Print

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

[gvag]

I bought MJ for many reasons, one of which was its one stop shop features.  I've always used EAC for ripping but decided it was time to give MJ a whirl, not good.

From other posts I've gathered that the closest MJ comes to EAC's High Error Recovery setting is to use the Digitally Secure setting for ripping.  Is this correct?

Also, based on reviews and other net sources EAC appears to be one of the best, if not the best, programs for accurate ripping.  Is this reputation undeserved?

All this is by way of preamble to the following:
1) It took MJ over thirty minutes to rip a CD in secure mode.

2) When it finished the report log showed that of the seventeen tracks ripped only five were of 100% quality and the rest averaged around 80%.

3. EAC took less than eight minutes to rip the same CD.

4. EAC reported all tracks as 100% quality but as I don't know how it calculates this value, it may not be relevant.

Any comments, suggestions?

[Mirko]

EAC is known as the best ripping software, because it simply displays _every_ error it finds. If EAC tells you, it found no errors at all, you may trust it. Of course only, if you set up EAC correctly (drive parameters).

[JimH]

I can't say why there is a difference, but I do know that EAC is very highly regarded.  Not to say better, just that's its reputation.

[JohnT]

Make sure that you have the "Extraction Method" in EAC set to "Secure mode".

The quality percentage number in MJ is not equivalent to the one in EAC and will generally show a smaller value. In MJ it represents the number of actual reads executed divided by the minimum number of reads needed. For example, if there were 8000 sectors to read, and MJ had to do 10000 reads to get good data, the quality would be listed at 80%, even though you still ended up with good data.

If could be that the "C2 error checking" in EAC will allow it to be quite a bit faster than MJ at times, although the developer of EAC said that the C2 checking is not always reliable on some drives. With newer drives this may not be an issue and we will probably implement C2 error checking in MJ.

- John T.

[Osho]

Thanks John for the explanation. I am not that terribly concerned with speed. I am much more concerned with Accuracy. How does it compare to EAC in that regards if speed is not a factor?

thanks,
Osho

[gvag]

JohnT -

I setup EAC using the recommendations in SatCP's tutorial
Even though my drive supports C2 error checking I have this option disabled, so this does not explain the difference.  I am surprised by the difference in speed between the two programs and will continue to use EAC for ripping.

Thanks

[gkerber]

Interesting, I've used the SecureRip and EAC.  Of course EAC works great.  

Using Securerip, I've done about 20 cd's and only one showed any errors at all.  I"ve got a TDK 32x burner.

[shdbcamping]

Guess I've been too impressed with LAME's ripping to look around.
Is there really a better one? How does LAME compare to these, or are they totally different uotput engines?
Sometimes we just get too comfortable i guess.

[joe|PLS|mama]

"Guess I've been too impressed with LAME's ripping to look around."

Maybe there's a little confusion here.  LAME is an encoder, not a ripper.  EAC, Exact Audio Copy, is a program used to rip audio CDs.  You can set EAC up to rip and then encode the audio with any of the different compression formats, such as MP3 (using LAME or any of the other MP3 encoders), OGG, MPC, APE, AAC, etc, or you can rip to uncompressed wav.

[PhatPhreddy]

One thing that is important to me but that is (as yet) unsupported in MJ is the ability to rip albums as one big file WAV and create whole  album APE and APL files...

This way reconstruction is easier and there is no chance of pops in track changes if playing gapless..

I am an album listener rather than track lister and have a large % of my albums as DJ mix albums..

This would be a very nice addition to v9

[bpg99]

Just my 2 cents worth:

What I have found is that if your CD is in perfect condition (no scratches), then just about any ripper will do a good job (including MJ digitally secure).  However, for scratched CDs, EAC is the only ripper I have found that I can put the ripped songs directly into MJ without listening to them and be sure they are "PERFECT" - no glitches.

I tried MJ's digitally secure mode on some scratched CD's and found that in additional to taking quite a while, the resulting songs have many glitches in them.  I.e. you have to listen to every second of every song to see if you need to re-rip.  I don't have that kind of time!  Granted this was a while ago, and I have not tried it since as I continue to use EAC.  So, MJ may have improved.  But, if I had to guess, I would say it still isn't as foolproof as EAC.

One other intersting note - I have seen EAC have some problems on REALLY badly scratched CD's (although they still play in an audio CD player).  EAC got so many errors, it just couldn't correct them all.  In that case, I have found that Feurio was able to rip the CD's with no glitches (and very fast too!).  The reason I don't use Feurio on anything but those CD's that EAC can't handle (a very small percentage) is because:

1.  The interface SUCKS!
2.  You have to listen to every song you rip - Feurio may say no errors, but that is no guarantee.

But, hey - if you have a favorite CD that the kid decided to use as a frisbee - Feurio may be the only way to salvage it!

Just my experience - you're milage may vary.

Brian



P.S. No offense intended to MJ - I love it!!!  I guess I just see EAC as a totally different type of product that complements MJ very well.

[AlonsoN]

One other persniketty issue is drive offsets.  Almost all CD drives will need an offset number to get the entire track from an audio disk, some CD drives can be off by several seconds.  If EAC is set up properly it can correct for this.