hi.
just simple question: is there any other good ripper around here besides EAC? may be even almost-as-good, but more user friendly.
thnx.
CDex.
http://cdex.n3.net (http://cdex.n3.net)
It has a good error correction scheme (CD Paranoia) and is very user-friendly.
(You can expect some bias from me because I'm a CDex project admin)
Regards;
Roberto.
thnx. i'll give it a try.
an alternative to EAC?
just simple question: is there any other good ripper around here besides EAC? may be even almost-as-good, but more user friendly.
there is no _alternative_ to eac. eac uses a unique extraction technique which no other program can match in regards to quality. however, this improvement is only made on scratched cds. a new cd will be extracted identically by eac and cdex.
the second-best extraction program is cdex [cdparanoia for linux].
if you are ripping mainly new cds then i wouldn't even use eac...cause eac has been known to cause drive failure due to the high strain it demands on equipment [and in some cases, even with new cds...don't ask me why]
...but those are isolated cases.
"newbie-ness" shouldn't matter though, as you have to set both programs up to fit your drive's specs, and eac now has a newbie friendly gui.
later
mike
in fact new EAC isn't so friendly as... let's say CD-DA.
i asked for an alternative, because of my younger brother (13), who's really not interesetd in having 'identical', bit-by-bit rips. if it sounds good, then it's OK for him (from a certain point of view it's a good rule i think). but he's fed up with typing different naming schemes again and again and so on...
i just don't want to suggest him some crap.
I have found audiograbber to be very easy to use, and it does a good job of ripping. add lame as the encoder and you have a nice all in one solution.
First of all I don't see why EAC should be that hard to set up.
It's only hard if you aim for perfection.
Second: Audiograbber does not have secure ripping (as far as I know - there were talk about it getting it some time).
If you don't wanna use EAC use CDex.
Originally posted by Jansemanden
First of all I don't see why EAC should be that hard to set up.
It's only hard if you aim for perfection.
I agree. (me being biased again)
From my experience, the CD must be pretty badly scratched for EAC to noticeably outperform CDex.
And, well, the new main GUI might be "newbie friendly" (and sucks resources as hell), but the various configurations you must set up to get a secure copy are really frightening.
In CDex, to get a secure copy: Settings -> CD rom, Ripping Method: Paranoia, Full. Easy.
Originally posted by rjamorim
From my experience, the CD must be pretty badly scratched for EAC to noticeably outperform CDex.
In CDex, to get a secure copy: Settings -> CD rom, Ripping Method: Paranoia, Full. Easy.
I can only recommend EAC as secure ripping program. CDex can't rip securely when drive caches audio data.
Originally posted by rjamorim
And, well, the new main GUI might be "newbie friendly" (and sucks resources as hell), but the various configurations you must set up to get a secure copy are really frightening.
In CDex, to get a secure copy: Settings -> CD rom, Ripping Method: Paranoia, Full. Easy.
Agreed about the new GUI in EAC (I'm back to Prebeta11), but what's so frightening about the parameters? It takes maybe 15 minutes to learn what you need to learn, set it up... then you can forget it.
Agreed,I find EAC much better to use than CDex,and I may be wrong but I haven't noticed anyway with CDex where you can implement switches,i.e --alt-preset-?? Of course I could be wrong (and usually I am)
Originally posted by Tinribs
Agreed,I find EAC much better to use than CDex,and I may be wrong but I haven't noticed anyway with CDex where you can implement switches,i.e --alt-preset-?? Of course I could be wrong (and usually I am)
Encoder -> External encoder.
Select the encoder and put whatever you want in the parameter string.
Originally posted by rjamorim
And, well, the new main GUI might be "newbie friendly" (and sucks resources as hell)
It doesn't "suck resources as hell". This must be a misconception coming from the bugs in beta1, that caused system crashes after having killed all GDI resources.
Beta 2 still had the bug, but only with Windows9x, and Me. It was solved for NT, 2k, and XP.
Originally posted by xmixahlx
if you are ripping mainly new cds then i wouldn't even use eac...cause eac has been known to cause drive failure due to the high strain it demands on equipment [and in some cases, even with new cds...don't ask me why]
In two years, I only heard one, maybe two stories about people having let EAC trying to read a completely unreadable CD all night long, and the day after, the drive was damaged.
Where did you hear that it had happened with clean CD ? Was it more than two years ago ? Maybe with the obsolete "paranoid" mode that Andre warns us against.
Originally posted by Pio2001
It doesn't "suck resources as hell". This must be a misconception coming from the bugs in beta1, that caused system crashes after having killed all GDI resources.
Beta 2 still had the bug, but only with Windows9x, and Me. It was solved for NT, 2k, and XP.
Well, I use Win98SE, and it still sucks so much resources that Opera refuses to open new windows when EAC is running. (I even got a blue screen once saying that "The system is dangerously low on resources. You should save your work and restart the computer" or some shit like that.)
That never happened to me using CDex.
Regards;
Roberto.
Originally posted by rjamorim
Well, I use Win98SE, and it still sucks so much resources that Opera refuses to open new windows when EAC is running. (I even got a blue screen once saying that "The system is dangerously low on resources. You should save your work and restart the computer" or some shit like that.)
That never happened to me using CDex.
Well, I'm riping right now in secure mode and it uses 17mb and 40% cpu...
I'm on a p2 333 128mb using the lastest eac beta and WindowsXP®© :cool2:
on my machine with Win98SE, EAC and CDex both use about the same CPU, as judged by Process Explorer. Both in the teens usually, with EAC on secure and CDex on full paranoia. EAC is more likely to all of a sudden lock my computer, though. Moreover, it sometimes has problems with my drive (a cheapie); cdParanoia used by CDex does better with cheap drives I think. Moreover, the cdParanoia scheme is easier on the drive than EAC's, as judged by how often the speed changes and the laser head moves around when using EAC on a scratched cd.
As for the scratched cd's, EAC will give more consistent rips (bit-for-bit more similar when ripping a scratched disc multiple times for comparison; CDex will give similar-sounding reads but the error correction it makes varies a bit more with each read). That said, I have scratched discs, that I keep for testing purposes, that CDex gets better-sounding reads from than does EAC. Though on the whole, EAC does better here. It's also nice to have a progress window; in CDex the only way you know that cdParanoia is having trouble reading is when the % progress indicator gets stuck on a certain value for awhile.
In my experience CDex is a bit easier to set up but has fewer options and isn't quite as cusomizeable. EAC's wav editor feature is very nice. I use it frequently. Just finished going through a cd by Tourniquet, a heavy-metal band that is melodic and amazingly technically proficient but has an annoying screaming/growling vocalist... I clipped out all the vocal portions and merged the leftover sections in rhythm so that the "seams" aren't noticeable. Time-consuming, but what's a man to do in a year off?
@ Roberto (and perhaps John33),
It would be cool, if you're managing CDex, if there could be some sort of ripping dialogue box developed. More than just the % of current track and jitter errors thing that it has right now. Would be cool if it got closer to matching EAC in this department. I've mentioned this before, and don't know how feasible it is... I have no programming skill myself.
Originally posted by rjamorim
I even got a blue screen once saying that "The system is dangerously low on resources. You should save your work and restart the computer" or some shit like that.)
Then you're using beta 1 or 2.
Get beta 3 for ripping, or prebeta 11 for ripping + burning with cuesheet.
I had more problems with Beta 3 locking up my computer and/or forcing me to restart my machine in order to use EAC... currently I use Beta 2 and Prebeta 11
Originally posted by seaeye
hi.
just simple question: is there any other good ripper around here besides EAC? may be even almost-as-good, but more user friendly.
thnx.
what about Feurio?? (Ive never used it, but I read somewhere that its a very good ripper and could be an alternative to those who cant/dont wanna use EAC )
X-Tractor 022:
http://xtractor.sourceforge.net/ (http://xtractor.sourceforge.net/)
Very simple and ease to use.
Clean interface no frills.
Freeware, uses Lame.dll.
I used it many times, and did
fine rips.
Has error correction and seems
to perform a extraction in a very similar
way of CDex.(uses Akrip routines).
LIF
http://xtractor.sourceforge.net/ (http://xtractor.sourceforge.net/)
But do Feurio or xtractor detect scratches ?
Originally posted by Pio2001
It doesn't "suck resources as hell". This must be a misconception coming from the bugs in beta1, that caused system crashes after having killed all GDI resources.
Beta 2 still had the bug, but only with Windows9x, and Me. It was solved for NT, 2k, and XP.
I may be wrong but I think that the actual issue here is not EAC but whether the CDrom is using DMA or not. Also, if the CDrom is on the same IDE cable as the hard drive you can get really slow reads. I had the same issue and had to play around with DMA settings to get things right.
Ideally the CDrom would be on it's own IDE cable with DMA enabled - if it supports it. Not sure how you do this in Windows but on Linux it would be 'hdparm -c1 -d1 /dev/hdc' There must be Windows software that can turn on DMA too.
That can't be right. How come, it is the same CD-rom, at the same IDE place. EAC suck the resources, and CDex doesn't.
I don't agree the problem is in the hardware, or CDex would have the same problems.
Look, I use EAC and CDEX.
THe two leapfrog each other.
When I first used CDEX (1.2) , it sucked, even EAC was better.
When CDex 130betas came around, i tried it again, good stuff against EAC which created spurious errors.
I will try eac again, but I find a clean CD being ripped at .1 again, and no option to reduce CD speed (thanks AL, CDEX does this).
And by the way, I will not accept a viewpoimt(!) that EAX is better at ripping until I have a study that can ABX it
an abx isn't necessary if eac produces an identical wave as the source and cdex doesn't.
this is simple logic
...and i question whether or not you set up eac correctly in the first place...
later
mike
Rjamorim,
From my experience, the CD must be pretty badly scratched for EAC to noticeably outperform CDex
Actually according to my tests it is the other way around. EAC is nice, reliable and fast in secure mode (Nothing runs like a Plexie), BUT when the reading gets tough EAC gets into trouble. It very often jams, reading the tracks for ages, and results errors.
I recently recovered some aged & scratched CD-Rs where one tiny scratch was through the reflection layer. CDEx was able to recover without audible problems.
I prefer EAC, but I agree that for newbies, CDex is a lot better.
seaeye: I have made a modified distribution of CDex 1.40, pre-configured for LAME ("--alt-preset standard") and Vorbis support. IMHO you won't find anything easier , because the only things you have to configure manually are the output path and the paranoia ripping mode. Give it a try:
http://free.pages.at/volcano/files/cdex140.exe (http://free.pages.at/volcano/files/cdex140.exe)
I haven't changed any source code (I wish I were able to ), just modified the INI file (kick out system-specific values, set general values) and configured the installer to insert the path to LAME.EXE correctly.
CU
Dominic
Thats good stuff Volcano,a guy from work has been hassling me to help set him up for ripping and encoding properly,I dont really have the time so I shall send him the link to this thread
You've just saved me a few hours work
(http://19bf9fa9cb)
seaeye: I have made a modified distribution of CDex 1.40, pre-configured for LAME
thnx. i'm downloading it right now.
oh man... i just wanted to ask 'bout a similar program to EAC for my lazy brother and i started another eac <-> cdex war
Originally posted by Jansemanden
First of all I don't see why EAC should be that hard to set up.
maybe not for you, maybe not for me - for other people the answer is probably 'yes, it's complicated'. comapring to.. let's say cd-da.
ok - doesn't matter. i got modyfied cdex
My point was that just getting EAC to work is not tricky.
the wizard should get it working.
It's not harder than any other program as long as you don't care about off-set and shit like that.
Originally posted by mas528
I will try eac again, but I find a clean CD being ripped at .1 again, and no option to reduce CD speed (thanks AL, CDEX does this).
And by the way, I will not accept a viewpoimt(!) that EAX is better at ripping until I have a study that can ABX it
If EAC rips a clean CD at 0.1x, there's a problem, what are your extraction settings ?
possible solutions :
Try "read comand MMC1", try to enable DMA, disable offset correction, enable "spin up drive before extraction", change the "allow speed reduction setting", install ASPI 4.60, or ASAPI, and enable its use in EAC (avoid ASPI 4.70 for the time being).
The ripping speed, and the above settings might not be available in beginner mode.
Last, ripping is a lossless process, so ABX won't give anything, unless (very unlikely) differences in the hard disc positioning and fragmentation of the extracted wav file.
CDex is easier to use from the get-go (especially if you use the Vorbis DLL encoder). Just turn on paranoia mode, change some encoding settings, and your basically ready to go.
Some things I liked about CDex more than current EAC:
- Easy to use, I'll recommend it for my non techie friends.
- The naming files works a lot better, I like to setup my music as "artist / artist - album - year artist - album - track# - track name - year" and EAC can't handle the directory stuff (well it can, just won't work with that much stuff) and CDex worked fine.
- The playlist option worked (and I coudl change the name of the playlist), as opposed to EAC where only the wav's are entered in the playlist.
But, after that CDex was not much different than EAC. Seeing as how I rip basically new CD's, or barely scratched, I don't really have a huge need for most of what EAC claims it's good at.
Though, I'd still really like a "two encoder" option. The ability to send the same wav to two encoders would be great (FLAC and Vorbis), and be able to keep the same tagging info and what not.
Right, and I'd add that these interminable discussions about which is better overshadows the fact that for some folks who _aren't_ newbies, Cdex feels better. Yes, I used that word 'feel'.
Programs are designed in myriads of ways. They're not much like command lines, which you just learn and do: easy to get used to. (Okay, maybe MessyDos is an exception - cough) Programs with various UI's hit you differently. And that's how I feel about EAC and Cdex. I don't *like* EAC. It's written from a headspace that doesn't vibrate my medulla.
So I prefer Cdex and it's not because I'm a newbie (I've designed programs for 20 years), or because I don't understand how to use it. I prefer Cdex because to me, it's written with style, verve, brio and ease. EAC - to me - is a laborious undertaking, a bit like Nero, which I use extensively, appreciate enormously, but dislike intensely.
However in the case of Nero I know of no Cdex-like sibling lurking in the background that I could use. (haven't really looked, I admit)
As far as presets and EAC vs Cdex, the command line in dos works fine. But I don't use those presets much anyway. For those who love them, today's Cdex has them all pre-done and clickable.
I'll use EAC if I need to. So far I haven't needed to.
My 2 cents. Nex
Originally posted by Nexx9
Right, and I'd add that these interminable discussions about which is better overshadows the fact that for some folks who _aren't_ newbies, Cdex feels better. Yes, I used that word 'feel'.
Programs are designed in myriads of ways. They're not much like command lines, which you just learn and do: easy to get used to. (Okay, maybe MessyDos is an exception - cough) Programs with various UI's hit you differently. And that's how I feel about EAC and Cdex. I don't *like* EAC. It's written from a headspace that doesn't vibrate my medulla.
So I prefer Cdex and it's not because I'm a newbie (I've designed programs for 20 years), or because I don't understand how to use it. I prefer Cdex because to me, it's written with style, verve, brio and ease. EAC - to me - is a laborious undertaking, a bit like Nero, which I use extensively, appreciate enormously, but dislike intensely.
My 2 cents. Nex
And EAC "feels" better to me (and I would assume others). Though, yes this does have a great difference on the way people do work, if you don't like the GUI you don't want to use it. Which is why having CDex and EAC is a good thing, it's two competing programs that do essentially the same thing, but because there just a little different some people will like one and some the other. It's the way life was meant to be, choice.
No point in starting a yes/no argument, but still I must comment the ease of use issue.
For quite some time I've seen people write here that CDEx is easier to use than EAC. I can't really understand that statement since CDEx has a terribile GUI. The thing I hate most is the "output directory" that must be cofigured separately, while EAC asks for it aty the beginning of the process.
I have to wonder if people have really had a look at the most recent EACs with new GUI and setup wizard?
If you want the fastest Ripper, go for dBpowerAMP Music Converter, it has the best range of codecs available and it is free.
www.dbpoweramp.com (http://www.dbpoweramp.com)
Originally posted by spoon
If you want the fastest Ripper, go for dBpowerAMP Music Converter, it has the best range of codecs available and it is free.
From http://www.dbpoweramp.com/dmc-speed-test.htm (http://www.dbpoweramp.com/dmc-speed-test.htm)
The latest software was downloaded and ripping was done straight to Wave file (44.1Khz 16bit stereo PCM), using fastest ripping options found.
*LOL*, what a hoot! I don't see why they're so excited about that result - their program may do a CD in a matter of minutes, but what good does that do if errors are not detected?
I also find it hard to believe that CDex and EAC, both used in Burst Mode, are that much slower than the rest. On my system, no matter what ripper I use, Burst Mode (or whatever the program calls it) always brings roughly the same speed.
Anyway, Ill try that program as soon as I get home.
CU
Dominic
<sigh> Laugh it up...
>why they're so excited about that result
Because if you can successfully stream the audio off a CD lightening fast just like dBpowerAMP does, you have less block matching to be done (a potential glitch - yes dMC block matches each segment before you say...).
dBpowerAMP has about 1 Million users and guess what I have had almost 0 complaints about ripping quality.
I have to giggle at anyone who rips to anything other than lossless compression...
Originally posted by spoon
dBpowerAMP has about 1 Million users and guess what I have had almost 0 complaints about ripping quality.
Guess what MP3 encoder is used by even more users and probably doesn't have had much, if any complaints about quality either...
--
GCP
Originally posted by cd-rw.org
I have to wonder if people have really had a look at the most recent EACs with new GUI and setup wizard?
It's unlikely, since the wizard is not lauched when you upgrade from prebeta to beta.
Let's recall that installing EAC beta, unlike SatCPs tutorial states (it was made for EAC prebeta), all you have to do is choosing between "speed" or "quality".
Then you click the wav button to extract to wav, and the mp3 button to extract to mp3.
For the mp3 quality, you can choose between "low" and "high".
"Low" automatically enables lame --alt-preset 128, and "high" enables --alt-preset standard.
That's all.
I think the problem we've got with EAC is that the wizard and beginner mode are completely undocumented.
All that we have is SatCP's old and huge encyclopedia with thousands of necessary fine tuning, that are not necessary anymore since Beta 1.
I have to giggle at anyone who rips to anything other than lossless compression...
I'll agree with that.
I don't claim to hear like a dog nor am I trying to preserve the last pefect copy of some copyrighted artist's work for all eternity. I just want a fairly accurate duplication of a song so I can listen to it on whatever hardware I own.
dbPoweramp Music Converter in my opinion is a "must have" tool. It has more flexibilty and format conversion support than any other application I've seen.
what about Feurio??
For me it's a secure ripper.
If you have a drive that can report C2 errors reliably, it's safe.
No C2 errors reported => Perfect rip.
C2 errors reported => Maybe perfect rip, maybe not (probably not).
So, I only use EAC when I find C2 errors, because Feurio is much faster (it reads in burst mode).
Coupled with the best burning engine and my favourite system of compilations, I find it great for making perfect copies and my own mixes. (It only lacks offset correction compared to EAC).
For making MP3s it's not that great, because you can only use the LAME DLL, and you have to change the settings for ripping, destination, etc.
It seems that I'm one of the few that also find EAC a bit strangely
programmed... why secure mode with C2 enabled (no reread) and no caching (no flushing) isn't as fast as burst mode? in fact, it's much slower...
Anyway, with scratched CDs there's nothing that can beat EAC in my system.
xmixahlx wrote: there is no _alternative_ to eac. eac uses a unique extraction technique which no other program can match in regards to quality. however, this improvement is only made on scratched cds.
I completely disagree.
I've tried to rip several scratched cds with eac, and it never works. What happends is that when eac finds an error it just stops and tries to correct it for ages (several hours). And then it just stops ripping and reports it found an error. I don't even get the rest of the track.
But for clean cds I've never had a problem with eac.
What about feurio?
I've lately tested feurio cause I read it should be great with scratched cds....and it really was.
I had a cd that feurio reported having over 11000 c2 errors, and I couldn't hear any pops or clicks in the resulting wavs. Great!
But I wouldn't use it for other than scratched cds, because the result from clean cds differs slightly from the result from eac and other cd-rippers.
I also like the internal-ripping prog in winoncd 3.8 burning prog. For my cd drive it gives exactly the same results with clean cds as with eac, (I compared lots of times with eac). And with slightly scratched cds it works just as well as feurio.
And it reads cd-text so that with those cds that contain cd-text you don't need to type in the name on the track.
But I know this ripper don't work well with all cd-drives.
So I use eac or winoncd with clean cds.
And feurio with scratched cds.
My cd-drives are: Teac 540e (Supports c2 correction)
Goldstar LG 8040 (Supports c2 correction)
Keep in mind this thread's over a year old, perhaps software has changed and improved since then.
Concerning performance issues, I have to say that the IDE system in most modern PCs is the source of some of the strangest and (on the surface of it) most illogical seeming performance issues affecting computers.
1. I have to shift the primary IDE channel on my 500mhz celeron down to ultra dma mode 1 before it will stop having kernel in_page errors while doing certain things (maybe pci bus intensive, who knows).
2. On my more up to date PC, my CD writer seems, or seemed to cause huge increases in CPU usage for access to itself, and any ATAPI on the same channel in certain situations. I noticed it eventually after playing a DVD and noticing that it seemed a tiny bit choppy. Leaving it to have it's own channel solved that problem. I have since recently reinstalled my OS after my IBM deskstar 75gxp crashed for the last time, and haven't tested it much yet. If it was a software issue, it was certainly an elusive one.
My point is, the precise methods EAC uses for extraction could differ enough from CDEX to cause dodgy-seeming slowdowns in some cases. I certainly don't know enough to know for sure, but I certainly won't ignore the possibility either.
Edit: on top of that there's the situation where devices will occasionally decide to operate at a different IDE rate, even when the windows xp ide driver is reset. Failing hardware? Maybe... who knows...
why would you need to ABX two different rips? just compare CRCs. if they are the same, there's no point.
why secure mode with C2 enabled (no reread) and no caching (no flushing) isn't as fast as burst mode? in fact, it's much slower...
For me, with a Memorex DVDmaxx 1648, it is quite as fast as burst mode.
My problem with EAC is that if you give it a scratched CD, it just goes belly up and reads for hours on end, getting nowhere. The end result is damaged, as it is with CDex, so I don't see the point of wasting time and putting my drive under uneccesary stress.
dBpoweramp would be sweet if it used the paranoia libs... is that a possiblity?
Hi Guys,
Great discussion.
I've been using EAC for some time now and found it to be excellent. However, it occurred to me that, as I'm using a Plextor drive, would it make more sense to use PlexTools for ripping rather than EAC?
Best,
auldyin
There is an alternative for everyone with a Plextor drive - Plextools.
My experiences with a cd with a single small (but definetely evil) scratch:
Plextor IDE burner- 40X
- CDex - ripped fast but with audible errors.
- EAC - killed computer after having read disc for an hour.
- Plextools - ripped fast until scratch, then spent five minutes trying to repair, gave up.
Plextor SCSI CD-ROM
- CDex - ripped fast but with audible errors.
- EAC - ripped in 3 hours - audible errors.
- Plextools - ripped fast until scratch, then spent five minutes trying to repair, gave up.
After this, I never used EAC again. I have ripped around 70 cds with Plextools. All rips were "perfect" - except when Plextools claimed there were errors.
Plextools needs a little tweaking:
- Reduce read speed if the cd is scratched or has an extra label on it (i.e. library cd)
- Set DAE Error Recovery to 5: (least errors).
- Set retries to 99
- Set max errors to 100
- Allow speed down
Unfortunately there are some limitations:
- It cannot use an external compressor, so I have to flac manually
- Limited freedb/save as filename support
- Does not eject cd after ripping
I use dbPowerAmp Music Converter, which is great.
I've been using EAC for some time now and found it to be excellent. However, it occurred to me that, as I'm using a Plextor drive, would it make more sense to use PlexTools for ripping rather than EAC?
Depends
I originally ripped around 400 cds with WinDAC/Plextor 40X SCSI drive - a total of two errors (audible). Unfortunately the drive died after too much DiabloII.
I later desided to drop mp3 in favour of vorbis and ripped around 800 cds with EAC/Plextor 32X SCSI drive. I probably setup EAC incorrectly, as I had around 30 tracks with errors - had to listen to the entire collection to check for errors -sigh-.
I finally desided to drop lossy compression and ripped around 900 cds with EAC/new Plextor 40X SCSI drive - not a single error. EAC did occationally crash my computer when I tried to rip a scratched library cd.
Unfortunately I had to give the drive back when I quit my job. So I spent two days trying to get EAC set up properly on my two current Plextor drives - 32X SCSI and 40X IDE (burner). Both drives suck compared with the 40X SCSI drive. After EAC crashed my computer, I tried Plextools as described in my last post. I have used Plextools since.
So, if EAC works for you and you never rip badly scratched cds, then continue using it. But if it dies or you are curious, try Plextools...
dBpoweramp would be sweet if it used the paranoia libs... is that a possiblity?
Once AccurateRip is finished I shall move onto secure ripping, I will start from a fresh perspective - I am thinking of creating a script driven ripping process so it could be infinately configured.
Once AccurateRip is finished I shall move onto secure ripping, I will start from a fresh perspective - I am thinking of creating a script driven ripping process so it could be infinately configured.
I really like the idea of perfection - but I am affraid it will take forever for the AccurateRip database to be populated. I have a suggestion AccurateRip that might make it happen quicker:
Somwhow attach a unique id to every track ripped. It could be cd-id + track number. If the ripped files are kept in a lossless format, the user can later check whether the files were ripped accurately.
But I wouldn't use it for other than scratched cds, because the result from clean cds differs slightly from the result from eac and other cd-rippers.
Strange...
I've tested it quite a lot, and my Ultraplex 40x gives the same WAVs with Feurio or EAC.
And good drives like yours should do the same.
Don't you have "remove digital silence from start/end of tracks" enabled?
It's the only explanation I find.
If Feurio reports no C2 errors, then the WAV will be the same as EAC except for offsets, or if you have the named option enabled (it comes enabled by default).
I supose you compare the WAVs with "Compare WAVs" tool in EAC. (It detects offsets).
For me, with a Memorex DVDmaxx 1648, it is quite as fast as burst mode.
well, I'm almost sure that my Ultraplex works really slower with C2 enabled and no cache than in burst mode, but I can't test it until a couple of days. I'll report it.
yup...
this EAC/CDex war.. surprise me a little..
most of you know that
a perfect "rip". can only be done with
proper software/hardware/media
EAC. is the right choice for some..
CDex for others..
and it`s likely.. that a portion of this board..
uses something totally different..
when it comes to EAC`s C2 process. (and other C2 tools)
"IT SHOWS 100% ACCURACY ONLY ON GOOD MEDIA"
stop it..
There are 4 rippers that I accept ...
1. EAC 0.9 Beta 4 (my premier choice ... freedb & database tools are fine with me) ... never had problems even on heavily scratched CD's with my 40x SCSI Plex and my 52x LiteOn RW
2. Plextools 1.21 (premier choice with my 24x Plex RW ... create a cue with EAC and rip a scratched cd to a single file with plextools will sometimes be faster than EAC)
1 & 2 do not only show decent & accurate ripping, but the best error reporting that i have encountered so far (on the freeware DAE sector, of course)
3. CDEx 1.50 Final
4. Easy CDDA Extractor 5.10
3 & 4 are the best alternatives available if you still care about good DAE results and want speed as well ... but IMO they cannot be trusted when ripping erraneous discs (regard pio's findings in the FAQ) ... no ripper can do miracles, but I'd like to be thoroughly informed about read errors (even if they turn out to be inaudible which is the case very often when I'm using EAC)
I am a registered Feurio user and never use Feurio for ripping (IMO their read routines are inferior to the progs mentioned above and only slightly superior to the read routines used by dbPowerAmp, WinDAC, Audiograbber or CDR-Win) ... Feurio is unbeatable for audio mastering and when using freedb and its internal database, though ...
After all, the choice of ripping software depends too much on personal taste for any clear statements ... I am still dreaming about different frontends and a ripping core software that integrates EAC/Plextools/CDEx read routines ...
Easy CDDA Extractor may be stepping up in the near future. It already has a very good GUI and overall usability. The first version of the "secure ripping" was an improvement to "no security", but not yet perfect. The routines are developed in-house, so it't not CDDA Paranoia based, as someone claimed it to be. I talked wit the author and he is now (after 2 years of begging) motivated to improve the secure ripping features. Error reporting and improved accuracy should be coming up.
Downside of Easy is that it is not free, but it is cheap.
For me, with a Memorex DVDmaxx 1648, it is quite as fast as burst mode.
well, I've tested today my Ultraplex PX-40TS and it wasn't exactly as I remembered: it's worse the feeling than the real time.
The difference between burst mode and secure mode with C2 and no cache was 1:42 against 1:19 in 3 tracks (1:00 for Feurio). (Burst mode produced timing errors in EAC).
But I still don't understand the difference in time, and what was worse is that my Ultraplex slows down between tracks in both modes... I hate it.
However, this didn't happen with a LG 48x and LG 32x writers. And they feel almost as fast in secure mode with C2 and no cache as in burst mode (although I think these drives cache audio) as you say about your Memorexx.
(0:52 for secure, 0:40 for burst and 0:30 for Feurio, with LG 32x/C2/no cache)
It seems that all depends on how your drive interacts with software, according to contradictory posts in this thread.
EAC has ripped amazingly scratched CDs for me with good accuracy, but it seems it's not very well tuned for that Ultraplex, at least I don't like how it works with good discs. The LG burners work smoother with EAC if I hadn't to enable "drive caches audio" (that's awful).
PlexTools is all I use.
CD2WAV32 (http://homepage2.nifty.com/~maid/fsw/cd2wav32_r321.zip) also could be an alternative.
I use CD2WAV32 with its deemphasis filter for preemphasised CDs ripping.
it`s likely.. that a portion of this board..
uses something totally different..
According to this poll, most people in this board use EAC : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=ST&f=20&t=3897 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=20&t=3897)
It might have been before Plextool's secure ripping, though...
when it comes to EAC`s C2 process. (and other C2 tools)
"IT SHOWS 100% ACCURACY ONLY ON GOOD MEDIA"
It would be annoying for an error reporting feature to work only when there are no errors
The accuracy of C2, that tells if a media is good or not, depends mainly on the drive.
[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%']Audiograbber 1.82 build 2 is available for download[/span]
If you're a fan of that great ripper, than this link is for you:
Fresh Audiograbber with Ogg Vorbis, MP3 and APE support! (http://www.zb.lv/~pan/box/Audiograbber%201.82%20build%202.exe)
According to this poll, most people in this board use EAC : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=ST&f=20&t=3897 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act...=ST&f=20&t=3897)
It might have been before Plextool's secure ripping, though...
That poll is 8 months old. The data collected is prettry much outdated. Also, the people who voted yesterday had different choices than those who voted 8 months ago.
If the data in this poll (and several others) is to be useful, the current polls should be locked and new ones created. Data collection in the new polls should run for around 1-3 months only.
well for plextor users i would definetly recomend plextools (euro version only) latest is 1.21a
There is an alternative for everyone with a Plextor drive - Plextools.
My experiences with a cd with a single small (but definetely evil) scratch:
Plextor IDE burner- 40X
- CDex - ripped fast but with audible errors.
- EAC - killed computer after having read disc for an hour.
- Plextools - ripped fast until scratch, then spent five minutes trying to repair, gave up.
Plextor SCSI CD-ROM
- CDex - ripped fast but with audible errors.
- EAC - ripped in 3 hours - audible errors.
- Plextools - ripped fast until scratch, then spent five minutes trying to repair, gave up.
After this, I never used EAC again. I have ripped around 70 cds with Plextools. All rips were "perfect" - except when Plextools claimed there were errors.
Plextools needs a little tweaking:
- Reduce read speed if the cd is scratched or has an extra label on it (i.e. library cd)
- Set DAE Error Recovery to 5: (least errors).
- Set retries to 99
- Set max errors to 100
- Allow speed down
Unfortunately there are some limitations:
- It cannot use an external compressor, so I have to flac manually
- Limited freedb/save as filename support
- Does not eject cd after ripping
plextools has been shown when settings are correctly done to rip and burn as good and or better than eac.
with scratched cds when set properly in preferences has been great.
btw, wasn't this same issue brought up awhile back on eac forum? i seem to remember reading it.
plextools with plextor drives most definetly the way to go.
my Ultraplex 40x gives the same WAVs with Feurio or EAC. And good drives like yours should do the same.
minix, still at it?
with a good drive and a clean disc, you might get an accurate rip (setting aside offsets) with a number of programs. but you might not. the thing is, you won't know, unless the software directly addresses the error-detection flaws of CD audio.
saying "I ripped a bunch of discs with my drive using 2 programs and got the same wav" doesn't provide a useful guide to someone trying to select a ripping program.
with a good drive and a clean disc, you might get an accurate rip
You
should get an accurate rip with all ripping programs if there wasn't any reading error.
With good drives and clean discs there are no errors
usually.
It's not normal that Feurio or any other program produces different WAVs from EAC consistently if the discs are clean... so something is wrong. (Probably the default "kill digital silence at start/end of track" setting in Feurio).
saying "I ripped a bunch of discs with my drive using 2 programs and got the same wav" doesn't provide a useful guide to someone trying to select a ripping program.
I'm not saying that 2 programs will give the same WAVs with every disc. I'm just saying that with most clean discs, there's no difference in accuracy between EAC and the rest. Of course, a lot of times you can't know the condifition of a CD before ripping it.
What I think it might be useful is explaining that Feurio with my drive and C2 errors reporting enabled is as
secure ripper as EAC with C2 enabled and much more faster, like Plextools. If there are no C2 errors, DAE has been perfect.
What I can also say is that Feurio isn't as
accurate as EAC when there are reading errors with that PX-40TS.
Other people claim that Feurio, CDex or other programs are more accurate than EAC with their drives with heavily scratched discs, and others even say that EAC hangs... (which is not my case)
Another example with my drive is CDDAE. It's also as secure as EAC reading twice, but it produces a lot more errors with scratched discs than EAC or Feurio.
... if only i knew it'd turn into so hot discussion, then i'd rather shut up
anyway - everybody - thanx for comments!
I just tried to rip the new and protected cd from Nena. Plextools refused to rip properly. It reported some errors and they were very audible.
EAC ripped without any problems...
My problem with EAC is that if you give it a scratched CD, it just goes belly up and reads for hours on end, getting nowhere. The end result is damaged, as it is with CDex, so I don't see the point of wasting time and putting my drive under uneccesary stress.
did you try to use burst mode in EAC? if your drive isn't capable of ripping audio accurately at high speed, try slowing down the extraction speed from EAC to, say, 1x. it usually works better than secure mode, especially in cases where the extraction process comes to a stand-still, or reaches intolerable speeds like .1x
personally i never had any problems with EAC. it hates one drive and wouldn't work at all with it (EAC freezes) but so do other ripping programs
also, on heavily scratched CDs, secure mode came to a halt. but then i tried burst mode @ 1x and it worked better. yeah i know this mode doesn't report errors, but i listen carefully to all my rips a number of times
other than that, i have not experienced any serious problems with EAC, and i really don't know why are people complaining about it so much. first, it's still in beta, so obviously bugs and compatibility issues should be expected. second, it is not difficult at all to set up. it just takes time and possibly learn to configure it properly through trial-and-error. the GUI is fairly decent. i only hope that if andre doesn't have a lot of time to spend on EAC that he will at least make the code open source
Yes that's what I do as well: Burst Mode. But I can't set it to 1X, instead I set it to 4X (slowest) and then run deglitch.exe (I do all this when secure mode fails). And in most of the cases deglitch finds glitches! So I'd say this step is essential. I was going to use the Synchronized (Fast) Mode but the latest prebetas crash on me in that setting :
Unhandled exception
at 004599B7->ACCESS_VIOLATION
Edit: I need to extract WAV in order to run deglitch so external compressor could not be invoked from EAC in this case. Maybe there's a way out with the new pgrogram MAR.
>>>'Yes that's what I do as well: Burst Mode. But I can't set it to 1X, instead I set it to 4X (slowest) and then run deglitch.exe (I do all this when secure mode fails). And in most of the cases deglitch finds glitches!'<<<
no errors will be reported in burst mode, so you will have to use your ears to detect glitches
about deglitch: don't rely on it so much. even bryant said it will sometimes trigger falsely. therefore, the best way to detect clicks or any other DAE defects is to use your ears. listen carefully, and if there are any significant defects, they will stand out. try to play the CD in a normal CD player and then carefully listening to the track your ripped on your computer, preferably with headphones, observing any strange clicks and making note of it, then going back to the CD player and verifying it. it's a tedious process, i know, but imho it's the most effective solution
Are there any decent alternatives/equivalents to EAC for MacOS?
Burst mode reports errors in "test and copy" mode.
Deglitch finds error on any wav, even perfect. It can even find errors in deglitched wavs.
In order to remove audible clicks, rip twice, open the two rips in a wav editor, substract one to the other, tile windows horizontally, and zoom the differences to the max, so that the smallest ones are visible.
The spikes shows where there can be errors, and gives you an idea of its level. There can be spikes without errors, if the erroneous wav was the target one.