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: Sound Forge vs. EAC (Read 17097 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Hi everybody. I'm new to this forum. Sorry for my English; I'm Spanish.

I've been doing several tests with EAC and Sound Forge Pro 10.0 at ripping audio CD:

1) I ripped Old and Wise (last track from Alan Parson's Eye in the Sky album (original recording)) to WAV from a clean and unscratched disc with Sound Forge and EAC (normal correction mode) twice each. I compared the four files with the little application Find Duplicates (it compares files within a folder and tells you which ones are identical) and both rippings by Sound Forge are equal, and so do the ones by EAC.

2) I loaded one wave from Sound Forge and another one from EAC into Sound Forge and compared them visually with full zoom. The differences were: 102 samples (0.002313 seconds) extra of data in Sound Forge's ripping at the beginning (thus missing in EAC's ripping), and 102 samples extra of data in EAC's ripping at the end. I cut the differences of both waves, saved them again and compared one more time with Find Duplicates, and they proved to be identical.

3) I ripped again Old and Wise with Sound Forge but this time with fingerprints on the CD. I compared it with the ripping from the clean CD and they proved again to be identical.

4) I ripped a very very scratched CD with mp3 transcoded into CD audio with both Sound Forge and EAC. Two consecutive (and fast) rippings by Sound Forge proved to be different, and two consecutive (very very slow) rippings by EAC proved to be different, two.

5) Both rippings had lots of clics, but in a normal listening those clics sounded louder in EAC's ripping than in Sound Forge's (M-Audio Transit USB card, Sennheiser HD-650 headphones).

Please tell me your opinion.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #1 –
As I understand it the 'data' on a CD is a continuous stream with a table of contents specifying where each track starts. Different ripping software has different offsets so files from different rippers may not start at exactly the same position. On a good disc I wouldn't expect errors unless the correction processing was disabled. In any event I have that disc and ripped it a couple of years ago and had no issues at all. Can you post a couple of clips of the problems from each of the rippers? I'd be interested in comparing yours to mine.

By the way, your English is better than many born and raised in the US. Sad for us but good for you.

G²

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #2 –
Quote from: Glenn Gundlach on
Different ripping software has different offsets so files from different rippers may not start at exactly the same position.
This is not correct.  The offsets belong to the drives.  Some rippers have the ability to calibrate them to a standard while others do not.

Quote from: Glenn Gundlach on
On a good disc I wouldn't expect errors unless the correction processing was disabled.
What do you mean by correction processing, exactly?

Ignoring that, with a good disc I wouldn't expect errors regardless of the program used and/or how it was configured.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #3 –
4.) For some really bad discs, it may be impossible to have error free rips regardless of the ripper or drive. Did EAC report any errors in your case? Have you tried using burst mode or secure with or without C2?

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #4 –
Quote from: dalton2 on
5) Both rippings had lots of clics, but in a normal listening those clics sounded louder in EAC's ripping than in Sound Forge's (M-Audio Transit USB card, Sennheiser HD-650 headphones).


Don't know, but its possible that Sound Forge did or allowed some error hiding (not correction). Most people here would recommend either EAC or dBpoweramp for CD ripping. I'm not aware of anyone that uses Sound Forge for CD ripping.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #5 –
First of all, sorry for the late reply. I'm very busy at the moment.

Quote from: Glenn Gundlach on
Can you post a couple of clips of the problems from each of the rippers? I'd be interested in comparing yours to mine.


I'm afraid I deleted the test files, but I'll do them again and post them here for you as soon as I have some time.

Quote from: Glenn Gundlach on
By the way, your English is better than many born and raised in the US. Sad for us but good for you.


Thank you.

Quote from: greynol on
Ignoring that, with a good disc I wouldn't expect errors regardless of the program used and/or how it was configured.


In fact, those were my conclusions. I agree with you.

Quote from: twostar on
4.) For some really bad discs, it may be impossible to have error free rips regardless of the ripper or drive. Did EAC report any errors in your case? Have you tried using burst mode or secure with or without C2?


If the disc were in really bad condition, the result would be full of errors regardless of the ripper or drive, too, so I wouldn't care about the level of error correction; I'd buy a new disc, instead. Yes, it reported may errors. No, I didn't try any other mode but the begginer's mode.

Quote from: Eli on
Don't know, but its possible that Sound Forge did or allowed some error hiding (not correction). Most people here would recommend either EAC or dBpoweramp for CD ripping.


I don't think Sound Forge Pro allows some error hiding; as far as I know, SF is a professional level program, published by no less than Sony.

Quote from: Eli on
I'm not aware of anyone that uses Sound Forge for CD ripping.


Maybe because EAC is free and SF is very expensive? Or maybe because EAC creates a log report and SF doesn't? I really don't know, I'm just asking.

Thank you all for your replies. Glenn, as I told you, I'll post my tests as soon as I have some more time.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #6 –
Quote from: dalton2 on
I didn't try any other mode but the begginer's mode.

He's talking about the extraction method found under the drive options (F10).  It can be configured regardless of whether you're using beginner mode.

Quote from: dalton2 on
I don't think Sound Forge Pro allows some error hiding; as far as I know, SF is a professional level program, published by no less than Sony.

I'm not sure if you are, but suggesting that Sound Forge Pro is in some way superior because it is made by Sony is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority.  iTunes is made by Apple, but there have been plenty of tests demonstrating that it is inferior to programs like EAC, dBpoweramp and CDParanoia-based programs when it comes to retrieving accurate data and reporting when it cannot retrieve accurate data.  Personally, I would be surprised if Sound Forge's ripping function is even secure.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #7 –
Quote from: greynol on
iTunes is made by Apple, but there have been plenty of tests demonstrating that it is inferior to programs like EAC, dBpoweramp and CDParanoia-based programs when it comes to retrieving accurate data and reporting when it cannot retrieve accurate data.


Ok, but let me tell you that Sony is not Apple. Where are those tests demonstrating that Sound Forge Pro 10.0 is inferior to programs like EAC, dBpoweramp and CDParanoia-based programs when it comes to retrieving accurate data and reporting when it cannot retrieve accurate data? As you can see, your counter-argument is another fallacy.

In any case, my impression is founded mainly on my experience with the program so far (several years), and not just on Sony's reputation.

Quote from: greynol on
Personally, I would be surprised if Sound Forge's ripping function is even secure.


Please don't take my last words as my whole argument; although I'm thankful for your own opinion, it's not my intention to bring mine here; in fact the core of my intervention is about a test I did, and not my opinion. I'd be glad if some other people did some serious tests about this.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #8 –
Quote from: dalton2 on
Maybe because EAC is free and SF is very expensive? Or maybe because EAC creates a log report and SF doesn't? I really don't know, I'm just asking.


I think its because dBpoweramp and EAC are designed to be the best CD rippers out there. SF's primary function is not a CD ripper.

Sony making it is a good argument against it being a good CD ripper. You actually think sony wants you to get music off its CDs?

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #9 –
Just listen to Sony earphone and headphone. They are nowhere as good as other brand that aim for reference quality.
And Sound Forge is doesn't meant to be a great CD ripper.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #10 –
Quote from: dalton2 on
As you can see, your counter-argument is another fallacy.
No, it was an example how a big successful company can make an inferior product.  Saying that Sony makes an inferior ripper because Apple does would be a fallacy, but I didn't say that, now did I???

Quote from: dalton2 on
In any case, my impression is founded mainly on my experience with the program so far (several years)
That's great, but this forum is interested in objective test data which includes results from more than just one CD.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #11 –
Don't compare apples with oranges.

Sound Forge's aim is to be great audio editor
EAC's aim is to be a great CD ripper

Full stop.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #12 –
Quote from: .halverhahn on
Sound Forge's aim is to be great audio editor

I don't even think they've even succeeded at that, at least not for my needs (the interface was clunky).  To be honest I haven't given it another shot from several years ago, though.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #13 –
Many of your comments so far are subjective opinions, not facts. I came here with an objective test, looking for more evidence about my thesis, and several people here just use the argumentum ad hominem (in this case against Sony). Ok, maybe you don't like Sony, and, ok, one test is not enough, but, please, bring some true evidence here and stop spreading deceitful gossip.

By the way, Sound Forge was really created by Sonic Foundry, and later sold to Sony for $18 000 000.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #14 –
Quote from: dalton2 on
Many of your comments so far are subjective opinions, not facts. I came here with an objective test, looking for more evidence about my thesis

1) You asked peoples opinions.
2) Your test is not objective ("Both rippings had lots of clics, but in a normal listening those clics sounded louder in EAC's ripping than in Sound Forge's"). Maybe you wanted to hear it that way? EDIT: And does that really prove that other is inferior when clicks sound louder? IMO, no. Maybe the faster ripping speed of Sound Forge concealed more sound curves (=clicks differ)? I'm not an expert on this issue, but I've dabbled with Audacity and I've noticed that few milliseconds can make a difference to perceived sound when cutting sound curves.
3) Where is your thesis? (We can see your unsubstantiated, between-lines claim about Sound Forge being superior though.. obviously because you seem to trust that Sony/big companies make better apps than other, not so known companies, or heaven forbid, individuals.)
4) What about posting the test files as you promised?
5) Part 3 of your test; did you do the same thing with EAC?

Quote from: dalton2 on
bring some true evidence here and stop spreading deceitful gossip.

I'm sorry but it's your job to do that first. You came here to validate your argument that Sound Forge is better than EAC. Show us the evidence. Thank you.

I checked Sound Forge Pro 10.0 specs and couldn't find even single one mention about how SFP10 rips CD's. I believe that we can safely assume, as somebody already noted, that SFP10's primary function is not to be a CD ripper. And then we can look at the EAC specs (check at least: introduction, Features of EAC, Basic Technology). Obviously EAC is made for ripping CD's, and it comprises many technologies to "securely" extract CDDA data. Without further evidence, EAC seems to be the "winner" here.

Also, seeing that SFP10 ripped your bad CD fast and EAC slowly in your 4th point, it is quite obvious that EAC was the one that really tried to read the bad CD.

Maybe you should test that again with less damaged CD; rip with both but make sure that EAC returns AccurateRip information about the rip. Why? If your extracted SFP10 & EAC (secure mode) files differ and EAC returned AR info, we can say that EAC performed better. There would be your proof.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #15 –
Those clicks you heard, how did you discover which track they were on? Did Sound Forge report them and tell you where to listen? If not, EAC can do that for you.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #16 –
Wow, I'm amazed at how quickly your english improved..What an astounding achievement..Since your defense of Sound Forge/Sony that is!..

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #17 –
I did a new test. I ripped Eye in the Sky (the full album) as a single track with both EAC (secure mode) and SFP10. EAC's ripping (no errors) had 19302 more samples (0.443946 seconds) at the beginning, and SF's had 102 more samples (0.002346 seconds) at the end. After cutting 19302 samples from the beginnng of EAC's ripping and 102 samples from the end of SF's (all of them were of zero value = silence), I saved the resulting waves in flac format and later compared both files with Find Duplicates, and they proved to be identical (not a single bit of difference in the whole file).

The log is the following:

Code: [Select]
Exact Audio Copy V0.99 prebeta 5 from 4. May 2009

Archivo Log de extracciones desde 13. Noviembre 2010, 13:57

The Alan Parsons Project - Eye in the Sky / Eye in the Sky

Usar unidad  : HL-DT-STDVD-RAM GH22NS30   Adapter: 0  ID: 1

Modo de Lectura           : Seguro
Utilizar Corriente Exacta : Sí
Descartar Audio caché     : No
Utilizar los punteros C2  : No

Corrección de Desplazamiento de Lectura         : 102
Sobreleer tanto en Lead-In como en Lead-Out     : No
Rellenar las muestras faltantes con silencios   : Sí
Eliminar silencios inicial y final              : No
Se han usado muestras nulas en los cálculos CRC : No
Interfaz usada                                  : Interfaz propio de Win32 para Windowns NT y 2000

Formato de Salida utilizado : Rutinas WAV Internas
Formato de Muestreo         : 44.100 Hz; 16 Bit; Estéreo


TOC del CD extraido

     Pista |  Inicio  | Duración | Sector inicial | Sector final 
    -------------------------------------------------------------
        1  |  0:00.33 |  1:53.40 |         33     |      8547    
        2  |  1:53.73 |  4:36.50 |       8548     |     29297    
        3  |  6:30.48 |  4:51.02 |      29298     |     51124    
        4  | 11:21.50 |  2:11.23 |      51125     |     60972    
        5  | 13:32.73 |  7:23.37 |      60973     |     94234    
        6  | 20:56.35 |  4:23.25 |      94235     |    113984    
        7  | 25:19.60 |  4:51.10 |     113985     |    135819    
        8  | 30:10.70 |  3:35.23 |     135820     |    151967    
        9  | 33:46.18 |  3:54.12 |     151968     |    169529    
       10  | 37:40.30 |  4:54.53 |     169530     |    191632    


Gama de estados y errores

Seleccionar gama   (Sectores 0-191632)

     Nombre de Archivo W:\___________TEST EAC VS SOUND FORGE\Old and Wise (full)\Eye in the Sky full (EAC).wav

     Nivel Pico 95.5 %
     Gama de Calidad 100.0 %
     Copiar CRC B30C88EE
     Copia OK

Sin Errores

 
Resumen AccurateRip
 
Pista  1  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 45)  [243DCFB9]
Pista  2  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 43)  [EBF7E464]
Pista  3  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 44)  [1D05ED6A]
Pista  4  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 44)  [E1423E91]
Pista  5  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 43)  [6AD74F2E]
Pista  6  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 44)  [76BE5D1E]
Pista  7  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 44)  [244B713B]
Pista  8  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 43)  [FB6F752E]
Pista  9  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 43)  [32F19BA8]
Pista 10  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 44)  [C70714E9]
 
Todas las pistas extraidas de modo preciso

Final del Informe

For Glenn, here is a link for the Old and Wise test (with snapshots and samples):

Old and Wise test
Old and Wise test (alternative link)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the others, here is another link for the "scratched disc" ripping test (I used a less scratched disc (photo included), as someone suggested before).

Scratched disc test
Scratched disc test (alternative link)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please tell me if you need something more.

P.S: I know it seems that I came here to defend Sound Forge against all other programs, but, believe me, it's not my intention, although, after reading myself, I understand your point of view. In fact it's the same for me to use one or another program. The only reason why I like SF for ripping is that it's much faster, but, anyway, in the case that I found a single proof indicating that SF's rippings are inaccurate, I'd use other program instead without any remorse.
 

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #18 –
The reason that EAC was slower was that you ripped in secure mode. Since AccurateRip verified the results, you could just as well have ripped in burst mode in much less time.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #19 –
Quote from: dalton2 on
I know it seems that I came here to defend Sound Forge against all other programs, but, believe me, it's not my intention, although, after reading myself, I understand your point of view.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. You really looked like a flamer/troll.

Quote from: dalton2 on
The only reason why I like SF for ripping is that it's much faster

It's ok if speed is important to you, but remember that it's not "secure" ripping (I boldly make this claim, given that I've not seen any evidence that Sound Forge utilizes "secure" ripping technologies). EAC can do "burst" rips which are fast as well. If you get AccurateRip results, then burst mode is just fine. Otherwise revert to "secure" methods. If you want to have "secure"/accurate rips, ditch the Sound Forge as your ripper and use EAC/dBpoweramp.

Quote from: dalton2 on
Please tell me if you need something more.

So far there haven't been any real results that would put either app ahead of the other one (if we want to look at your tests only). So far we know that both apps seem to rip pristine CD's correctly, and that both apps fail to rip badly damaged CD's. It's a tie.

As soon as you find a CD that can be only ripped correctly in EAC secure mode, then you'll have your proof.


P.S. Wrap long listings inside CODEBOX (insert special item) tags.

EDIT: You might want to set "Null samples used in CRC calculations" ("Se han usado muestras nulas en los cálculos CRC") ON.

EDIT2: Just looked at your "Scratched disc test" package and I wanted to say that scratches are not a proof of disc failing. I've seen many "skated on asphalt" scratched CD's that could be (relatively) easily read, and some pristine new CD's that would fail no matter how many times ripped (pressing fail).

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #20 –
Quote
You might want to set "Null samples used in CRC calculations" ("Se han usado muestras nulas en los cálculos CRC") ON.


That option doesn't appear in my program (version 0.99 prebeta 5). It should be at EAC options/Extraction, right? Some checkboxes appear to be missing.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot I was in "beginner's mode" (configuration assitant). In "expert mode" now all the checkboxes appear.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #21 –
Quote from: dalton2 on
The only reason why I like SF for ripping is that it's much faster

In case you didn't catch it, I already told you how to rip in burst mode...
Quote from: greynol on
He's talking about the extraction method found under the drive options (F10).  It can be configured regardless of whether you're using beginner mode.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #22 –
Quote from: dalton2 on
argumentum ad hominem

Not to beat a dead horse, but where has anybody defamed Sony?

Rejecting your fallacy that Sound Forge Pro is great because it is made by Sony doesn't constitute argumentum ad hominem; not in the slightest.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #23 –
My new log (with 'expert' settings). Are the options ok now?

Code: [Select]
Exact Audio Copy V0.99 prebeta 5 from 4. May 2009

Archivo Log de extracciones desde 13. Noviembre 2010, 20:54

The Alan Parsons Project - Eye in the Sky / Eye in the Sky

Usar unidad  : HL-DT-STDVD-RAM GH22NS30   Adapter: 0  ID: 1

Modo de Lectura           : Seguro
Utilizar Corriente Exacta : Sí
Descartar Audio caché     : Sí
Utilizar los punteros C2  : No

Corrección de Desplazamiento de Lectura         : 102
Sobreleer tanto en Lead-In como en Lead-Out     : No
Rellenar las muestras faltantes con silencios   : Sí
Eliminar silencios inicial y final              : No
Se han usado muestras nulas en los cálculos CRC : Sí
Interfaz usada                                  : Interfaz propio de Win32 para Windowns NT y 2000

Formato de Salida utilizado : Rutinas WAV Internas
Formato de Muestreo         : 44.100 Hz; 16 Bit; Estéreo


TOC del CD extraido

     Pista |  Inicio  | Duración | Sector inicial | Sector final 
    -------------------------------------------------------------
        1  |  0:00.33 |  1:53.40 |         33     |      8547    
        2  |  1:53.73 |  4:36.50 |       8548     |     29297    
        3  |  6:30.48 |  4:51.02 |      29298     |     51124    
        4  | 11:21.50 |  2:11.23 |      51125     |     60972    
        5  | 13:32.73 |  7:23.37 |      60973     |     94234    
        6  | 20:56.35 |  4:23.25 |      94235     |    113984    
        7  | 25:19.60 |  4:51.10 |     113985     |    135819    
        8  | 30:10.70 |  3:35.23 |     135820     |    151967    
        9  | 33:46.18 |  3:54.12 |     151968     |    169529    
       10  | 37:40.30 |  4:54.53 |     169530     |    191632    


Gama de estados y errores

Seleccionar gama

     Nombre de Archivo W:\___________TEST EAC VS SOUND FORGE\Old and Wise (full)\ÚLTIMA PRUEBA\The Alan Parsons Project - Eye in the Sky - Eye in the Sky.wav

     Nivel Pico 95.5 %
     Gama de Calidad 100.0 %
     Test CRC 3DC41C04
     Copiar CRC 3DC41C04
     Copia OK

Sin Errores

 
Resumen AccurateRip
 
Pista  1  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 45)  [243DCFB9]
Pista  2  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 43)  [EBF7E464]
Pista  3  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 44)  [1D05ED6A]
Pista  4  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 44)  [E1423E91]
Pista  5  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 43)  [6AD74F2E]
Pista  6  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 44)  [76BE5D1E]
Pista  7  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 44)  [244B713B]
Pista  8  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 43)  [FB6F752E]
Pista  9  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 43)  [32F19BA8]
Pista 10  extraido de modo preciso (nivel de confianza 44)  [C70714E9]
 
Todas las pistas extraidas de modo preciso

Final del Informe

Quote from: greynol on
Not to beat a dead horse,... (etc.)

This thread became heated by the moment, but everything is clear now, I think. Are you sure you want to continue by this line...? Do you think it's productive to continue discussing about Sony itself? I don't.

Sound Forge vs. EAC

Reply #24 –
Quote from: dalton2 on
Are the options ok now?
No.  We're trying to compare apples to apples, so EAC needs to be configured to rip in burst mode and several rips of the same errant track need to be made with each ripper.

Quote from: dalton2 on
Are you sure you want to continue by this line...?
Only so long as you decide to continue to point out fallacies where none exist, then yes; otherwise I see no reason to defend sound reasoning.