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: an alternative to EAC? (Read 34309 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #25 –
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

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #26 –
Rjamorim,

Quote
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.

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #27 –
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

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

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #28 –
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

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #29 –

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #30 –
Quote
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

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #31 –
Quote
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

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #32 –
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.

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #33 –
Quote
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.

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #34 –
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.

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #35 –
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

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #36 –
Quote
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.

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #37 –
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?

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #38 –
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

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #39 –
Quote
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.

Quote
From 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

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #40 –
<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...

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #41 –
Quote
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

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #42 –
Quote
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.

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #43 –
Quote
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.

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #44 –
Quote
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.

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #45 –
Quote
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)

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #46 –
Keep in mind this thread's over a year old, perhaps software has changed and improved since then.

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #47 –
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...

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #48 –
why would you need to ABX two different rips? just compare CRCs. if they are the same, there's no point.

an alternative to EAC?

Reply #49 –
Quote
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.