Use Nero for exact copies 1:1 for cd's?
Feb 18, 2004 at 4:24 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 11
Silver5656

Silver5656

New Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 12, 2004
Posts
38
Likes
0
if i use nero will i lose any quality? (dunno if this is a stupid question).......and how much difference in quality is it between usin eac/lame insane 320 and full copy?.......
 
Feb 18, 2004 at 4:32 AM Post #2 of 11
if you use lame, you are compressing the audio so that is WORST than outputting to WAV (or a 1:1 full copy)

EAC would be better if there are errors on your CDs from too many scratches.
 
Feb 18, 2004 at 4:43 AM Post #3 of 11
i should clarify......

1. if i burn my original audio cd onto another cd will i lose any audio quality?....or will it be exactly the same

2. IF i use eac+lame insane how much quality is LOST compared to an original cd
 
Feb 18, 2004 at 4:55 AM Post #4 of 11
1. If you use EAC and the data is read perfectly then the data will be the same on a burned CD. Whether it plays the same is debatable. Some say media, CD burner, burning rate, and the reader you have can give different results in readbility and jitter.

2. It's the same question as how much is MP3 different than WAV.

Quantifying each depends on how good your equipment and ears are. Nobody can answer how much is lost / differentexcept for yourself.
 
Feb 18, 2004 at 5:05 AM Post #5 of 11
so would i be better off making 1:1 copies using eac as opposed to nero?.......as for the 2nd question i can BARELY tell the difference between full cd's and 320 insane......even using my friends cd3k the last couple days i could barely tell the difference......just wanted to get other peoples opinoins....and thanks for ure quick reply!
 
Feb 18, 2004 at 6:00 AM Post #6 of 11
No prob. Yes using EAC will guarantee better quality as it's the best audio ripper. Just run it in secure mode.

When up upgrade, you can tell the difference between MP3s and CDs easier. It better to be safe by using WAVs.
 
Feb 18, 2004 at 6:03 AM Post #7 of 11
lan is correct, however, I must say that I very rarely see a burn error from Nero -- these are super apparent in most CDROMs, for example.

Most likely, for a good (physical) quality CD, Nero will give you an exact copy.
 
Feb 18, 2004 at 8:01 AM Post #8 of 11
hmmmm if i use eac to copy a music cd is it considered "ripping?".....and does it give you a "measurement" as to the quality/exactness of the copy?....i burned one and dont see it anywhere
 
Feb 18, 2004 at 8:35 AM Post #9 of 11
Anytime you extract audio from a CD, it's ripping (even if behind the scenes). When ripping with EAC, a report is given at the end which lists the rip quality (without problems usually 99%-100%). If there's a suspicious block of data it will tell you that also.

But as mentioned before, if the CD is a good condition, a rip in Nero or iTunes should be perfect also. It's only when there's problems with the CD, does EAC advantages take hold.
 
Feb 18, 2004 at 10:07 AM Post #10 of 11
eh i'll just stick with eac then =P but b4 i copy it says "detection mode not possible for this drive".....so i did it with gap detection c and it works......i read the faq and it wasnt really clear.....should i use secure, accurate, or inaccurate gap detection?
 
Feb 18, 2004 at 12:20 PM Post #11 of 11
Quote:

Originally posted by Silver5656
so would i be better off making 1:1 copies using eac as opposed to nero?


There are two issues in regards to the accuracy of a copy:
1) sound (i.e., are the bits the same)
2) structure (i.e., are the gaps the same, does the music start at the same offset within a track, etc.)

You guys have covered the first one (i.e., don't use PCM to MP3 to PCM). The second one is trickier, but EAC can do that too. I doubt Nero can.

It just takes a little luck and perfect configuration of EAC -- which can take some effort. The effort was worth it to me (I ripped everything to FLAC with the idea that I would never have to re-rip my collection).

Check out this tutorial here http://www.ping.be/satcp/eac00.htm on configuring EAC.

Cheers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top