INTERACT FORUM
More => Old Versions => Media Center 11 (Development Ended) => Topic started by: jolo on August 13, 2006, 04:35:19 am
-
???I have a sincere, honest question.
There are loads of people on tech forums who go "ga-ga" over using EAC for ripping their CDs.
I do not understand this at all. I seem to read a lot of use EAC because its the best, but no reasons for why it is the best and why I should use it instead of a product with a much simpler product like Media Center.
What I am aware of, is of the source media to be burnt is of poor quality, and some software/hardware is needed to get seep into the source media and get it to its destination intact, then EAC is great, with all of its features and choices.
Under normal conditions, if the condition of one's CD is good, if the media has been cleaned, relatively new, why would EAC be a better choice to use for burning a backup of the CD over Media Central
Would a EAC burn of a CD in good, playable condition improve the sound quality at all? I tend to want a backup to be as good as the source.
Could someone advise someone like me who likes to know about the bottom line. Doesn't burning CD media from Media Center sound 100 % as good as one burnt from EAC ? Assuming the source media is in good shape.
Thanks,
Jon Temple
-
who says EAC is better? and is it really 'better' just because they say so?
Read on....
EAC versus MC for Ripping (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=22627.0)
Ripping CDs - EAC or MC 11 (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=33554.0)
Exact Audio Copy...advantages? (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=18978.0)
-
EAC isn't better.
Some years ago it was the so-called standard, but MC has been it's equal for quite some time now, but you know the saying about an old dog and new tricks.
There have been several tests done (and I'm sure someone will show up here with the links) and as I remember (and I'm one of the least computer savy folks here) the main differences lie in ripping not burning. And in most instances MC comes out on top especially when trying to rip bad CDs and then MC's secure ripping mode is superior.
Of course EAC is free and MC isn't, so if you were to ask which free player/ripper is best....
-
Would a EAC burn of a CD in good, playable condition improve the sound quality at all? I tend to want a backup to be as good as the source.
If you like to make an identical backup copy of the original audio CD you need to use EAC and its cue file mode with a correctly measured offset correction setting for ripping AND burning.
MC is a perfectly fine and easier to use tool if you like to rip audio files that have identical audio quality with the original audio CD (assuming you use a lossless file format). Later on you can easily burn the files back to an audio CD and the audio quality will continue to be identical with the original source. Only the burned CD "structure" would not be exactly the same. This means for example that a CD database like freedb or YADB would probably see the CD as separate "version" of the same CD (this slight structural difference has nothing to do with the audio quality).
This thread has some useful ripping tips:
Topic: How can I ensure quality of a ripped music file (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=29157.0)
-
Jon, I agree with your conclusions. I've tried to collect some actual experience and to share that to counteract the internet babble.
I ripped about 1200 CDs in about 2 months of effort, keeping track of problems and progress during the process. I reported on some comparisons in the "Ripping CDs - EAC or MC 11" thread during the process. Here are the my results for the roughly 1200 CDs:
~ 97-98 % ripped in MC with 100% confidence. (No difference in re-reads.)
~1-2% had high confidence (95% to almost 100%) with one or two spots of 8 - 24 seconds where extra reads were necessary to get agreement. I had not heard any audible glitches from the music files I listed to.
~1 % had one or more tracks could not be read reliably without error by MC 11 or EAC. (11 disks.) I tried to re-rip 9 of these with MC 11, EAC and CDex v 1.60 beta 1 (which has a secure mode too.) Here are the outcomes:
- 3 privately-made CD-R disks could not be read successfully by any of the rippers. The problem was that labels attached to the CD-Rs had damaged those CD-Rs. Replacements could be read by MC 11 without problems.
- 4 commercial CDs had tracks that could not be read without error by MC 11 or EAC. (I tried EAC with and without using C1/C2 nformation. No difference.) CDex claimed it had read the CDs correctly but the music files contained audible glitches. All three rippers produced files that had audible glitches in the same places - good enough for an ocassional listening.
- 1 disk appeared to have copy protection and could not be ripped at all by MC 11 or EAC. They did not even start! CDex ripped the CD without audible error but with 0 length track duration information in the Flac files. Converting those files back to WAV format and then making Flac files with the official Flac compresser program fixed the problem.
- 1 disk could not be ripped by either MC 11 or EAC. They ground away on the first track until I canceled the process. CDex ripped the entire CD at normal speed and reported success. I listened for audible glitches and heard none. MC 11 would not import the Flac files made by CDex. I decompressed them to WZAV files and made new Flac files with the official Flac compressor program.
I had treated my CD collection with care. I had very few problems and was able to find adequate solutions for the few problem CDs. Here are the lessons I take from the process:
- take care of your CDs. There won't be any miracle cures.
- Don't wash all your disks if they are in good shape. Most will be ripped without errors so why invite trouble?
- Use MC 11 for ripping since it is so much easier than ripping with EAC and importing music files. You won't be losing anything in speed or accuracy.
- Look at the ripping log after you rip each CD so that you can identify files ripped with less than 100% confidence for a listening check.
- Keep EAC and CDex handy to try on problem disks. Use CDex (v1.60 beta 1) with caution. It is useful but can't be trusted blindly. Older or newer versions may be better.
- Don't be paranoid about the babble you read on the internet. Just deal with the exceptional problems as they arise.
Bill
-
Wow, Listener, thanks for taking the time to share that. It was interesting reading and I too appreciate the advice (as I'm assuming Jolo does as well).
-
I'd say EAC made its name because it was the first ever ripper to try to rip accurately and for free at a time when not even a single non-free ripper came close.
Secure ripping was born with EAC and its happy fans love to talk about it.
It's debatable that MC introduced secure ripping after repeated comparisons with EAC.
-
MC is equal or superior to EAC.
Unless you want to rip to a single file and have a nice CUE for the rip.
Unless you want to use some format that MC does not support, like Wavpack.
Personally, I like EACs copy and test mode. It allows me to rip at high speed and if there is an error I will see that the CRC did not match and can rip the track again in secure mode.
Hey! Maybe something to consider for a new MC version?
-
I agree that the output quality is just as good in MC as any other so-called "best" ripper. But, I do enjoy the fact that the others have ripping profiles. I sometimes fall back on Cdex because I have profiles built to rip audiobooks, flac, wav, etc. It is easy to select a profile for each different condition. I wish we could set profiles for different ripping conditions in MC instead of having to change the basic options each time.
I originally brought this up when the following thread was called the MC11 wishlist instead of the MC12 wishlist:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=28958.msg191639#msg191639
-
In my experience the ripping engines of MC and EAC are equal in terms of quality.
If the CD is butchered nothing can be done no matter how good the engine is. What separates those two from the most is that they give you reliable reports about track quality.
You will instantly know when there is something wrong and dosn't have to worry that after ripping 200 discs 50 of them has clicks or pops which can only be noticed by listening all the tracks yourself.
-
that's really interesting. I ripped a large part of my collection with freerip, with varying results. has anyone else used freerip and compared it with MC?
What's peoples view on FreeRip generally?
R
-
This is so cool.
All of the feedback has been GREAT but Listener, you are my hero and also a burning maniac :D. Where else can you get that kind of sharing that Listener did.
I am not parnoid about what I asked, I am just sick to death of reading about it and would finally like to see the facts about this on a forum where the burning, ripping, playing is not a emotionally charged subject !! I have been doing this for years and have seen much evolve. I do think that some of the senior, heavy bits and bites people who started working with blank media, when there were serious issues of compatibility and stability between media, software, hardware players, software players and started using a product like EAC, still probably think that having a million options, to handle because of the myriad of "what ifs". I guess I can relate because in designing web sites, I like typing in code, and hate using graphical code generators.
Here are my conclusions, PLEASE disagree if you would like. Listener, please check me out on this.
- I believe that in Burning, heck in ALL of multi-media manipulations, the single most important part of it, is the quality and the original source.
- In that vein, while washing all the time is overkill, I think cleaning the source with a lint free cloth to remove all dust is an excellent idea. Also, check the original for fingerprints and remove them. Know the quality of the audio/video that is in the source as well.
- While I think strongly while the quality and condition of the "front end" or source media is the most important factor, I think that it is discussed the least and ignored the most when there are problems. I seen lots of people post that some brand of media sucks, or the software sucks or the burner sucks, when the media just might have a bunch of fingerprints or a lot of dust on it. li]
li]If I think that the source media might have some issues from handling or wear, I would look to remove scratches, etc before I even bother to thing of burning the media. I have been able to patch about all scratches and other issues. I would not depend on my hardware or software to do that. li] There are things to do like putting the media in a toilet and flushing it (I am not fooling), using toothpaste, car wax, or for serious matters, Brasso. In general, I have found the biggest offenders being fingerprints and dust. [/il]
[il]There used to be times when I couold not burn a particular CD in Media Center and would take it to Nero and it would work. But that hasn't happened in quite a while. [/il]
[il]It also is my theory that many fuss over getting the best audio or video on a burn will make sure that they burn at 1x or 2x. Maybe slowdowns might help with some video, but I son't think they really do anything with audio CDs. [/il]
[il]I have used Neato photomatte finish, full face labels for several years with a minimum of problems. I feel though, that if a media label is Not put on perfectly balanced, there is a real potential for the media not to work on players like car radios. I found the full face labels easier to put on perfectly, besides having more room. There are those who will tell you you to never, ever, ever put any labels on, that they ruin all media. If so, why do they sell millions and millions of labels per year. [/il]
[il]I am now using ink jet printing direct to write enabled media that is GREAT. No labels and the quality from my $79 Canon IP4200 is great. [/il]
[ilI like to create image files a lot, if what I am burning is very important. Then I can hear/see the result of t he burn, and the image is an exact, bit for bit copy of the original [/il]
[il]Is there really any software that is BAD at burning. There are those that might be limited for certain issues, but isn't it a very standard thing? [/il]
[il]I try to never, ever use product from Microsoft, Apple and Sony. I also will stay away from the RIAA companies if I can. better to purchase something used. I think they're about killing creativity and making monoplies/oligopolies and have slowed down progress enormously in their fight for market control. I never, ever had any audio that had DRM on it and never will. No Itunes for me. [/il]
-
Jolo, thanks for the good words.
> I am not parnoid about what I asked, I am just sick to death of reading
> about it and would finally like to see the facts about this on a forum
> where the burning, ripping, playing is not a emotionally charged subject !!
I had had the same reaction. I tried to keep track of my own experience and write about that. Other people may have different experiences. They should share their experiences.
Responding to your specific points:
quality of the original - So far, I have not found audible problems in files that MC says it ripped with 100% or 90+% confidence. I'm acting on the belief that if MC says it ripped the CD with high confidence, I have the right results and that no further improvement is possible for those CDs.
washing - I stored my CDs in their jewel cases vertically with the hinge side up. For the last ten years, the CDs have been in closed drawers. I didn't play the CDs in my car CD player. (I made CD-R copies of some CDs.) I have taken as much care as possible up front. I didn't have much of a problem with dirty CDs. I inspected most CDs before I before I ripped them and blew bits of dust off a few disks.
Years ago, I decided to wash some vinyl LP disks to lessen the surface noise. It didn't work! I didn't have a discwasher or any kind of fancy machine and I wound up with noisier surfaces than I had before. Fortunately, I had experiemented on a few LPs. So I've been shy of washing my CD collection.
wear - One of my problem disks had many spots over about 20% of the disk surface. I went ahead and ripped the disk without trying to remove the spots. 6 of 9 tracks ripped fine. The other three had a few glitches in them that I'm going to live with for now..
value of the music - Those three tracks were not music I cared much about. I got accurate files for the 6 tracks that mattered. If some music that was valuable to me and not easily replaced is at stake, I would try more drastic steps. However, I would try ripping the CD before I did anything that might damage or degrade the CD.
statistics - I was lucky. The one percent of my collection that could not be ripped without audible glitches did not include anything priceless to me. That's another reason to take good care of your CD collection. Keep the fraction of problem disks down and you have a better chance that nothing that is important can't be ripped accurately.
burning CDs - You are clearly much more involved in burning CDs that I am.
DRM and Microsoft, Sony and Apple - I don't like the combination of DRM and closed systems like iTunes. However, that might be the only choice in the future. The catalogs of classical, jazz and other niche music are shrinking. Buy it now while it is available and doesn't have copy protection or other DRM.
---
I've ripped my collection of about 1200 classical CDs. I still have 400-600 more CDs of other music to do. Quite a few of these CDs are from small labels in the US and Britain. My experience with those CDs might be a bit different. If so, I'll report on that experience too.
Bill
-
It allows me to rip at high speed and if there is an error I will see that the CRC did not match and can rip the track again in secure mode.
Something is not clear to me here.
If you rip with EAC, the best EAC can do is checksum what it can read.
How else can EAC "know" the checksum of the original media ?
So if there is a glitch in the rip, all you know is EAC had a problem with the rip, which all secure rippers will display.
Not following why a checksum is useful in this case.
-
If you rip with EAC, the best EAC can do is checksum what it can read.
How else can EAC "know" the checksum of the original media ?
http://www.accuraterip.com/
-
Something is not clear to me here.
If you rip with EAC, the best EAC can do is checksum what it can read.
How else can EAC "know" the checksum of the original media ?
So if there is a glitch in the rip, all you know is EAC had a problem with the rip, which all secure rippers will display.
Not following why a checksum is useful in this case.
If I rip in burst mode, there is little checking of anything done.
In burst mode, it is reading as fast as possible, 20X-40X
Test and Copy is a feature in EAC where EAC generates a Test CRC value of an audio track on a CD and then compares that value to a Copy CRC value generated from the extracted audio file. If the Test CRC and Copy CRC match then the rip was accurate.
EAC's Test and Copy function in Burst Mode is a way to use the speed of burst mode and get a notice if something goes wrong. It is unlikely that you will generate the same CRC off a bad track. Way unlikely.
-
So were not referring to accurate rip's database then ?
total time = (1) + (2)
(1) rip in burst mode
(2) time to re-rip (in secure mode presumably so as to have a secure crc to compare with the one calculated from the burst rip.
Would it not be faster to just rip in secure mode in the first place ?
Still thinking the CRC used in the test & copy is superflous here.
-
I use EAC over MC for ripping since it's infinitely easier to control the location the resulting ape files are written to.
Yes I know that using EAC means I must import the files and I must do audio analysis, but it's still easier with all that due to the total ease of setting the write location.
With EAC it's set by the cd, with MC it's buried in options.
-
MC automatically puts ripped tracks in files and folder. By default it does them by Artist and Album, but you have a lot of control of this in the options for File Location.
You can also use Library Tools/Rename files from Properties to move files into folders according to your naming rules.
-
yeah, and it works great...
-
So were not referring to accurate rip's database then ?
total time = (1) + (2)
(1) rip in burst mode
(2) time to re-rip (in secure mode presumably so as to have a secure crc to compare with the one calculated from the burst rip.
Would it not be faster to just rip in secure mode in the first place ?
Still thinking the CRC used in the test & copy is superflous here.
Nope, you aren't on the same page.
Where did I mention secure rip for CRC generation?
I think it would be better if you simply give this a try yourself.
But, the question here is if EAC is better in some way.
The answer, with few exceptions, is no. MC is the equal in accurate ripping to any tool I've tried. The exceptions are not rip related, but ability related. Like format choice.
-
Where did I mention secure rip for CRC generation?
You didn't that's why i was wondering where an accurate CRC to make the comparison with the CRC generated from the burst rip comes from. If you are not using accurate rip's dB, then EAC must be internally doing an extra read to generate an "accurate" CRC during the Test part.
On reading about this feature, i notice its recommended only for CDs that are clean or not scratched. In this case
the read (test) + rip (burst mode) with CRC compare is faster than secure (rip)
Can see this being faster if you have many CDs to rip and they are in fairly good trim.
Otherwise if EAC has problems reading the CD then the test CRC will not match the ripped one and its time to try secure rip.