[Giogio]

 

In my case I am only concerned with tags, I actually hate albums art. I delete them all and I find it annoying when some program almost force me to have that big thing there.

 

[Neccros]

still EAC does a decent job of tagging....Just dont opt for art and your good

 

[Makiah S]

  Know what's really interesting? I talked to a guy who was able to pass ABX tests comparing 24-bit, lossless 16-bit, and 256 kbps AAC, meaning that he could reliably tell the difference. Upon further inspection, I discovered that he used foobar2000 to convert the files. I recommended that he use dBpoweramp instead. After he converted the files with dBpoweramp, he could not tell them apart at all! Go figure.

Huh... you may have a very valid point, I use dB poweramp on my Desktop rig, and FooBar on my Laptop, though tbh my laptop isn't refferance by any means, so I've never made an attempt to ABX the quality between the two
 
still thanks for adding that in man 

 

[Makiah S]

  still EAC does a decent job of tagging....Just dont opt for art and your good

Oh I forgot to mention, I use a program called Tag&Rename for editing meta data, like Album Art, Artist and what not. EAC sometimes works but not always for me 

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Huh... you may have a very valid point, I use dB poweramp on my Desktop rig, and FooBar on my Laptop, though tbh my laptop isn't refferance by any means, so I've never made an attempt to ABX the quality between the two
 
still thanks for adding that in man 

 
It was probably a fluke:
 

  They should also be able to convert files that are identical. I suspect that the person I mentioned just had some settings activated in foobar2000 that were interfering with things.

 

[Makiah S]

   
It was probably a fluke:
 

Oh :/ well then... I guess were back to FooBar 2000 and EAC [with Tag&Rename if you want to "fine tune" your meta data] 

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Oh :/ well then... I guess were back to FooBar 2000 and EAC [with Tag&Rename if you want to "fine tune" your meta data] 

 
You're acting like you're disappointed. lol. All thee programs should rip and convert files 100% accurately as long as the disc is not damaged. I vastly prefer dBpoweramp due to its features, interface, and ease of use...pretty sure I already said that in this thread, though. hehe

 

[Giogio]

  pretty sure I already said that in this thread, though. hehe

http://www.head-fi.org/t/796259/time-to-re-rip-my-cds-with-better-quality-after-many-years-whats-the-best-tool-now#post_12288397

 

[HPiper]

I use dbpoweramp and I paid for it. I don't use it for any other reason other than the fact it is quite a bit faster than anything else I have tried and it has a ton of options so I can get it just how I want it. I didn't even know Foobar could rip cd's. I have used Jriver before and it does a good job but it still is slower than dba.

 

[Makiah S]

   
You're acting like you're disappointed. lol. All thee programs should rip and convert files 100% accurately as long as the disc is not damaged. I vastly prefer dBpoweramp due to its features, interface, and ease of use...pretty sure I already said that in this thread, though. hehe

well what's the fun is already having the solution you need lol! Problems and having to solve them is enjoyable... comparing, and breaking down the pro's and cons of each software is part of what makes this fun  

 

[Giogio]

So, guys, I was starting ripping (EAC, and, yes, I confirm, it supports different kind of dB sources, including an optional paid one, GD3).
I have a question about EAC, although, well, it is indeed about Normalization EDIT: Peak Normalization.
Would a value of 99 mean that my flac would never clip? I mean, I was explained (or so I understood) by @castleofargh that clipping happens when a file exceeds the digital limit of 0db.
So, normalizing at 99 should mean that the highest peak is a little bit below 0, right?
Because I am reading something Egyptian (not possible to understand for me) on a very old thread on Hydrogen about the need to leave something like 10db headroom when peak normalizing to prevent clipping. Although I am almost sure it was referred to burning a cd, not to ripping it...
SO I would like to understand if I can safely peak normalize at 99 when ripping with EAC directly to flac, or if I should choose 96, 93 or what.
The default value for Replay Gain is normally 89 but that is loudness normalization so I suppose that the reason of such a low value is that if the value would be 99 it is almost sure that peaks would be "over" 0, but you may confirm if I am right.
 
Also, is it possible to apply replay gain to flac? Mp3gain cannot, but I right clicked on a flac on Foobar and it showed Replay Gain values.
And, if it is possible, would a track peak-normalized at 76 sound quieter than one peak-normalized at 96, if both are replay-gained at 86?
 
Aaaand, would you use the flac encoder provided with EAC or is there another better option out there?
The EAC one reaches an average or 839 kBit/s bitrate and it is not possible to choose the freq and bit depth.

 

[Neccros]

Are the replay gain values you saw in foobar part of the metadata?  If so can these be edited manually instead of using something like MP3gain?

 

[Giogio]

I think so.
I wanted to Peak Normalize because I have some songs which still clip also with replay gain and "no clip" option.
Anyway, I have read a bit and, it is too complicated and not so interesting as result.
Let's leave it.
I rip "as it is", and I then use Foobar for Replay gain.
I just have to find a way to apply replay gain to all files together. Till now I only know I can select "apply replay gain" but I think this only works when files have replay gain info.
I can write replay gain info with Foobar, like with Mp3gain, but I did not find a way to do it to more than one song at a time.
 
Anyway EAC is slooooooooooooooooooooooow.
I have finally opted for secure option in drive settings, and low error recovery in general settings.
And when a CD is very scratched I use burst mode in drive setting and high error recovery in general (I know, it is supposed to be slower in high, but I have found that what makes the difference is the drive settings in this case, not the recovery ones).

 

[Music Alchemist]

I think it would be better to just use the free trial of dBpoweramp for very fast rips that can be verified to be accurate, and also to avoid ReplayGain altogether.

 

[Giogio]

why would I with dBpoweramp avoid Replay Gain?