a ripper that check for the AccurateRip database. If it is correct than you don't need to use EAC. Use EAC only if you have problems with your normal ripping software (because the CD is damaged).

EAC forces your CD/DVD drive to work hard, reducing it's life.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: Light-Fire on 07 March, 2010, 02:18:56 AM
... A normal CD these days holds 700MB of data, or 80 minutes of audio...


There is no such a thing as audio in a CD. The "audio" in the CD is actually data.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: westgroveg on 07 March, 2010, 04:37:25 AM
... A normal CD these days holds 700MB of data, or 80 minutes of audio...


There is no such a thing as audio in a CD. The "audio" in the CD is actually data.

Yes there is, "audio data" is recorded differently on CD's, thus why more fits. It's a method of recording & the standard for audio CD's, not that any of this is relevent...

EAC is the best as Sycraft said because you can be very sure, you don't need to rely on a database or anything like that althought you can you don't need to & don't get stuck if your CD isn't listed or the pressing is diffrent or if you have offset issues...
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: westgroveg on 07 March, 2010, 04:45:32 AM
And PlexTools (with Plextor drive) has the best error correction & speed, by far.

What would take EAC hours can be done in minutes, that alone is amazing.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: Akkurat on 07 March, 2010, 05:56:01 AM
EAC forces your CD/DVD drive to work hard, reducing it's life.

Not in burst mode. Rip in burst mode if you get AccurateRip results, otherwise fall back on secure methods.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: Porcus on 07 March, 2010, 07:58:11 AM
Use a ripper that check for the AccurateRip database. If it is correct than you don't need to use EAC. Use EAC only if you have problems with your normal ripping software (because the CD is damaged).


Then on the other hand, there aren't that many rippers which use AccurateRip. EAC, dBpoweramp (my favourite, from the same developer as AccurateRip itself) and foobar2000 for MS-Windows users.  (Edit: And CUERipper?)

Also, the beta version of dBpoweramp release 14 does cross-press verification. Is that into EAC yet? I have not tried it in fb2k, but since it does so in the retro-verification I guess it does so upon ripping too?


EAC forces your CD/DVD drive to work hard, reducing it's life.

Not in burst mode. Rip in burst mode if you get AccurateRip results, otherwise fall back on secure methods.


That's what dBpoweramp (the paid version) does automatically.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: Akkurat on 07 March, 2010, 08:44:55 AM
Also, the beta version of dBpoweramp release 14 does cross-press verification. Is that into EAC yet?

No AFAIK. Personally I've added CUETools (the ArCueDotNet.exe cmd line tool) to do that in my REACT script. Works ok.. and is free.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: airtas on 07 March, 2010, 11:24:48 AM
Why type of errors does EAC prevent?


So If I rip a cd and have errors using foobar, will foobar not tell me?  In terms of the translation to sound are errors skips?
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: Porcus on 07 March, 2010, 11:39:03 AM
Why type of errors does EAC prevent?


It detects issues where the so-called C2 pointers flag the read as erroneous. These errors would otherwise go unnoticed. (Note that this relies on the drive reporting these data correctly.)
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: Light-Fire on 07 March, 2010, 12:13:51 PM
... A normal CD these days holds 700MB of data, or 80 minutes of audio...


There is no such a thing as audio in a CD. The "audio" in the CD is actually data.

Yes there is, "audio data" is recorded differently on CD's, thus why more fits. It's a method of recording & the standard for audio CD's, not that any of this is relevent...

EAC is the best as Sycraft said because you can be very sure, you don't need to rely on a database or anything like that althought you can you don't need to & don't get stuck if your CD isn't listed or the pressing is diffrent or if you have offset issues...


Let's clear up Sycraft misconceptions:

1) The amount of data that fits in a CD is EXACTLY the same. It doesn't matter what type of data you have int it. The maximum capacity of the physical media is always the same (700 Mbyte nowadays)

2) Once more. There is no audio in CDs. Only data. The CD containing PCM data doesn't have an error correction system based on check sum because was never intended to be ripped, so there is no way for the computer to know if the data ripped from the CD is 100% correct of not.

3) EAC (and any other ripper) NEVER knows for sure if got it right. Depending on a data base (AccurateRip) is more likely to give you an accurate result (without destroying your CD/DVD driver). Once your files are ripped in a "modern" type of file (flac, wav, etc.) it is possible for your computer to know (from now on) if that file is corrupted or not, because now you can use checksum to verify it's integrity. Comparing your data with the data that other people got from their different equipment and discs and getting the same results indicate with way more confidence than EAC ripping without AccurateRip that you got it right because if you have an error this error is not likely to be the same as other people have in their CDs so your data will not match anybody's.


Don't take me wrong. I am not against EAC. It is a great tool when you have a damaged CD which rips don't match AccurateRip's data base.

And yes. Using burst mode will not stress your CD driver, but then EAC will be just like any other ripper.


Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: cliveb on 07 March, 2010, 02:36:06 PM
Let's clear up Sycraft misconceptions:

1) The amount of data that fits in a CD is EXACTLY the same. It doesn't matter what type of data you have int it. The maximum capacity of the physical media is always the same (700 Mbyte nowadays)

If you decide to aggressively correct what someone else has said, you'd better be sure you are right.

An audio format CD stores 2352 bytes of data in every sector. A data format CD stores 2048 bytes of data in every sector. The remaining 304 bytes are divided between addressing data (16 bytes) and additional error detection and correction data (288 bytes). The reason that a data CD has less data and more error correction redundancy is because you absolutely cannot tolerate a single bit in error, whereas unrecoverable errors on an audio CD can usually be masked by interpolation.

In summary, a standard "80 minute" CD can store about 700MB when written in data format, and about 800MB if it is created in audio format.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: westgroveg on 09 March, 2010, 06:27:41 AM
Let's clear up Sycraft misconceptions:

1) The amount of data that fits in a CD is EXACTLY the same. It doesn't matter what type of data you have int it. The maximum capacity of the physical media is always the same (700 Mbyte nowadays)

If you decide to aggressively correct what someone else has said, you'd better be sure you are right.

An audio format CD stores 2352 bytes of data in every sector. A data format CD stores 2048 bytes of data in every sector. The remaining 304 bytes are divided between addressing data (16 bytes) and additional error detection and correction data (288 bytes). The reason that a data CD has less data and more error correction redundancy is because you absolutely cannot tolerate a single bit in error, whereas unrecoverable errors on an audio CD can usually be masked by interpolation.

In summary, a standard "80 minute" CD can store about 700MB when written in data format, and about 800MB if it is created in audio format.

Perfect, simple yet technical, you should write some online tutorials :-)

It amazes me someone can write such fiction, Light-Fire I mean.

Light-Fire it's easy, I know you don't care & just want to feel like you have a PHD in BS but do the simple test of extracting the PCM data & then re-writing it as a standard data CD.

Sorry to be an ass but your just wrong.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: airtas on 14 August, 2010, 01:06:36 AM
... A normal CD these days holds 700MB of data, or 80 minutes of audio...


There is no such a thing as audio in a CD. The "audio" in the CD is actually data.

Yes there is, "audio data" is recorded differently on CD's, thus why more fits. It's a method of recording & the standard for audio CD's, not that any of this is relevent...

EAC is the best as Sycraft said because you can be very sure, you don't need to rely on a database or anything like that althought you can you don't need to & don't get stuck if your CD isn't listed or the pressing is diffrent or if you have offset issues...



what do you mean by pressing different and what are common offset issues?
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: spoon on 14 August, 2010, 08:16:49 AM
you don't need to rely on a database or anything like that althought you can you don't need to & don't get stuck if your CD isn't listed or the pressing is diffrent or if you have offset issues...


In that case the security of your Rips is much reduced. C2 pointers miss errors, re-reading also misses errors (when the wrong data is re-read the same both tries). This goes for Plextools also, the CD drive its self cannot detect all errors.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: airtas on 05 September, 2010, 05:41:18 PM
you don't need to rely on a database or anything like that althought you can you don't need to & don't get stuck if your CD isn't listed or the pressing is diffrent or if you have offset issues...


In that case the security of your Rips is much reduced. C2 pointers miss errors, re-reading also misses errors (when the wrong data is re-read the same both tries). This goes for Plextools also, the CD drive its self cannot detect all errors.




what would an error sound like?
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: pdq on 05 September, 2010, 07:42:38 PM
what would an error sound like?

It would probably sound like a click or a pop.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: bahathir on 05 September, 2010, 11:36:18 PM
How about cdrdao or cdparanoia ? Are these tools are good compared to EAC ?
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: greynol on 05 September, 2010, 11:45:56 PM
I bet I'm not the only one here viewing the title of this discussion as problematic.

bahathir, I suggest you familiarize yourself with this forum's search function and work your way back through the archives.  These questions have become quite tiresome.

In your pursuit of other discussions, here's a freebie:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=82032 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82032)

Here is fairly new article in our wiki (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Main_Page), but it doesn't seem to be available through navigation at the moment (well at least I can't find it except through a search (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?search=rippers&ns0=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search) or it's discussion (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82483) here in the forum):
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...n_of_CD_rippers (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Comparison_of_CD_rippers)

EDIT: After reading the title one too many times, I finally decided to change it.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: bahathir on 06 September, 2010, 02:18:46 AM
I bet I'm not the only one here viewing the title of this discussion as problematic.

bahathir, I suggest you familiarize yourself with this forum's search function and work your way back through the archives.  These questions have become quite tiresome.

In your pursuit of other discussions, here's a freebie:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=82032 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82032)

Here is fairly new article in our wiki (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Main_Page), but it doesn't seem to be available through navigation at the moment (well at least I can't find it except through a search (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?search=rippers&ns0=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search) or it's discussion (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82483) here in the forum):
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...n_of_CD_rippers (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Comparison_of_CD_rippers)



Thank you very much for the pointers.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: spoon on 06 September, 2010, 04:30:05 AM
what would an error sound like?

It would probably sound like a click or a pop.


Often the error is just a section of silence as the CD drive has interpolated the error to nothing.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: Engelsstaub on 06 September, 2010, 04:46:20 AM
I bet I'm not the only one here viewing the title of this discussion as problematic.

bahathir, I suggest you familiarize yourself with this forum's search function and work your way back through the archives.  These questions have become quite tiresome.

In your pursuit of other discussions, here's a freebie:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=82032 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82032)

Here is fairly new article in our wiki (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Main_Page), but it doesn't seem to be available through navigation at the moment (well at least I can't find it except through a search (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?search=rippers&ns0=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search) or it's discussion (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82483) here in the forum):
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...n_of_CD_rippers (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Comparison_of_CD_rippers)


Not only is it problematic, but it invites some serious trolling and in-fighting amongst usually civil audio enthusiasts.

If the poster is just looking for a good reason to use EAC, as greynol has aptly pointed out, many reasons can be found here in HA.

CUETools ripper is a great alternative for those who must have free sw. dBpoweramp, in its current iteration, is a respectable "rival" to EAC (I prefer dBp personally.) ...but you will have to pay a (very fair, IMO) amount for it in its fully-functioning form.

It really comes down to what you think it's worth. My opinion is that EAC and dBpoweramp are both superb secure rippers. dBp's advantage is that it is easier to maintain and a bit more novice-friendly. It is worth the asking price, IMO, for what it lacks in it's cost of personal time. EAC is well-respected around here and it's strong-point is that it's free. They'll both give you great results.

If you just don't care about rip-reports and cue sheets to "recreate" the CD with exact offset, I found that iTunes had a good ripper with the error correction turned on. I never heard a pop, click, or anything in the rips I made with it in the past.

Whatever works for you.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: greynol on 06 September, 2010, 03:58:11 PM
Often the error is just a section of silence as the CD drive has interpolated the error to nothing.

Which can also sound like a click or a pop, depending on how much data has been interpolated.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: greynol on 06 September, 2010, 04:02:00 PM
dBp's advantage is that it is easier to maintain and a bit more novice-friendly.

While I think dBpoweramp has some superior attributes to and refinement over EAC, I do not agree with this idea that it is easier to maintain and is novice-friendly.  I once counted the number of settings related to secure ripping and EAC had fewer.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: Engelsstaub on 07 September, 2010, 03:53:08 AM
dBp's advantage is that it is easier to maintain and a bit more novice-friendly.

While I think dBpoweramp has some superior attributes to and refinement over EAC, I do not agree with this idea that it is easier to maintain and is novice-friendly.  I once counted the number of settings related to secure ripping and EAC had fewer.


dBpoweramp (one page and ten minutes of my personal time/experience:) http://www.dbpoweramp.com/cd-ripper-setup-guide.htm (http://www.dbpoweramp.com/cd-ripper-setup-guide.htm)

EAC (blowfish's guide OR the one at HA here:) http://www.dbpoweramp.com/cd-ripper-setup-guide.htm (http://www.dbpoweramp.com/cd-ripper-setup-guide.htm)

(and here:) http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...C_configuration (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_configuration)

(and here:) http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_Options (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_Options)

I'm certain I'm missing something. Compression options, configuration, drive options (configuration,) gap-settings, ...

The guide provided here looks admittedly less confusing and time-consuming as the Blowfish guide. I used the Blowfish guide because I was not participating in HA at the time.

The last straw for me was when EAC started losing my settings that I'd had to spend a half an afternoon configuring. Imagine ripping one CD. Going to get something to eat. Coming back to rip another and VOILA! Timing errors, switched to burst mode, etc.

Off topic? "why is EAC the best? was the title of the original poster. I thought I'd tell him or her why I thought it was not "the best." I tried to be fair in spite of my "zeal."

Not sure why the whole thread didn't go to the trash. Anyway...
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: greynol on 07 September, 2010, 01:38:45 PM
EAC can be operated at the default settings and work perfectly well.  We only recommend that perhaps two or three be changed which are practically non-essential (EDIT: Of those we "recommend" in the wiki, I actually only agree to deviate on one that is not solely based on user preference: use of null samples on CRC calculations; the rest are perfectly fine).  Total time configuring is easily less than 10 minutes (perhaps less than 5).  Each program has tests that can be performed to in order to choose the proper settings. Each program has settings buried in multiple places (more than one executable in the case of dBpa).  Each program has caveats.  At least EAC has float-over help to explain each setting.

Regarding posts going in the trash, read TOS #7.  FWIW the post I think you're whining about wasn't from this thread.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: Engelsstaub on 08 September, 2010, 01:36:55 AM
EAC can be operated at the default settings and work perfectly well.  We only recommend that perhaps two or three be changed which are practically non-essential (EDIT: Of those we "recommend" in the wiki, I actually only agree to deviate on one that is not solely based on user preference: use of null samples on CRC calculations; the rest are perfectly fine).  Total time configuring is easily less than 10 minutes (perhaps less than 5).  Each program has tests that can be performed to in order to choose the proper settings. Each program has settings buried in multiple places (more than one executable in the case of dBpa).  Each program has caveats.  At least EAC has float-over help to explain each setting.

Regarding posts going in the trash, read TOS #7.  FWIW the post I think you're whining about wasn't from this thread.


Yes, it was. I apologize. I also posted the same link (to the dBp guide) twice; again where I meant to post an EAC one. I was being a bonehead and reading to many posts in too many tabs.

I read TOS 7 and do acknowledge your authority here. I should resolve to be more passive as I'm certain you know a lot more about these things than I do. I also resolve to stay away from EAC vs. dBpoweramp-type threads on HA. Even if they are polls. I have made up my mind on this matter. There's really no need for me to evangelize others. The end result from an EAC rip is certainly not inferior to that of dBp. That's what really matters.

Have you ever had the problems with the settings getting reset or whatever? When I used it I was pretty meticulous about maintaining and backing up the cfg file.

(Also sorry about the other thread regarding Wumpscut CDs. I should have vented that elsewhere.)
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: greynol on 08 September, 2010, 02:12:37 AM
It's alright.  I think dBpoweramp is deserving of high praise and recommendations when they are requested.  Debate about software is more than welcome as well.  As I said in the other discussion that I linked, it's a beautiful thing to have choices.  Sometimes one program can get the job done when another can't.

About EAC losing config information, I've never had that problem, but I know that if the program crashes after you've configured it then the information won't get saved to the registry.  I'm aware that people have had problems with cfg files not being compatible with newer versions, though.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: memomai on 08 September, 2010, 02:51:07 AM
can someone post a link where it's explained why the secure modes of EAC do reduce the drive's lifetime?
thanks.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: greynol on 08 September, 2010, 02:59:35 AM
Common sense should dictate, though there seems to be a misconception/lack of understanding/erroneous assumptions/whatever on the part of Light-Fire when he made his comments about this (in addition to those which have been already been corrected).

Depending on your drive EAC does not necessarily have to request reading of 6MB of data to extract 2MB of audio.

In the case where EAC is configured to read 6MB of data to extract 2MB of audio, how does this not put more wear and tear on your drive than simply telling your drive to read 2MB of data to extract 2MB of audio?
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: memomai on 08 September, 2010, 05:12:32 AM
there could have been also other reasons but using unneccessary predefined data containers, but thanks for the professional answer.
Title: Reasons to switch to EAC from foobar or winamp for ripping.
Post by: greynol on 08 September, 2010, 12:19:51 PM
I'm not a professional, but thanks.  My usage of the terms data and audio is somewhat contrived to better illustrate the simple point that EAC will ask the drive to read extra audio data in order to flush your drive's buffer (assuming it uses it for audio) in addition to reading the audio data yet again to make the secure comparison (assuming that you aren't relying on C2 pointers).