EAC vs. CDEX?

[shuttleboi]

I've been ripping CDs to MP3 with CDEX using the latest Lame encoder, but I wonder if I've been missing out on any benefits afforded by EAC. My settings on Lame are the highest quality parameters and 320kbps. In CDEX, I use the highest "paranoia" levels to fix errors.

Is there anything about EAC that might make me switch?

 

[Chri5peed]

Personally I reckon EAC thoroughly owns CDex. Been using EAC for years now, but I used CDex originally and the files didn't sound as good to me.

 

[Akathriel]

CDEX and EAC are just rippers, he's encoding with LAME so the ripper shouldnt affect the sound. Anyway, EAC wins hands-down CDEX paranoia setting pale compared to the error correction abilities of EAC. But you dont really need error correction unless you've got scratched disks and CDEX is a faster ripper. So I guess it depends on your needs...
CDEX:Faster
EAC:Better rips on scratched cds
THE SIMPLE ANSWER:EAC

 

[Chri5peed]

edit - Didn't think this posted? Anyway, I don't agree with what I originally said, so away it goes!

 

[thomaspf]

I had many discs that did not appear to have any scratched but still caused EAC to do lots of re-reads.

Lack of visible scratching is in my experience not a sufficient indicator whether you can get perfect rip from a CD.

With EAC you are on the safe side.

Cheers

Thomas

 

[Chri5peed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomaspf I had many discs that did not appear to have any scratched but still caused EAC to do lots of re-reads. Lack of visible scratching is in my experience not a sufficient indicator whether you can get perfect rip from a CD. With EAC you are on the safe side. Cheers Thomas

Lolol, that was part of my deleted post!

I had a brand new sealed CD with errors on it. I don't care about how quick it is. IMO ripping is all about quality not how fast its done.

 

[AdamWill]

Um. AFAIK cdex is based on libparanoia, which simply won't give you anything but a perfect rip at its highest setting. If it can't get a perfect rip, it'll fail. I don't see how EAC can be better, with both properly configured.

 

[shuttleboi]

Thanks all for your replies. If both CDEX and EAC use LAME as encoders, then the only difference is the ripping, and in that case, the only difference would be how they treat bad CDs, right?

Let me say that 99% of my CDs are bought new (from Amazon or BMG Music Service). The remaining CDs are bought used (e.g. Half.com), and even then I usually go for the "like new" category and get pretty good CDs. Of the 300+ CDs I've ripped, CDEX with highest paranoia mode has never reported that it could not rip a CD.

Given these facts, I'm not losing out by not using EAC, right?

Thanks.

 

[AdamWill]

shuttle: I don't think so, no. There's an easy way to be sure: grab a bunch of CDs, rip them to .wav with both, and compare the files. They should be identical. Of course, if they're not, the trick will be finding out which one's wrong...

 

[terrymx]

what i want to know is even if the cd is scratch. how much of the original information are you loosing and if it really translate to audible difference at all.

i have scratches cd and i dont remember them sounding worse than when they are new. i think it have to be really bad scratches, not just minor.

 

[soulblaze]

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrymx what i want to know is even if the cd is scratch. how much of the original information are you loosing and if it really translate to audible difference at all. i have scratches cd and i dont remember them sounding worse than when they are new. i think it have to be really bad scratches, not just minor.

depends on how badly it's scratched and how good the error correction is on your cd player. Of course, if your ripping via EAC and have all the secure ripping stuff set, then it'll fail to rip rather than give you a bad rip.


..

as for shuttleboi's original question.. if you're using the highest paranoia setting on cdex and haven't noticed any cds slow to a crawl on ripping then you're fine. I've noticed libparanoia tends to try over and over and over again (or it used to at least) and there's a noticable difference in how long a good cd takes to rip vs. a bad one.

 

[halcyon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill Um. AFAIK cdex is based on libparanoia, which simply won't give you anything but a perfect rip at its highest setting. If it can't get a perfect rip, it'll fail. I don't see how EAC can be better, with both properly configured.

No, cdex is not as accurate as eac.

Try it yourself, you'll find it out.

Take a badly damaged cd (visibly scratched, bad mastering, bad burn).

Rip it with EAC and rip it with CDEX and compare results audibly.

EAC rip will have less audible glitches.

EAC advantages over CDEX:

- check for read consistency and presence of errors (via C2 and re-read)
- read into lead-in and lead-out
- extract gap information securely
- slow down speed of extraction to increase reading accuracy (reduce read errors)
- specificy the number of re-reads
- specify offset of the drive more accurately, resulting in no lost samples due to drive offset

The only real contender to EAC is Plextools Pro with a modern Plextor drive using it's internal extraction routines with "recover best bytes" mode on.