[DennyL]

I use CDex to rip to FLAC and to Ogg. I've read many posts here where posters say EAC is the 'best' ripper. I recently wanted to try EAC and didn't even get through the install procedure. I've since found a guide and would probably get through it if I tried again, but why would I want to? CDex is easy to install, quick to use and free. How does a file ripped by EAC differ from a file ripped by other (inferior?) rippers?

Thank you for any replies.

 

[poo]

To keep it simple - the encoding system is 'better' at reproducing audio as close as possible to the original than most other applications. EAC is about the quality of reproduction, if necessary, at the expense of file size or encoding time. It also has fantastic third party software support, and can be customised more than most other applications like it.

I agree there are much better programs available from other points of view, such as GUI prettiness or simplicity or speed - just depends what is important to you.

 

[DennyL]

Quote:

Originally Posted by poo /img/forum/go_quote.gif the encoding system is 'better' at reproducing audio as close as possible to the original than most other applications. EAC is about the quality of reproduction, if necessary, at the expense of file size or encoding time.

But doesn't EAC use the same encoders as other rippers, for example the Lame encoder for MP3? How does the Lame encoder produce different results, depending on what software it is wrapped in? And in the case off lossless, such as FLAC, then doesn't lossless ripping reproduce the same bit stream as was on the source CD, by definition?

 

[Quaddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DennyL /img/forum/go_quote.gif But doesn't EAC use the same encoders as other rippers, for example the Lame encoder for MP3? How does the Lame encoder produce different results, depending on what software it is wrapped in? And in the case off lossless, such as FLAC, then doesn't lossless ripping reproduce the same bit stream as was on the source CD, by definition?

i think because eac uses its own extraction engine, lame is merely an encoder.

 

[poo]

One example is error correction. I have left EAC ripping a very badly damaged CD overnight (took that long to read and correct for errors), expecting to wake up and hear a garbled scratchy mess - but it was perfect. Bear in mind that you can also define which encoder you want EAC to use - I don't think most other applications allow this, but could be wrong here...

As for lossless - no, not all lossless files are the same. I guess by definition, in many ways the should be, but consider that there is still compression happening regardless of whether it is lossless or not. Different algorithms compress differently, so FLAC is different to Apple lossless, and FLAC from two different applications are also potentially different from one another.

I should also mention that there are other programs that are considered to be the 'best' as well - CDParanoia or abcde are highly touted for example.

 

[poo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaddy /img/forum/go_quote.gif i think because eac uses its own extraction engine, lame is merely an encoder.

Thanks for the correction

 

[Audio Jester]

I currently use Itunes to rip ALAC. I believe that ALAC is lossless, is EAC better for some reason? Isn't Lossless, just the same as another form of Lossless?

 

[d-cee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DennyL /img/forum/go_quote.gif But doesn't EAC use the same encoders as other rippers, for example the Lame encoder for MP3? How does the Lame encoder produce different results, depending on what software it is wrapped in? And in the case off lossless, such as FLAC, then doesn't lossless ripping reproduce the same bit stream as was on the source CD, by definition?

i believe the difference is how it reads off the CD

with EAC you can specify it to re-read erroneous or skipped bits on a CD, whereas other rippers simply skip or guess them

hence EAC is usually slower depending on the mode you put it in

 

[poo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audio Jester /img/forum/go_quote.gif I currently use Itunes to rip ALAC. I believe that ALAC is lossless, is EAC better for some reason? Isn't Lossless, just the same as another form of Lossless?

They all have the same end goal, but are not all 'the same'. It's like anything - MP3 ripping at 192kbps is not the same regardless of the software doing it right? Oak and Pine are both wood - but they have their differences...

I'm not suggesting that any is 'better' than the other or the 'best' - that is dependent on many variables. I personally cannot hear the difference between ALAC and FLAC, but I have a preference - so do you - which is why you chose ALAC as a format.

 

[DennyL]

Quote:

Originally Posted by poo /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for lossless - no, not all lossless files are the same. I guess by definition, in many ways the should be, but consider that there is still compression happening regardless of whether it is lossless or not. Different algorithms compress differently, so FLAC is different to Apple lossless, and FLAC from two different applications are also potentially different from one another.

But, surely, the cycle is:

source CD>compress to Lossless compressed>Save>Load>Decompress from Lossless compress>Back to identical to source.

It shouldn't matter which compressible lossless technology is used as long as it works.

 

[Jigglybootch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DennyL /img/forum/go_quote.gif But, surely, the cycle is: source CD>compress to Lossless compressed>Save>Load>Decompress from Lossless compress>Back to identical to source. It shouldn't matter which compressible lossless technology is used as long as it works.

Yeah. In the end, you end up with a lossless file. But the process of compressing the original to create said lossless file is different depending on what codec you're using. So they are the same in the sense that they're both lossless, but different in terms of the compression/decompression algorithms used. That's why with FLAC, Monkey's Audio, ALAC, etc. you have different file sizes, even though all 3 are lossless and, in theory, should sound the same.

 

[EnOYiN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DennyL /img/forum/go_quote.gif But, surely, the cycle is: source CD>compress to Lossless compressed>Save>Load>Decompress from Lossless compress>Back to identical to source. It shouldn't matter which compressible lossless technology is used as long as it works.

It shouldn't in a perfect world.

However, when you put a badly scratched CD in your drive the CD-player will not be able to read it without errors in real-time.

What makes EAC better/different is that it can correct the errors and come up with a better results (for as far as bit perfectness goes) at the expense of way more time. (try ripping a song in paranoid mode)
iTunes will just ignore the errors made and you will end up with a track quality of say 80% (on a scratched CD this would be realistic)

Edit: It doesn't matter what lossless compression you use. All of these thing are in essence the same as the uncompressed file. What does matter is the method you use to extract those lossless files on to your computer.

 

[krmathis]

Simply because EAC have better C2 error recognition/correction than most (all?) other Audio CD ripper applications out there. With a badly scratched CD you are more likely to get a "perfect" rip with EAC than using some other application...

 

[TheVinylRipper]

CDex is very good for converting from one format to another, I use it to convert WAV files to mp3's a lot.

For ripping I like Audiograbber, it seems about the easiest to use. I'm used to vinyl so I treat my CD's very gently and almost all of them are nearly pristine.

Both of those programs allow you to use different encoders but from what I know Lame is probably the best. Blade and Fraunhofer don't have the same quality IMO.

I'd like to use ogg files but my wife's Blackberry Pearl that she uses as a media player won't read ogg.

Since the Pearl has no eq, I pre equalize the tunes I'm going to put onto her phone with Winamp with a VST wrapper plugin and a freeware VST 31 band eq. I use an mp3 writer Winamp plugin to convert to mp3's and the whole process runs about 10 x real time on my box.

 

[badmonkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DennyL /img/forum/go_quote.gif I use CDex to rip to FLAC and to Ogg. I've read many posts here where posters say EAC is the 'best' ripper. I recently wanted to try EAC and didn't even get through the install procedure. I've since found a guide and would probably get through it if I tried again, but why would I want to? CDex is easy to install, quick to use and free. How does a file ripped by EAC differ from a file ripped by other (inferior?) rippers? Thank you for any replies.

It isn't the "best" ripper, although it probably was once. This is only based on the fact that it performs a "secure" rip which can help with CDs in poor condition. Well maintained CDs may be ripped "normally" without concern. Other rippers now do secure ripping too. One example is any recent version of Foobar2000, which is actually arguably better than EAC.

There are other subtleties like offset correction. EAC can do this automatically for your drive... Foobar you must enter it manually. If you care.