[jjcha]

Not the most comprehensive or scientific of tests, but I ripped three CDs into .wav's using both EAC and iTunes. Actually, the iTunes versions were first ripped into Apple Lossless, then converted into .wav. I used file comparison software (ExamDiff Pro) to compare the files, and the result was the .wavs are exactly identical. Both programs were set for error correction.

This isn't to say EAC might be more handy for more damaged CDs, but just for these three average ones ripped through my presumably average DVD-RW drive (Pioneer DVD-RW DVR-103), there does not appear to be any advantage to using EAC.

Best regards,

-Jason

 

[blessingx]

EAC Overrated? Yes.
EAC still the best overall ripping software? Probably yes.

But... the thing that doesn't get discussed (besides the likely more important hardware), is if a CD is very scratched up would you sacrifice a more bit perfect copy for a more audibly perfect one? A scratch CD is likely either missing information or containing corrupted info. Do you want a bit perfect copy of a pop or scratch?

Again using different hardware (arguably the likely cause), I'm sometimes able to get less pops and crackles off my Mac and iTunes than my PC with EAC. It really depends on the damage though. Generally in good shape they both rip fine (haven't done any but listening tests). If it has light issues, EAC is usually up to the challenge and does a better job. If the cuts are many and deep, iTunes is usually able to get a better sounding rip with less problems. Lately, I just pretty much stick to iTunes.

 

[philodox]

I've said this before myself. I am currently using EAC because it is free and I have it set up the way I like, but it really is ony necissary when the disc is damaged.

 

[jefemeister]

I use EAC because the guy that wrote it seems extremely passionate and knowledgeable about audio extraction. I'm pretty confident that he looked over every little detail and can't say the same about Apple. In the end, I doubt it matters too much unless your disc has some large C2 errors. Personally, I think we as a whole overkill a lot of things. But if it's not worth doing right it's not worth doing at all.

 

[Asmo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jefemeister I use EAC because the guy that wrote it seems extremely passionate and knowledgeable about audio extraction. I'm pretty confident that he looked over every little detail and can't say the same about Apple. In the end, I doubt it matters too much unless your disc has some large C2 errors. Personally, I think we as a whole overkill a lot of things. But if it's not worth doing right it's not worth doing at all.

Well said, EAC has been around a long time and is well respected for ripping audio, I would never use anything else. I love ripping entire CDs into one wav with cue sheets.

 

[Stephonovich]

I agree that it's overrated (OMG IS T3H R0X0R!!!!111), but it's still quite a good program. I use it exclusively. As you mentioned, if you've got a completely un-scratched CD, there's really no reason to use it (unless you've slightly obsessive compulsive about things like 1/576th of a missing sample... offsets are a bitch, I tell you), unless you like it's interface.

As for really scratched CDs, if you still want to use EAC, set it to burst mode. Basically functions like any other ripper then.

 

[Jon L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjcha Not the most comprehensive or scientific of tests, but I ripped three CDs into .wav's using both EAC and iTunes. Actually, the iTunes versions were first ripped into Apple Lossless, then converted into .wav. I used file comparison software (ExamDiff Pro) to compare the files, and the result was the .wavs are exactly identical. Both programs were set for error correction. This isn't to say EAC might be more handy for more damaged CDs, but just for these three average ones ripped through my presumably average DVD-RW drive (Pioneer DVD-RW DVR-103), there does not appear to be any advantage to using EAC. Best regards, -Jason

I spent many hours the other day actually doing subjective listening tests of EAC-ripped .wav vs. iTunes-ripped .wav vs. iTunes-ripped Apple-lossless that's been converted to .wav, and tatatah! They all sound same to me played through my main two-speaker system.

 

[petery83]

If I'm ripping a badly scratched CD with EAC and it reports "no error occured" would I be getting the exact WAV as I would had I ripped an unscratched CD?

 

[madman2003]

There's always a small chance that you don't get an exact copy.
You could try use the test&copy ripping mode to get an extra level of security.

I personally rip all my cd's in secure mode, because i think that ripping a cd may take a while and should be done as best as possible.(patience is a virtue

)

Madman2003.

 

[taoster]

so its overrated because all it seems to be able to do is make Exact Audio Copies? yeah.. overrated

 

[roadtonowhere08]

It's not overrated. It can act like any other "fast" rippers, AND make perfect rips as well. It's one stop shopping

 

[Tim D]

Its overrated like medical insurance is overrated. There will be times you wonder if you ever really need it, and times that you wonder how you could ever be without it.

 

[jjcha]

To give a bit of context, I had seen people post implying (perhaps I was taking them out of context) that it's better to rip using EAC to .wav and then into Apple Lossless. Unless the CD is damaged, or you have all the time in the world, I don't see much point to this.

Also, I posted this after starting to re-rip my CD collection into .wav for my iRiver iHP140 -> Grace m902 combo. I have many already in Apple Lossless for my iPod, and am now saving a ton of time just converting those.

Besides, my point is it's overrated because iTunes can also make exact audio copies. And it does a hell of a lot more.

Best regards,

-Jason