Print

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

[Listener]

I started ripping my classical music  CD collection using EAC to rip the CDs and make Flac files.  I cleaning up the tags using MP3tag and then imported the files in MC 11 and did another round of tag editing.  The process just got to be too painful after about 110 CDs.

So I tried using the ripping function in MC 11 to rip about 20 CDs.  The process went much more smoothly!  Before I adopted MC 11 as my permnent solution I thought I ought to see if the ripped files were the same as EAC would produce.


--- a comparison
I compared 9 files (10 to 60 Mbytes inb size) ripped from 3 CDs and encoded to Flac by both EAC and MC 11.  I decoded the Flac files to WAV files and did a byte by byte comparison. 

All nine files were identical in EAC and MC 11 ripped versions. 

MC 11 ripped 8 of the files in secure mode with the minimum number of re-reads.  MC 11 required a few extra re-reads to verify one file.  I used this file for the comparison to see if a less than perfect read would produce a difference.

In addition, I tried to rip two problem CDs with EAC and MC 11.  EAC eventually quit because of read and sync errors while MC 11 ground away until it got an acceptable result.  I listened to the resulting files and found them to be  without obvious interruptions, clicks, pops or other glaring faults.  My results with EAC were a function of the settings I used so I don't take this as proof of the superiority of MC 11 in ripping problem CDs.  I think it illustrates that MC 11 can be effective for rescuing the content of a problem CD.

--- Functionality and ease of use
EAC assumes that the Album, Artist, Year and Genre tags will be the same for all tracks ripped one operation. It doesn't let me set the Composer tag at all. MC 11 lets me have different values for  Album, Artist, Year and Genre tags and lets me set the Composer tag!  I can also specify the directory and file name using the Composer values when ripping with MC 11.

EAC has an option to "Beep after extraction finished".  It beeps after each track is extracted!  Totally useless!  MC 11 beeps once after all tracks have been ripped.

----- speed
EAC and MC 11 don't measure speed in the same way.  My impression is that they are roughly the same in overall speed.  I can tag CDs much faster when I rip with MC 11 so my net speed is much higher with MC 11.

----- FreeDB vs. YADB
I can't compare these very well since I don't use YADB in MC 11 now.  Neither FreeDB nor YADB provide Composer tag data and neither uses the Album, Artist and Track tags in a completely consistent way for classical music CDs.

--- Details:

MC 11: secure ripping using Flac encoder v1.5 and Flac decoder 1.6.2.  I converted the Flac files back to WAV format using the MC 11 Convert command.

EAC: Test & copy selected tracks.  Secure mode.  Drive is capable of producing C2 error information but I did not check the box to use it.
I used the Flac front end to invoke the Flac.exe command line program to convert the EAC Flac files back to WAV format.
If anyone wants more info on my EAC settings or other details, I supply them.

----- an invitation
I ran my tests to satisfy myself that I would not be compromising my music files by ripping with MC 11.  Perhaps others can add their results so that MC 11 users can make their choices for ripping based on light and not just heat.

Bill
 

[JimH]

Thanks, Bill.  Maybe you could post this at some of the other sites that talk but don't test.

[dlone]

I used to use EAC all the time - I don't know about you but it's satisfying to see the progression of green block and then watch it work harder at the red blocks - it always made me feel that it was doing 'something', and so that must be somehow 'better'

After testing, i've decided that - I can't tell the difference.......

Comparing the tracks with a filediff utility, the worst i've seen is that occasionly the tracks will be slightly different
But... only at the seek point for the change between tracks that have silences between them

I came to the conclusion that I really don't care if one track has 15ms of silence after it, and the other has 14ms, but the next track ah 1ms extra
(btw this isn't exact, it's just the kind of difference I have found)

And I havn't even tried secure mode (in MC) yet, just the standard

Conclusion... unless your cd has been atttacked by a chainsaw (or small children) - too much trouble for too little gain

And this is not even as an MC worshipper, there are bits about this program I don't like (eg, no, DELETE is NOT the right word to take something off the playlist - delete is to actually DELETE something)

But, I can't fault their ripping routines
They seem pretty solid from here

[marko]

sauzee did similar tests back in 2003...

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=15912.0

[Listener]

>  Thanks, Bill.  Maybe you could post this at some of the other sites that talk
> but don't test.

That might be worth my life on some forums.

On Audio Asylum:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/11991.html

Bill

[Podder]

Thanks to "Listener" for his test results.  After reading a few posts it makes me want to stop using EAC, simply so I can do everything I need with MC, the one stop shop.  Right now I use EAC's "insane" setting with a bit rate of 320 to rip a CD.  Sooooo, if I'm reading these posts correctly can I get the same exact high audio quality (yes I know it's all subjective to one's ears) rip using MC?  (BTW, I use MC v.10 )

Also,  if I rip using MC, should I continue to rip using the "MP3 encoder VBR" compared to "APE"?  Is there much of a quality difference btw the highest bit rate and APE?  I believe if I use APE I would end up with large music files and they could not be played back on all audio devices.
Thanks.

[Charlemagne 8]

The hearing of the file is subjective as we've endlessly flogged at in the past.
The advantage to APE is that there is no degradation of quality at roughly 1/2 the file size of a wav. It IS quite a bit larger than a 320 kbps MP3 but MP3s make lousy archive copies even at 320.
Ever used a copy machine to copy a sheet that you make lots of copies over long periods? (Form blanks are a good example.)
Unless you use the original every time, you get a degradation of the image over time even with the best of copiers.
APE is like using the original.
MP3 is like copying from a copy.

CVIII

[jkrzok]

I very grateful for the test. It's nice to know my ears weren't deceiving me when I thought MC did just as good a job as EAC.

I believe if I use APE I would end up with large music files and they could not be played back on all audio devices.

Sadly, you're right about APE not playing back on audio devices. In fact I don't know of any that support APE.

So for me the APE/mp3 question comes down to where you'll be using the resulting files. My PC's hooked up to a nice sound system and the APE files sound much noticably better than the mp3s. But if you're not listening to those APE files on decent equiptment and you rip mostly to put music on a portable device, stick with mp3.

[NickM]

Sadly, you're right about APE not playing back on audio devices. In fact I don't know of any that support APE.

Depends wether you mean portable devices or network players.  There a quite a few network players that play APE - SlimDevices probably the best.

nick

[Podder]

I guess I'll use MP3 instead of APE since I mostly listen to my music on my Ipod when I'm not sitting at my computer.  At least I do not have to re-rip all my CDs that I've done already over the years with EAC.  I'm also looking at Sonos to distribute my music in my house and I don't think it supports APE.

I just tried to a rip a CD with MC and I have a question?  Under rip CD/options/encoding a message states that I nd to download the MP3 encoder.  But should I use the MP3 encoder VBR instead of the MP3 encoder?  Once I download it will I have options to change the bit rate? 

Also, I still nd to find out more about the "copy mode-normal,secure,analog"-I'll chk FAQs.
Thanks.

[Podder]

I forgot to add that I use MC10- can I still rip high quality MP3s with this version?  I just read that MC11 has some new feature with the LAME encoder.
Thanks.

[Alex B]

Podder,

You may find this thread helpful:

Topic: How can I ensure quality of a ripped music file

[Alex B]

I forgot to add that I use MC10- can I still rip high quality MP3s with this version?  I just read that MC11 has some new feature with the LAME encoder.

MC11.1 uses a newer LAME version and has better mp3 encoding options. The difference is not big, but it exists.

It is possible to change the encoder file that MC10 uses and use a custom command line string for getting identical results with MC11.1, but I am not going to write complex instructions for an old MC version, since the new things are easily available in MC11.1.