Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nickharambee]

does MC have a secure rip function similar to EACs? (with features for accurate steam/C2 errors, etc.).  The EAC people lead me to believe that there is no equivalent ripper to theirs and that SERIOUS audiophiles wouldn't look anywhere else.  it would be lovely to have one program that did the lot.  can anyone help me see the wood through the trees?  

thanks, nick.

[Doof]

Well.... I'm sure that EAC probably does a better job than MC. EAC seems to support many more CD-ROM error correcting functions than MC.

But how can you really know? Maybe MC just autodetects all those features in the background. Who knows.

But really... you have to draw the line somewhere. Can you really hear the difference between a secure rip from MC, a rip from EAC, or the original CD? Maybe if the CD is really scratched up, one may do a better job than the other, but on a clean CD, I doubt you'd ever be able to tell the difference.

[jam]

Actually, C2 error correction won't help us so much.  There is no magic.  If the CD was clean, no error at all.  If the CD was dirty, all data are corrupted.  On the other hand, if you use a good read ability drive like Plextor one and use it as 4x, it actually helps us.

I prefer EAC because I can adjust data offset.  I think MC cannot do this.  I've never used MC, so I may be wrong, though.

Another different point is cue sheet.  EAC can create cue sheet and compress whole CD into one ape file.

And the last reason why I use EAC is that I know EAC serves me fine.  In order to trust MC, I need to check all MC ripping function and accuracy...  I just don't want to do that while EAC is working fine.  

In this forum, Matt said MC ripper is just fine several times, so I guess it would be fine for all.

[zevele10]

95% of my cds are mint.
For fast and good rip ,i got a Plextor drive.

Before a rip ,i look at the cds and  clean them if needed.
During rip ,i give a break to the cd-room every 15 cds [ i use my second drive  ].

VERY often i clean the lense with a cleaning cd- this is a very important  thing to do to get good rip and keep speed-

I get or type cdinfos before starting my rip using all the kinds of data- YADB , FreeDB and RealOne.

I never use secure rip for the mint cds.
And i still have to get any problem..

When i rip ,i do kind of 2-300 cds at once.

I do not use MC for 2 raisons:

-no encoding in the back like EAC.

- MC takes to much time with all the 'updating volume ' or things like it. If you rip 300 cds ,it is a waste of time

I still have to try 'auto-rip' with MCBut ,i'am SURE that MC rip quality is as good than other programs.
What is missing is some features like 'rip in the back ' ,'cue sheet ' ect.


And ,trust me : clean the lense every 30-50- cds , this help A LOT

[kiwi]

jam,

I find myself feeling the same way that you do.  I have have used EAC, it works really well, and I don't trust MC.  I'd really like to because it would simplify things.  

Are there any good ways of testing this?  Are there any wave compare software programs that work well?  I'd be willing to run some tests between EAC and MC.  Also, it would be interesting to see what the difference in ripping time is between the two programs.

Also, with Cue Sheets, if one rips all the files as separate tracks, is it still beneficial to have the cue sheets so that you can burn a copy that is almost exact, less offset errors?

How much of a problem are offset errors?  Is it really worth taking the time to go and determin/set that up?

Thanks,
kiwi

[JohnT]

How much of a problem are offset errors?  Is it really worth taking the time to go and determin/set that up?

Thanks,
kiwi

I don't think offsets are an important issue, you're talking about a few milliseconds of music one way or the other. Just my 2 cents.
By the way, MC secure mode is improved in the current build, it handles caching drives much better. The first time it does a secure rip from a drive it hasn't seen before, MC automatically calculates the actual cache size used by the drive when reading audio CD's. From then on it uses that cache size to ensure that data is getting read direct from the drive on every re-read, rather than from the cache. The previous cache algorithm failed on many drives with large cache sizes.
Wait for a build greater than 9.1.210 because in that one you aren't notified when the cache calculation takes place and MC freezes during the calculation.

[kiwi]

I don't think offsets are an important issue, you're talking about a few milliseconds of music one way or the other. Just my 2 cents.

That had been my thought on the matter.  That it was only for the truely anal.  Or people with drives that had very large offsets.

By the way, MC secure mode is improved in the current build, it handles caching drives much better. The first time it does a secure rip from a drive it hasn't seen before, MC automatically calculates the actual cache size used by the drive when reading audio CD's. From then on it uses that cache size to ensure that data is getting read direct from the drive on every re-read, rather than from the cache. The previous cache algorithm failed on many drives with large cache sizes.
Wait for a build greater than 9.1.210 because in that one you aren't notified when the cache calculation takes place and MC freezes during the calculation.

Thanks.  This sort of information is very helpful in deciding between EAC and MC.  Having a bit less of a black box to work with is nice, and gives people more confidence in using it.

-kiwi