Ripping CDs with EAC just for archival purposes?
Jul 23, 2008 at 4:51 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 11

XXII

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Posts
1,790
Likes
15
I was hoping that somebody can help me with the following question. I understand from reading past threads on this topics that ripping with EAC is the best way to rip a CD to a computer. My question is this: Given a CD in good condition (e.g. no scratches), is using EAC to rip the CD to lossless just for archival purposes? Is it possible to actually HEAR the difference between a flac ripped using EAC and a flac ripped using (say) WMP?

Thanks for your help!
 
Jul 23, 2008 at 8:58 PM Post #2 of 11

breakfastchef

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Posts
913
Likes
11
Ripping a CD to any lossless format will preserve the music as it was when pressed/scribed into the physical CD. I do not believe there would be a quality difference if you used FLAC, WAV or an Apple lossless format.

I use the resulting FLAC files from EAC (or other ripping apps) both as an archive and to listen to through my Sqeezebox v. 3.
 
Jul 23, 2008 at 9:44 PM Post #3 of 11

LnxPrgr3

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 23, 2008
Posts
258
Likes
11
I would expect that, with a good CD and a good drive, there wouldn't even be a bit for bit difference, let alone an audible one. In practice, I'd test this by ripping using both programs and comparing the audio data.

I believe even Windows Media Player supports at least some error correction, and if this is the case, then it should be fine to rip in WMP even if your drive isn't flawless.
 
Jul 24, 2008 at 12:37 AM Post #5 of 11

floydenheimer

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
704
Likes
12
EAC has the most accurate ripping methods because it uses Accurate Rip and secure mode. I don't think WMP has any of those features that are essential ensuring that your archive is 100% accurate.
 
Jul 24, 2008 at 12:47 AM Post #6 of 11

XXII

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Posts
1,790
Likes
15
Quote:

Originally Posted by floydenheimer /img/forum/go_quote.gif
EAC has the most accurate ripping methods because it uses Accurate Rip and secure mode. I don't think WMP has any of those features that are essential ensuring that your archive is 100% accurate.


Thanks for your answers

I guess the main problem I have with EAC is that as far as I'm aware, it doesn't support Chinese characters. One of the main benefits for me of using WMP and ripping to WMA lossless is that no matter how obscure a CD I put in, it always seems to be able to recognize it. I'm not good at typing chinese characters so this is a huge benefit for me.

Is there a program that allows you to check how accurate your rip is after it's been made? e.g. I rip to WMA lossless using WMP then check whether the rip was decent using a different program?
 
Jul 24, 2008 at 2:15 AM Post #7 of 11

LnxPrgr3

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 23, 2008
Posts
258
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by floydenheimer /img/forum/go_quote.gif
EAC has the most accurate ripping methods because it uses Accurate Rip and secure mode. I don't think WMP has any of those features that are essential ensuring that your archive is 100% accurate.


But are these necessary for undamaged CDs?

I don't use Windows, so I can't test this with EAC, but I can test cdparanoia, which is the accurate ripping solution for Linux. Other ripping programs on Linux are nearly universally frontends to this tool.

I used three modes. The first had no error checking. The second did just overlap checking. The third was full error correction.

The results? Here are the md5sums of the output:
0b358cb078a2dda9f9ae5c9d06d623cf cdda-1.wav
0b358cb078a2dda9f9ae5c9d06d623cf cdda-2.wav
0b358cb078a2dda9f9ae5c9d06d623cf cdda-3.wav

The only noticeable difference was that it took mere seconds to rip without the error correction -- a four minute track took 8 seconds to rip with the fastest mode, vs. nearly 17 seconds in the slowest.
 
Jul 24, 2008 at 5:29 AM Post #8 of 11

floydenheimer

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
704
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by LnxPrgr3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
But are these necessary for undamaged CDs?

I don't use Windows, so I can't test this with EAC, but I can test cdparanoia, which is the accurate ripping solution for Linux. Other ripping programs on Linux are nearly universally frontends to this tool.

I used three modes. The first had no error checking. The second did just overlap checking. The third was full error correction.

The results? Here are the md5sums of the output:
0b358cb078a2dda9f9ae5c9d06d623cf cdda-1.wav
0b358cb078a2dda9f9ae5c9d06d623cf cdda-2.wav
0b358cb078a2dda9f9ae5c9d06d623cf cdda-3.wav

The only noticeable difference was that it took mere seconds to rip without the error correction -- a four minute track took 8 seconds to rip with the fastest mode, vs. nearly 17 seconds in the slowest.



Accurate rip provides offsets for specific drives, since the lasers aren't completely accurate when a certain block is called. So a program will call block 1000 and the drive might go to 998, the accurate rip offset will fix that so it goes to 1000. So yes, if you have an undamaged, pristine cd and you rip with the same drive, you're going to get the same result. But with another drive you might get a different result due to the laser's inaccuracy. Chances are the music will be fine, but it won't be an exact copy.
 
Jul 24, 2008 at 6:24 AM Post #9 of 11

LnxPrgr3

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 23, 2008
Posts
258
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by floydenheimer /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Accurate rip provides offsets for specific drives, since the lasers aren't completely accurate when a certain block is called. So a program will call block 1000 and the drive might go to 998, the accurate rip offset will fix that so it goes to 1000.


Unless I missed one, the worst offset listed is around 40ms, and average performance is better than this. My desktop drive's listed offset is ~272ns. I doubt this is going to create an audible problem.

If you are worried about this offset, I guess WMP won't work for you.

As an aside, cdparanoia will though
biggrin.gif

Code:

Code:
[left][b]-O --sample-offset[/b] [u]number[/u] Use this option to force the entire disc to shift sample posi- tion output by the given amount[/left]

 
Jul 24, 2008 at 11:48 AM Post #10 of 11

badmonkey

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Posts
338
Likes
11
The practical problem of offset is that you can't compare your rip to that of others via the AccurateRip database. To do so you need to calibrate your drive. The EAC set-up process will hold your hand through all this (have a popular music CD inserted at the time).

However if you're only worried about a clean rip, then WMP or anything else will rip a CD in decent condition with no problem. In practice EAC rarely gives any technical benefit. However it's nice to use it and let it do its error checking when/if it wants, in addition to confirmation from AccurateRip if possible, for peace of mind.
 
Jul 24, 2008 at 12:45 PM Post #11 of 11

scompton

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Posts
6,060
Likes
24
I buy a lot of used and abused CDs so I like using EAC. Unfortunately, about half of my CDs aren't in Accurate Rip, or are different pressings. I also use itunesencoder which the latest release of iTunes broke.

If you use itunesencoder, don't upgrade to iTunes 7.7
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top