Skip to main content
Topic: EAC vs CUERipper results (Read 1522 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EAC vs CUERipper results

Hi guys, I finally decided to rip my cd in flac but I have a questions. I always used EAC to rip in mp3 etc and now I made a test with CUERipper that seems to be a good ripper. I noticed that rip quality is little bit different in results. For example,

EAC result:

     Peak level 99.8 %
     Extraction speed 4.7 X
     Track quality 99.9 %
     Test CRC 1B1CEEB0
     Copy CRC 1B1CEEB0
     Accurately ripped (confidence 200)  [C03924CB]  (AR v2)
     Copy OK

CUERipper result:

     Peak level 99.8 %
     Track quality 100.0 %
     Test CRC 1B1CEEB0
     Copy CRC 1B1CEEB0
     Accurately ripped (confidence 378)  [9A43CD4F]
     Copy OK

Why track quality is 100% in CUERipper and 99,9% in EAC? I know that EAC re-reads a sector but which one can I consider more reliable and perfect?

Another little questions...I noticed that bitrate increase with no compression -0 and it's a little lower in -5 compression. Is it normal?
"Always account for the change."

Re: EAC vs CUERipper results

Reply #1
1. Secure mode reads each section twice. If the reads don't match, additional re-reads are performed. EAC & CUERipper handle the percentages a little differently but both reduce Track Quality on additional re-reads.
What does the Track Quality really mean? A few times I get 99.7% or 97.5%. But there are no suspicious position reported.
When you get 99.7% and so on, that means that a bad sector was found, but the secure mode has corrected it – from 16 times of grabbing the sector, there were 8 or more identical results. So it only indicates read problems. It is the ratio between the number of minimum reads needed to perform the extraction and the number of reads that were actually performed. 100% will only occur when the CD was extracted without any rereads on errors. ONLY when there are suspicious positions reported, there are really uncorrectable read errors in the resulting audio file.

2. The average bitrate is calculated from filesize divided by duration. Less compression = bigger file so the average bitrate would be higher.
Please direct any additional FLAC questions to the FLAC board


Re: EAC vs CUERipper results

Reply #2
EAC and CUERipper yield same audio checksum ("1B1CEEB0"), so they have ripped the same. They just have a slightly different opinion or metric on how "safe" the process it was. AFAIunderstand, none of them take into account that they got an AccurateRip match.

OP: The different AccurateRip checksums are because EAC chose to report the match with the "v2" algorithm, while CUETools chose to report the match with the "v1" algorithm. Of course, both "correctly" match a lot of other rips.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020