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: Is EAC the best way to archive CDs? (Read 6066 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Is EAC the best way to archive CDs?

Hey guys.  I looked in the FAQ and tried a search, but couldn't quite find an answer to this question.  It's pretty basic, so I probably was just using poor search terms...

Anyway, I know how to rip and compress audio CD's using EAC.  But I wanted to make an exact copy of a CD for archival purposes.  Is EAC the best way to do that?  I have used the relevant option, but I wonder if a program like Alcohol 120% or Nero is better at making an image of the disc...

Basically, is the CUE format offered by EAC the best way to prepare burning an exact copy of an audio disc.  If I rip the _images_ of each disc afterwards, will they basically be the same?

Thanks very much guys!  Sorry that this is a very n00b question.

-- Ned Ruggeri

Is EAC the best way to archive CDs?

Reply #1 –
Don't forget, exact images have no offsets or missing samples.

Alcohol 120% and Nero are utterly incapable of dealing with offsets.

If you have a drive such as a Plextor where the write offset cancels the read offset you can get an exact copy without requiring that the software deal with offset correction but the potential to miss samples cannot be avoided in this circumstance.

Is EAC the best way to archive CDs?

Reply #2 –
Quote from: greynol on
Don't forget, exact images have no offsets or missing samples.

Alcohol 120% and Nero are utterly incapable of dealing with offsets.

If you have a drive such as a Plextor where the write offset cancels the read offset you can get an exact copy without requiring that the software deal with offset correction but the potential to miss samples cannot be avoided in this circumstance.


I just want to reitterate that there is no such thing as "offset correction" in the sense that there is no correct offset. That feature should be labeled "offset standardization" because all it does is allow other users of EAC to do bit-comparisons with each other.

A "corrected offset" is no more correct than the default offset, so i wouldn't worry about it too much. Actually I think the most standard offset would be +6 on the EAC scale.

Sorry if i just confused the parent poster...

Is EAC the best way to archive CDs?

Reply #3 –
Quote from: Jebus on
I just want to reitterate that there is no such thing as "offset correction" in the sense that there is no correct offset. That feature should be labeled "offset standardization"
Call it whatever you want but you cannot get an exact replica of a cd without one unless it can be realized through hardware.

Quote
because all it does is allow other users of EAC to do bit-comparisons with each other.

You can use any ripping program you like to do bit-comparisons.  Not sure what you mean about "other users".

Quote
Actually I think the most standard offset would be +6 on the EAC scale.
Please, enlighten me on this. 

Is EAC the best way to archive CDs?

Reply #4 –
Sorry that this was posted the wrong place.

In any case, the suggestion is that EAC should be used so that it can make sure samples aren't missed?

-- Ned Ruggeri

Is EAC the best way to archive CDs?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: tetrakarbon on
In any case, the suggestion is that EAC should be used so that it can make sure samples aren't missed?

If you're interested in preserving as close to an identical copy as possible, yes, but this also depends on your drive.

Far more important is the ability to extract audio data without errors.

IMO, both Alcohol 120% and especially Nero aren't very well equipped to do this.
 

Is EAC the best way to archive CDs?

Reply #6 –
Cool, thanks very much!

-- Ned Ruggeri