Topic: Which is better ripping method? (Read 7542 times)

Rizlaw · « **on:** June 20, 2003, 12:24:36 pm »

I am wondering which of the following two ripping methods will yield the best results with MC9. I am using the new Plextor Premium CDRW drive for ripping.

1. Using Exact Audio Copy's secure mode and APE 3.98 "High" compression,

or

2. Using MC9's secure rip mode with built in APE 3.98.

What is the difference, if any, between EAC's secure rip mode and MC9's secure rip mode?

Addendum (6/20/03 @ 11:30pm) The reason I am asking, is because I just purchased the CD soundtrack to the movie "X2". This brand spanking new CD had a pristine surface, and yet, I could not rip the last two tracks without serious audible pops and clicks. I used both ripping methods described in this post. I ultimately concluded that the CD must have an invisible pressing defect that was beyond Accurate Stream / C2 error correction of my Plextor/MC9/EAC. The disc has since been returned to Amazon for a replacement.

Thanks to all who have responded to this post.

xen-uno · « **Reply #1 on:** June 20, 2003, 12:38:59 pm »

The main difference nowadays is speed...I think EAC is faster (but haven't tested...so I should shaddup). As far as accuracy goes...they're twins from different mothers. I personally still use EAC (multi-tracks into one file, cue sheets, and a few other features pertaining to ripping/encoding is where EAC has it all over MC). They complement each other, though.

10^-27

rocketsauce · « **Reply #2 on:** June 20, 2003, 12:55:20 pm »

Since you're using a Plextor drive for ripping, consider using the Plextools software that came with it.

I've been using Plextools with my Plextor and have been getting flawless rips, even on CDs that EAC (and other rippers) couldn't handle. It will also rip much faster than EAC. The newest versions also have the option to rip to Monkey's Audio, all you have to do is put the mac.dll in the same directory as plextool.exe.

You can get the latest version of Plextools here:

http://www.plextor.co.jp/plextools/

Rob

MachineHead · « **Reply #3 on:** June 20, 2003, 04:15:50 pm »

Quote

EAC is better. If your drive caches audio data, EAC can account for it, but MC9 cannot. This is the most important point that I know of, and it can be a very important one.

C2 is not a given with EAC. There a ton references to this fact. Accurate stream has more accountabilty. You can search numerous places to find this out.

MC in secure mode is just about as good as EAC. There a few things that EAC has going for it that MC does not. Ability to create .M3U playlist upon extraction. CRC checksums is another. As well as what was mentioned by the above members. And according to a recent post from Matt, when using MC and making APE files, there is probably nothing that is more accurate.

But, I never did get a true confirmation of proof of this. I'd like to see it myself.

Empyrean · « **Reply #4 on:** June 20, 2003, 07:12:26 pm »

Anyone know of any MP3 FAQ's out on the 'net that cover this? I'd be up for reading it if I could better understand what is considered good ripping standards, etc.

// AJ

MachineHead · « **Reply #5 on:** June 21, 2003, 04:20:22 am »

Here is the thread I referred to.

@Empyrean

Try Hydrogen Audio in the CD-R and Audio Hardware part of the forum. A bunch of info on EAC. Could also try the EAC's own forum.

nila · « **Reply #6 on:** June 21, 2003, 02:58:01 pm »

As for the pop's and clicks. Make sure the cd doesn't have any copy protection built into it.

Some of the more greedy anoying companies are doing this to some of the music these days and it's causing a lot of legal people (the only people who get the problems are the ones who have paid for the cd's - if you download it illegally you dont get any problems) a LOT of hassles.

It usually says somewhere on the CD if it is protected.

If it is I recommend you download a copy off of the internet as they usually have managed to rip them perfectly without the pop's. You already paid for the album so if you wanna download it great.

Also - if it does have protection if I was you I'd send it back and get a refund. Dont support ANY cd's with protection or it'll give them the impression they can screw us over and do whatever they want to us and we'll just live with it. Tell them you wont put up with it by hitting them where it hurts - their wallets

mijkuf · « **Reply #7 on:** June 21, 2003, 05:31:52 pm »

Quote

C2 is not a given with EAC. There a ton references to this fact. Accurate stream has more accountabilty. You can search numerous places to find this out.

MC in secure mode is just about as good as EAC. There a few things that EAC has going for it that MC does not. Ability to create .M3U playlist upon extraction. CRC checksums is another. As well as what was mentioned by the above members. And according to a recent post from Matt, when using MC and making APE files, there is probably nothing that is more accurate.

But, I never did get a true confirmation of proof of this. I'd like to see it myself.

I don't know what you mean with your comment regarding C2 and accurate stream.

I just installed PlexTools Professional 2.04 (and what a pain--I had to obtain version 1.09, posted on some web site, and install it just so 2.04 would see it and let me proceed--after UNinstalling 1.09). For my drive at least (a W1610A), PlexTool Professional doesn't seem to offer anything that MC9 and EAC don't. In fact, it seems to be less optimal, if you don't want to rely on C2 error information (since it won't attempt rereads unless C2 reports an error). If you have a Plextor Premium drive, it might be a whole other story.

However--and it's a big "however"--PlexTools Professional may be MUCH better at ripping copy-protected CD-ROMs, since it offers a "read 1st session only" option. This might make PlexTools Professional work where all others fail, if what I read in the Audiograbber forum is to be believed.

I still suspect that on drives that cache audio data, MC9 in secure mode will read audio data, than go back and do a reread on the cache, not the disc itself.

MachineHead · « **Reply #8 on:** June 21, 2003, 06:36:06 pm »

Jerking your original post doesn't help.

C2 error correction with EAC is not as well documented or tested as A.S. Even the basic set up of EAC points this out.

The rest was general info not directed at you in particular.

mijkuf · « **Reply #9 on:** June 21, 2003, 08:15:43 pm »

Well I lost confidence in some of the stuff I had written, so I pulled the whole thing.

I confess that all this garbage confuses me. I'm left not knowing who or what utility to trust. For example... more than one resource has indicated that my drive's read offset is +99. However, PlexTools Professional tells me it is -396. I haven't tried determining it myself, because it's such a pain.

PlexTools Professional's help file is next to useless where DAE is concerned... it doesn't really explain the consequences of each option for error recovery. Then you're left to wonder whether it's better to rely on C2 error information, or a utility that always rereads audio data... then you're left wondering which utilites don't really reread audio data because of caching... then another 300 curve balls fly your way.

Oh just use MC9! ?

Omni · « **Reply #10 on:** June 21, 2003, 10:01:08 pm »

Quote

I confess that all this garbage confuses me. I'm left not knowing who or what utility to trust. For example... more than one resource has indicated that my drive's read offset is +99. However, PlexTools Professional tells me it is -396. I haven't tried determining it myself, because it's such a pain.

See this external thread for an explanation of this.

Quote

PlexTools Professional's help file is next to useless where DAE is concerned... it doesn't really explain the consequences of each option for error recovery. Then you're left to wonder whether it's better to rely on C2 error information, or a utility that always rereads audio data... then you're left wondering which utilites don't really reread audio data because of caching... then another 300 curve balls fly your way.

And while you are over at the above link, do a search for "cache" and user "Pio2001", grab a coke and a snack, and start reading.

If you are looking for a "do this and all will be fine" type of answer, I can relate. I used to feel the exact same way. With all the info floating around out there, it's like one needs a degree in audio engineering or something just to rip a simple CD.

For what it's worth, for new (or fairly new) CD's, MC will do you fine. (I still use secure mode, though I don't think it gains me anything.) I have ripped hundreds of CD's without a click or pop. For scratched CD's, you'll probably want to stick with EAC or PlexTools.

Omni

mijkuf · « **Reply #11 on:** June 21, 2003, 10:33:36 pm »

Thanks! That explains a lot. I see that the two figures actually do agree.

I'll stick with EAC, since it seems like the surest thing.

(Grab a snake?)

Omni · « **Reply #12 on:** June 21, 2003, 11:34:09 pm »

Quote

(Grab a snake?)

LOL (at myself)... I meant snack.

mijkuf · « **Reply #13 on:** June 21, 2003, 11:48:45 pm »

Freudian slip.

xen-uno · « **Reply #14 on:** June 22, 2003, 12:48:38 am »

I have never worried about offset in EAC. It is disabled (or 0) on 5 machines that EAC is installed on. All have different drives and all have produced perfect rips (no track lead-in/out problems). Offset is not important if you rip the whole CD (or otherwise AFAIAC).

R_x

mijkuf · « **Reply #15 on:** June 22, 2003, 01:10:43 am »

That's one thing I know for sure, and as I said before... read offset is not important. It's more important if you encode each song on a CD separately, but even then you're talking about a handful of milliseconds--hardly anything to be concerned over.

Here is a decent reference, though the whole subject is a waste of time: http://www.ping.be/satcp/eacoffsets00.htm#-

Mastiff · « **Reply #16 on:** June 22, 2003, 03:43:02 am »

Quote

As for the pop's and clicks. Make sure the cd doesn't have any copy protection built into it.

I use a laserdisk player (Pioneer) with digital out and simply record the CD's via the Audigy SPDIF in. I have tried on different types of music, and when the files are compressed in Lame audiophile settings I can't hear the difference between ripped and recorded tracks. The only hassle is that you have to type in track names and all that other stuff manually. But this also works on CD's that are so scratched that I can't rip them normally with EAC, they give me too much trouble. I think I remember something about standalone CD players having error correction methods that lets them read discs that a CD ROM drive can't read.

xen-uno · « **Reply #17 on:** June 22, 2003, 04:51:32 am »

Audio CD's use Solomon-Reed encoding. Component CD players use this for error correction. CD-ROM drives should also as long as you tie into the analog out jacks on the drive itself. Digital Extraction/Playback bypasses SRE...but some kind of correction must occur at some point. But as you said, component players can read disks that CD-ROM's sometimes can't. I think it's mostly due to ROM's needing bit for bit accuracy, and so are less tolerant of lots of errors which would make the drive have to guess. That's something component players can get away with...but not ROM/R/RW drives.

R_x

kiwi · « **Reply #18 on:** June 23, 2003, 08:03:20 pm »

Well, after spending the better part of two hours winding my way from one source of information to another, I'm stil very unclear as to whether it makes any difference whether I'm using EAC or MC for ripping. And which settings should be used. i.e. MC in Secure Digital mode, or just digital large buffer.

I'm ripping to APE files, so I would like to have the most accurate ripping possible. However, if both programs give 100% bit accurate ripping, then it becomes a question of the interface. If I were ripping to MP3s, I wouldn't really worry about the quality as much, since it's probably masked considerably by the MP3 encoding (at ~160kbps).

-kiwi

MachineHead · « **Reply #19 on:** June 24, 2003, 12:58:46 am »

Kiwi -

Digital secure just informs you that an error has occured and tries to re-read up to 16 times. This might have changed and is the last figure (IIRC) I'd seen from J River crew some months ago.

EAC will go even more, but sometimes it can seem like an endless loop.

Digital large buffer is the speediest. Thought it will not inform you if an error has occured.

Error correcting mode in MC will sometimes make short work of a balky cd. But this not a given.

MP3's should actually have as good a rip as any other format. Better the rip, better the mp3's. (I used to think like you).

Personally, I use EAC in secure mode, no offsets enabled and go from there. It's only because I like the ability to add CRC checksums to the comment field (mp3) and the .m3u playlist upon extraction. Otherwise I find no real distinct benefit from one to the other.

For APE you might want to try APL's. I do not have as much experience with these.

Dragyn, are you reading this? You use APL's don't you?

kiwi · « **Reply #20 on:** June 24, 2003, 01:52:42 pm »

MachineHead - Are APL APE Play Lists? Or something different?

What do you do to get the CRC CheckSums into the Comment fields? That sounds like a really good idea.

At the moment, I am using EAC with Secure Mode right now, encode to APEs and then convert to MP3s in batch mode later. This seems to be a fairly easy way to do things, however, my father is putting together a system for listening to music. He could probably use EAC w/o any problems but just using MC would be easier. However, he is first concerned with sound quality so if EAC will give him a better chance of not having problems, then I'll probably have him go with that. He has quite a few old CDs that he will be ripping.

Thanks,
kiwi

xen-uno · « **Reply #21 on:** June 24, 2003, 02:07:32 pm »

I'm pretty sure that APL's are ape cue sheets. Haven't used them, could be wrong.

10^-27

kiwi · « **Reply #22 on:** June 24, 2003, 02:12:41 pm »

CUE sheets meaning that I can rip the CD as one APE track and then break it apart later?

Will EAC create APLs?

xen-uno · « **Reply #23 on:** June 24, 2003, 02:43:46 pm »

I think the original intent of cue sheets was that with a compatible player, you could skip from track to track as though they were single entities. It's perfectly logical that they could be used to break apart a monolithic file into individual tracks. I haven't played with this yet, but now that I have some serious off-computer storage capabilities (Sony DVD), I will jump headfirst into it.

As far as APL generation from EAC is concerned, I think it would (assuming that APL generation is a command line option for the encoder). If not, EAC can generate it's own cue sheet. May be possible for EAC to generate both. I'll know the ins and outs by next Monday (or sooner).

10^-27

MachineHead · « **Reply #24 on:** June 24, 2003, 02:47:01 pm »

Get Monkey's frontend. It will make an APL.

zevele10 · « **Reply #25 on:** June 24, 2003, 03:29:02 pm »

Why do you rip cds as one track?
This i really do not get it

xen-uno · « **Reply #26 on:** June 24, 2003, 03:59:35 pm »

I wouldn't (and don't) for tracks meant for a computer or portable. But for archiving I would. Consider it to be a compressed disk image that is still playable. I haven't had the chance yet to see how it will work with cue sheets and what that entails (such as splitting later, tagging, or recreating an audio disk).

10^-27

kiwi · « **Reply #27 on:** June 24, 2003, 04:38:19 pm »

I've been trying to figure out wether there were any reasons to do it other than for archiving. I'm hoping that by creating a CUE sheet+individual tracks as APEs, I can recreate any CDs that I need to w/o too much trouble. Sure, my offsets could be a few mm off, but hopefully there won't be too many other issues.

Not that I plan on losing my real CDs, and after ripping them all, I don't think that I will really use them again. If I need a CD for my car, I'll just burn it. Sure it'll take 3.5 minuts or so, but with CD-Rs costing $7-10 for 100, why not... and you never lose or scratch the originals. Now, I just need to figure out an inexpensive way of labeling the CDs... (sharpie seems to be the best option at the moment), however, I saw a label printer that looked like it might work well, it's only black that it can print, but all I really want are simple labels.

-kiwi

zevele10 · « **Reply #28 on:** June 25, 2003, 06:48:01 am »

Ok ,so it is for archivage .
But what do you gain to burn a full album as one track?
Time to burn ? Room ? In this case that much room ?

I understand your archivage is on dics ,cd or dvd disk.

kiwi

For cds you want to play in the car ,do not put any label on it.

xen-uno · « **Reply #29 on:** June 25, 2003, 07:05:46 am »

2 things...

1) Gap between tracks will be preserved with no worry about offsets. It is an exact copy of the original CD.

2) No need to join tracks together that blend in with each other. I don't split tracks that do this (so I use EAC's Copy Range). Abrupt cutoffs are irritating though not too noticeable with cross fading (but that's player dependent).

10^-27

rocketsauce · « **Reply #30 on:** June 25, 2003, 03:59:10 pm »

Quote

NewEgg.com has 200-GB hard drives for $185 as I write this

And how many of those at $185 a piece would it take to store all 2000+ of my cds?

Quote

I don't believe in lossy crap, or compromise, so I use APE.

Have you actually done any blind listening tests to see if you can really hear the difference between .ape/cd and .mpc, etc?

Quote

And saying that the storage space is too expensive makes no sense, if you are the type to plunk down good cash for a sound card, or a stereo system, or your other hardware. Just the fact that you take part in threads like this tends to indicate that you are serious enough to be using lossless and the hardware it requires.

You're sure making some pretty broad assumptions about the people who participate in these forums. I bet you'd be suprised to find out how many don't have high-end soundcards or hi-fi systems. Just because $185 is inexpensive to you doesn't mean that it is for people who live in other parts of the world.

Rob

MachineHead · « **Reply #31 on:** June 25, 2003, 05:52:26 pm »

Quote

Keep arguing about OGG versus MPC. I don't believe in lossy crap, or compromise, so I use APE. Hard drives are more than big enough these days for lossless.

And saying that the storage space is too expensive makes no sense, if you are the type to plunk down good cash for a sound card, or a stereo system, or your other hardware. Just the fact that you take part in threads like this tends to indicate that you are serious enough to be using lossless and the hardware it requires. NewEgg.com has 200-GB hard drives for $185 as I write this. Forget arguing over lackluster lossless codecs and swim with the big boys.

Oh no, people who have already taken the time to rip and encode their collection with MPC will be upset at me. Oh well. Here we go with the "MPC sounds just as good as the originals, and I listen to my music LOUD, and I mean real, real LOUD!" arguments. I bet the same people were defending 128-kbps MP3 as being "CD quality" a few years back as well.

I never cease to be amazed by how much better my own files sound than any other ones I ever come across. The others always have artifacts, pops, clicks, and a general reduction in sound quality. This is true regardless of what codec was used, or what magical bitrate. I probably wouldn't complain so loudly if I didn't have good hearing and a set of Sennheiser HD-600 headphones.

I know the pops and clicks are due to the codec--they are due to idiotic ripping methods, junky software, and the fact that people don't LISTEN to what they just ripped and encoded. So, this thread has done me good, because it has caused me to reevaluate my own methods and music collection. Maybe other tools and techniques would have done just or nearly as well, but I used EAC and APE, and all of my files sound absolutely indistinguishable from the originals. That's good enough for me!

WTF does this statement have to do with ripping? Need a rant, start your own blowhard thread.

mijkuf · « **Reply #32 on:** June 25, 2003, 08:51:59 pm »

Quote

And how many of those at $185 a piece would it take to store all 2000+ of my cds?

Four. That's $740. I spent that much on my headphones and headphone amp alone.

Quote

Have you actually done any blind listening tests to see if you can really hear the difference between .ape/cd and .mpc, etc?

Yes, and then afterward, I did non-blind tests. It was obvious both times. I'm not saying that MPC or OGG sounds bad all the time, just that it isn't top-flight.

If I ran warm water and cold water through a faucet, and had you put your hand under each, wouldn't you be able to tell the difference, even if it wasn't a "blind" test? Yes, you would. Some things are just that obvious.

Quote

You're sure making some pretty broad assumptions about the people who participate in these forums. I bet you'd be suprised to find out how many don't have high-end soundcards or hi-fi systems. Just because $185 is inexpensive to you doesn't mean that it is for people who live in other parts of the world.

You're right. Especially since all the regulars here post constantly, indicating that they are either jobless, or soon will be.

Any other goofy questions? I will ignore God's post below--he is in a class of his own.

rocketsauce · « **Reply #33 on:** June 25, 2003, 11:23:28 pm »

Quote

That's $740. I spent that much on my headphones and headphone amp alone.

Well, then I would venture to say that you are the exception rather than the rule. I personally can't stand listening thru headphones.

Quote

Yes, and then afterward, I did non-blind tests.

Non-blind tests don't really tell you anything other than you probably chose the format that you think should sound better due to placebo effect. Just out of curiosity, how did you perform your blind tests?

Quote

If I ran warm water and cold water through a faucet, and had you put your hand under each, wouldn't you be able to tell the difference, even if it wasn't a "blind" test? Yes, you would. Some things are just that obvious.

If the difference is really that obvious to you, then I guess you must be one of the lucky few blessed with "golden ears".

However, most people don't have golden ears.

BTW, that was a pretty goofy analogy.

Rob

MachineHead · « **Reply #34 on:** June 26, 2003, 12:24:26 am »

Hmmm. Funny how you pick a week that the big guy is gone to start your BS all over again.

Just for the record, and this should be obvious to anyone, spell zealots name backwards. Need I say more? How's your I Q?

MachineHead · « **Reply #35 on:** June 26, 2003, 06:04:13 pm »

PS - Chicken Shiite. When you're quoted you can delete and somebody still has a record.

And...

Next time you are in front of your Fisher-Price^tm Speak & Spell, try to to come up with more than one a syllable poke. My 5 year old has called me nastier things then that.

Omni · « **Reply #36 on:** June 26, 2003, 07:19:41 pm »

Hmmm... I have no idea going on. Leave a thread for a few hours, and wow! All sorts of confusion breaks out.

Go figure.

Anyway, back on topic, I'm going to go buy Plextor's Premium drive tomorrow (to replace my current Yamaha CRW-F1 drive). Why? Because it's just a hundred bucks, and I want to give PlexTools a shot. Besides, I've always been a loyal Plextor user until this most recent drive, and now that they have FINALLY fixed their seeking problem, I look forward to going back to them.

I honestly do believe EAC is overkill for most people's purposes. For scratched CD's, sure, it's a must-have. But after one has archived all his or her "old" CD's, it's a moot issue since, presumably, he or she will rip all future CD's fresh out of the box, right? <shrug>

Okay, so, there's no real point to this post, but if I discover anything interesting while using PlexTools, I'll let you guys know.

Omni

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: Which is better ripping method? (Read 7542 times)

MachineHead

MachineHead

nila

mijkuf

MachineHead

mijkuf

mijkuf

mijkuf

mijkuf

MachineHead

MachineHead

zevele10

zevele10

MachineHead

mijkuf

MachineHead

MachineHead