|
Title: EAC or dbPoweramp? Post by: boleary on August 19, 2012, 12:04:27 pm Someone recently sent me some tracks that were ripped with EAC. They had a cleaner sound than my dbpoweramp secure rips. I downloaded EAC and have ripped several cd's previously ripped with dbpoweramp, all with the same result: EAC has a much cleaner sound. With dbpoweramp there is a midrange hash/breathyness/fuzzyness that is absent from EAC. I checked my dbpoweramp settings and all appears okay. The offset is identical for both programs and both programs use Accurate Rip. Have I lost my mind?
Title: Re: EAC or dbPoweramp? Post by: juanpmar on August 19, 2012, 01:16:21 pm Thatīs an old issue. Months ago I posted this: About ripping
Please take a look, you also wrote some posts there: http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1908.msg19574#msg19574 (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1908.msg19574#msg19574) I use now dbPoweramp because is faster than EAC but I have some of my favorits albums ripped also with EAC, once in a while I play them and to tell you the truth not always I can find differences, but I always have in mind the feeling that EAC has a more pleasant sound without loosening details. Best regards, Juan Title: Re: EAC or dbPoweramp? Post by: boleary on August 19, 2012, 01:47:39 pm Thanks Juan, in your earlier post you did mention that your first impression of EAC was that it is smoother. I have found that with the advent of Phase alignment and the NOS 768 driver, every little distortion has become much easier to spot or hear. If you compare two tracks with each software now you may find EAC is better. At least I hope so, cause it may just be that I was up too late last night having a bit too much fun........ :)
Title: Re: EAC or dbPoweramp? Post by: AUDIODIDAKT on August 19, 2012, 04:21:54 pm My 2c,
Before accuraterip, the only way to be sure if your rip was OK, is to do a test & Copy run, then compare both CRC values. I still do this with EAC, I always use the test© function, Cue+Tracks based. (this to get all the info (pre-gaps or Pre-emphasized) from a cd, not talking about audio data) Before ripping in EAC: - Detect gaps - create a Noncompliant-cuesheet (Cue sheets can also contain the PRE flags, meaning the album is Pre-emphasized and will never get the status of lossless when used for pc playback) - Use test© to rip the album (still old habit OK, but that log file is my proof of a 100% accurate rip, it also includes the pre-gaps) After this I keep the log and cue file in the same folder as the audio files (!!!!), in theory you don't need the original cd anymore. This is explained http://blowfish.be/eac/Rip/rip0.html <little of topic> - I just read juanpmar's thread, and want to add that you don't need internet-connection to check the integrity of your rip on the fly, you can do that later anyway in Cuetools for eq. Well you only could need the track naming database, but there are several ways to do this afterwards too. I rip the album as .wav first, then use Cuetools to make FLACCL and check accuraterip database, this gives me a log with crc values even if you have drive offsets. Cuetools can fix drive-offsets too, EAC 1.0 makes also use of CTDB (Cuetools Database), when an album acceeds >3 proper rips in accurate rip database, the next same rip data will be uploaded to the CTDB, with the future purpose of even repairing an album. (I already repaired several albums to get accuraterip status) Can be of help sometimes http://eachelper.uphero.com/index.php - Lately with all those different pressings and mastering-methodes I stumble upon, I find my album on discogs by the catalog-nr (bare in mind not all classical on jazz can be found there) Next I copy/paste the discogs link in Foobar using the foo_discogs.dll, this way all info from the discogs site gets tagged in the files at once. < > Having this said, you now have all means to compare different software rips. I do believe same rips can sound differently, but I do have a problem with blaming it on the ripping means, can we not trust: CRC, md5 or hash values? Well, a while ago i read an article about md5, some guys managed to get the same md5 value from two different pdf files..... Personally, I think this resides in the pc means itself. - Think of how several CD pressing materials or CD-R's can color sound when playback in cd-player, because of laser-reflections, but the data on the CD is the same in all cases. The big issue is ofcourse: Do I have re-rip all my albums again, if you do it properly as discribed above, I think not. We all hope to see this issue solved soon ............ Title: Re: EAC or dbPoweramp? Post by: boleary on August 19, 2012, 05:28:54 pm Thanks Roy, great post--appreciate all that info!
Title: Re: EAC or dbPoweramp? Post by: PeterSt on August 19, 2012, 06:12:47 pm Brian,
Since you perceive the difference anyway - with or without fun - what do you perceive from that when using the Playback Drive ? If you are AB-ing, never forget to use the [ C ] button in between two tracks with the same name. This clears the Playback "cached" location - in this case the Playback Drive. Regards, Peter Title: Re: EAC or dbPoweramp? - Accurate Rip Post by: AUDIODIDAKT on August 19, 2012, 07:23:51 pm Hey Brian,
This is why I advise you to ALWAYS use test© function in EAC............... If you are going to rip with either EAC or Dbpoweramp do it the proper way, for EAC use the guide in my previous post, for Dbpoweramp you have to look for yourself. :) Source: http://blowfish.be/eac/Rip/rip10.html#no10f Quote 10f. Appendix: Comments on AccurateRip Results Quote from AccurateRip's homepage: The philosophy behind AccurateRip is quite simple - each time an audio track is ripped (recorded by computer) it is compared with rips from other people, this allows a confidence report to be generated. The report might say that 4 other people had exactly the same results, this would guarantee your rip was without error, or the report could say that 3 other people disagree with your rip, the likely hood is that your CD has a scratch and should be cleaned. This is an over-simplification. (The people behind AccurateRip are of course aware of that fact. They are just providing an introductory explanation of the AccurateRip concept.) For starters, AccurateRip results can not guarantee that a rip is without error even if the confidence number should be very high. Errors may go undetected by AccurateRip in two ways, either because they happen in the first/last portions of the rip (that AccurateRip doesn't check in order to allow for different drive offsets) or because they happen in the right channel at the wrong time, see this thread at dBpoweramp's support forum. For this reason, you should always test and copy the tracks when you rip a CD instead of relying on AccurateRip results only. To be sure, "test and copy" is no guarantee, either: a drive may happen to read an error in a consistent way so that the test and copy CRCs values match in spite of that error. If you use both AccurateRip and "test and copy", you have minimized the risk of errors going undetected, and thus increased the chance that you rip truly is perfect. It is the best we can do. Also, AccurateRip relies on user submissions. This is a strength in that the database constantly increases with results from rips made by people using different drives. It is a weakness in that all kinds of rips are collected, both good ones and bad ones. This can have the adverse effect that a good and proper rip is made to look bad because there are bad rips in the AccurateRip database that of course do not match the good rip because they are bad. This is mainly a problem with relatively rare CDs that have only been ripped a few times before. When a CD has been ripped hundreds of times, the results from different bad rips are drowned out by the consensus of matching results from good rips. The summary of the AccurateRip results at the end of the log file looks different depending on how the individual tracks did in the comparison with the results in the database. This is how to interpret them, and what to do (if anything): None of the tracks are present in the AccurateRip database This simply means what it says: nobody has submitted results for the CD to the database before. In this case, matching CRC values for test and copy are all there is. Your rip is very likely to be perfect if those values match. (But do submit your results to the database - it is after all user submissions that make the AccurateRip results more and more reliable.) If you have another drive and want more confidence in your rip, re-rip the CD using that other drive. The small (very small!) risk that the matching CRC values hide an error that was consistently ripped by your drive is made even smaller if the same CRC values appear when you use another drive. All tracks accurately ripped This means that there were matches between your results and the ones stored in the database. It can mean that there was only one previous submission ("confidence 1"), or that your result matches tenths or hundreds of other results. You can tell by looking at the confidence numbers for the tracks. Once they are at or above 2, I would say that it is very very likely that your rip (with matching CRC values for test and copy to boot!) is indeed a perfect one. Note that it is enough that a rip can be verified against at least a couple of other rips. Numbers become meaningless after a while in the sense that a rip with, say, confidence 81 is not "better" than a rip with confidence 9. No tracks could be verified as accurate You may have a different pressing from the one(s) in the database This means that there are results in the database, but none of them match yours. It is indeed very likely that such a result is due to different pressings. Just as in the case with no previously submitted results, matching test and copy CRC values make it very likely that your rip is perfect all the same. If you have another drive and want more confidence in your rip, re-rip the CD using that other drive. The small (very small!) risk that the matching CRC values hide an error that was consistently ripped by your drive is made even smaller if the same CRC values appear when you use another drive. [x number of] track(s) accurately ripped [x number of] track(s) could not be verified as accurate Some tracks could not be verified as accurate A result like this calls for further investigation. If the track(s) that could not be verified also have CRC mismatches between test and copy, it appears obvious that there was a ripping error. You need to rip the CD again, and perhaps clean and/or repair it in order to be able to get a proper rip. If there are matching test and copy CRC values for a track, but the track can not be verified as accurate, rip the track again using a different drive (if possible). If this results in the same matching test and copy CRC values, you have created a confidence of 2, as it were, that your rip is proper in spite of the AccurateRip results. One drive may rip an error consistently, so that you get matching test and copy CRC values in spite of the error. It is very very unlikely that an error could be consistently ripped by two (or three or four...) different drives, resulting in the same test and copy CRC values for all the rips. Title: Re: EAC or dbPoweramp? Post by: boleary on August 20, 2012, 01:08:32 am Quote If you are AB-ing, never forget to use the [ C ] button in between two tracks with the same name. This clears the Playback "cached" location - in this case the Playback Drive. I've done my A-Bing by loading the tracks with the explorer button. I used a different naming scheme for EAC so there shouldn't be a cach issue, though that's a great tip abput the Clear button. I also have not used the Playback Drive and I don't think it should make a difference for me. All tracks are ripped to a music folder on OS drive. The difference between the two rippers is significant enough that I'll be reripping everying.....I'm pretty sure. Title: Re: EAC or dbPoweramp? Post by: PeterSt on August 20, 2012, 11:21:47 am Quote I also have not used the Playback Drive and I don't think it should make a difference for me. Wow. You now sound even more ignorant than I am myself ? :swoon: Title: Re: EAC or dbPoweramp? Post by: boleary on August 20, 2012, 02:13:02 pm Well then, I guess I'll read up on it and give it a try. "Knowing All" is not in my developmental plan for life!
Title: Re: EAC or dbPoweramp? Post by: PeterSt on August 20, 2012, 04:31:30 pm Haha.
Re: Playback drive drive (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2184.msg22334#msg22334) Title: Re: EAC or dbPoweramp? Post by: listening on August 20, 2012, 09:24:14 pm If this can happen throughout ripping what can happen during CD mastering?
Georg Title: Re: EAC or dbPoweramp? Post by: boleary on August 22, 2012, 12:52:48 pm So I set up a playback drive and the difference between the EAC and dbPoweramp rips remains. I went through the log files and dbpoweramp used C2 error correction pointers and EAC did not. The Plextor has C2 error correction capability but I've read that that technology doesn't always work well. Am wondering if that's the difference?
Title: Re: EAC or dbPoweramp? Post by: eacmythbuster on January 02, 2013, 03:03:49 am - Detect gaps Not necessary, although doing so is handy so that the gaps are displayed in the log. The final result of the rip will be the same whether you manually detect gaps or not. Compare rips yourself, if you don't believe me. Quote - Use test© to rip the album (still old habit OK, but that log file is my proof of a 100% accurate rip, it also includes the pre-gaps) Test and Copy is no guarantee of a 100% accurate rip. In EAC, when C2 is not used, EAC reads the disc at least twice. T&C (with no C2) just means that the disc is read at least four times. The only real benefit of this is that it will tell you if there is a consistent error. Let's say on the first T&C, you get two CRC checksums, CRC1 + CRC2. So you rip the disc again, and get CRC2 + CRC2. You will assume that CRC2 is correct. There is no guarantee that CRC2 isn't a consistent error. The only way to know for sure if it is accurate is to run it through AccurateRip, and if you're going to do that, there's no need to waste your time doing Test and Copy. If the disc is not present in AccurateRip, then I suggest you rip the disc again using a different drive, preferably one which has a different chipset. No C2 + Test and Copy is a complete waste of time. Again, I would like to point out that when C2 is not checked, EAC makes sure that there are two consecutive reads that match. In other words, EAC Secure Mode with no C2 = read + re-read. Test and Copy is meant for Burst Mode, or if C2 is checked. Quote This is explained http://blowfish.be/eac/Rip/rip0.html The only EAC guide I recommend is the Hydrogen Audio one @ http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Exact_Audio_Copy Finally, I recommend just using Cueripper. It is free, with Cuetools, and is a better and faster ripper than EAC. The only drawback is that you can only rip entire discs with Cueripper, but I don't think that would be much of an issue with people interested in archiving CDs. |