Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › One ripper's FLAC vs another
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

One ripper's FLAC vs another

post #1 of 7
1/21/13 at 6:41pm
Thread Starter 

So I'm in the process of converting my CD collection to flac. I've lost so many in the past that I don't want to risk it anymore, and I still buy CD's.

 

I started using EAC, then dbpoweramp, just to try a different program. I've also used 2 different external DVD drives as well.

 

So does it matter what ripper or drive configuration I use?

loseless is loseless right? If I'm making a "timeproof"collection I want to make sure I'm doing it the right way.

Reply
post #2 of 7
1/21/13 at 6:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiont View Post

So I'm in the process of converting my CD collection to flac. I've lost so many in the past that I don't want to risk it anymore, and I still buy CD's.

 

I started using EAC, then dbpoweramp, just to try a different program. I've also used 2 different external DVD drives as well.

 

So does it matter what ripper or drive configuration I use?

loseless is loseless right? If I'm making a "timeproof"collection I want to make sure I'm doing it the right way.


The drive configuration and programs may differ in terms of encoding performance, for example, dbpoweramp can make use of multiple cores on your pc, and your cd drive can have different reading speeds.

 

But as long as they use the same encoder (ie FLAC) the output files should be identical.

Reply
post #3 of 7
1/21/13 at 9:09pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks, I see, Basically the output will be the same if they are properly configured.
Reply
post #4 of 7
1/21/13 at 9:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiont View Post

Thanks, I see, Basically the output will be the same if they are properly configured.


Yeah, if you choose the same encoding options, the output should be the same.

Reply
post #5 of 7
1/22/13 at 8:11pm

EAC with secure ripping has managed to bring some CDs back from the brink of unreadability. I am thankful not to have to buy new copies and stick to digital backups.

Reply
post #6 of 7
1/23/13 at 5:20am

As long as the program is able to read the CD correctly, there is no difference. Problem is, how do you know it was read correctly? For reliability's sake, a good ripping program should read the disk multiple times. EAC does this with secure mode. If you look at the log it produces, there's a value for "track quality". If it's less than 100%, there were differences in the passes. EAC makes sure to correct these by doing additional passes and comparing. There are also certain features of the CD drive that the program should disable or shouldn't rely on. For example, audio caching. This makes reading the disk multiple times useless, because when you read the disk again, the drive just returns data from the cache, so you don't know whether the sector was actually bad.

 

Further confirmation is possible by comparing your rip with others'. EAC does this by looking up checksums from the AccurateRip database.

Reply
post #7 of 7
1/23/13 at 5:31am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaark View Post

As long as the program is able to read the CD correctly, there is no difference. Problem is, how do you know it was read correctly? For reliability's sake, a good ripping program should read the disk multiple times. EAC does this with secure mode. If you look at the log it produces, there's a value for "track quality". If it's less than 100%, there were differences in the passes. EAC makes sure to correct these by doing additional passes and comparing. There are also certain features of the CD drive that the program should disable or shouldn't rely on. For example, audio caching. This makes reading the disk multiple times useless, because when you read the disk again, the drive just returns data from the cache, so you don't know whether the sector was actually bad.

 

Further confirmation is possible by comparing your rip with others'. EAC does this by looking up checksums from the AccurateRip database.

That is a good tip about disabling cache, thanks. I was bummed because my drive didn't support it, but I guess it was a good thing.

 

My tracks always get 100% so far. Except for one from Metallica's S&M cd, it went "unsecure" with about 97%. I tried both EAC and dbpoweramp several times, they take about 7 minutes trying to rip it over several passes.

The CD is not in the greatest condition though, so I guess I'll live with it 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › One ripper's FLAC vs another