Ripper recommendation

JDUBS · « **Reply #40 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 04:10 am »

EAC is definitely the way to go if you care about the accuracy of your resulting files. EAC is very easy to set up....if you follow this guide:

http://www.carltonbale.com/projects/cd_audio_extraction/

It tells / shows you EVERYTHING! Its incredibly easy to follow.

I've followed it for two different CD drives with perfect results.

Takes maybe 20 minutes all-in.

Nick B · « **Reply #41 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 05:51 am »

Glad it worked out for you. That is one guide I didn't know about when I tried...and failed....in my quest for digital perfection with EAC. Alternatively, I do find Easy CD-DA more user-friendly and supposedly it is as (or nearly as) accurate as EAC.

Horizons · « **Reply #42 on:** 20 Feb 2006, 07:30 pm »

Quote from: mca

I have read many posts about people prefering EAC/FLAC over iTunes or vice versa. Interesting thing is I have never read about anyone doing a comparison between the two.

I wish someone would do an in-depth technical analysis of this. I used both on a few CDs and listened subjectively through my system. I could not detect any audible differences between Apple Lossless and FLAC ripped with EAC.

System:
iTunes ripping Apple Lossless
SB3
Lite DAC AH (w/mods)
Parasound HCA100A amp
Magnepan 1.6QRs

rajacat · « **Reply #43 on:** 20 Feb 2006, 08:27 pm »

Why bother to convert WAV to FLAC? Hard drive space is cheap and the conversion needlessly introduces another step with possible degradation of SQ.

fiveoclockfriday · « **Reply #44 on:** 20 Feb 2006, 08:54 pm »

I'm a little late to the game on this topic, but I just wanted to throw in my .02. I have found the Apple Lossless to be a very easy and very high quality format. I don't have a very revealing system, but I remember finding a link online to a guy using Logic (I believe) to compare the actual wavelengths of different file types and he found Lossless to be just that...a losslessly compressed version with exactly the same audio properties. No comparison to FLAC though, so I can't comment.

Paul_Bui · « **Reply #45 on:** 20 Feb 2006, 08:57 pm »

Quote from: rajacat

Why bother to convert WAV to FLAC? Hard drive space is cheap and the conversion needlessly introduces another step with possible degradation of SQ.

I am with you.

James Romeyn · « **Reply #46 on:** 20 Feb 2006, 09:09 pm »

No direct personal experience, so this is lame & don't remind me.

Still, based on my personal knowledge of the designer/builder (friend only, no business relationship), & my internet readings & decades of personal knowledge of users/early adopters of the item, you simply can not get a ripper till you send George Louis about $25 to have him make you a sample copy on his Reality Check ripper (cost $550 direct). The copy should make you a believer, & if not you are out whatever his charge is for the copy.

Do a search of Reality Check here, but more importantly at Audio Asylum.

Horizons · « **Reply #47 on:** 20 Feb 2006, 09:11 pm »

Quote from: fiveoclockfriday

I'm a little late to the game on this topic, but I just wanted to throw in my .02. I have found the Apple Lossless to be a very easy and very high quality format. I don't have a very revealing system, but I remember finding a link online to a guy using Logic (I believe) to compare the actual wavelengths of different file types and he found Lossless to be just that...a losslessly compressed version with exactly the same audio properties. No comparison to FLAC though, so I can't comment.

I agree with you. However, I don't think the argument is over the quality of Apple Lossless. I think the argument is whether a CD ripped with Apple Lossless is as good or better than EAC/FLAC. My point is that IMHO and experience, the two click iTunes method is as good or better than EAC which I find overly cumbersome to use.

JDUBS · « **Reply #48 on:** 20 Feb 2006, 09:13 pm »

Quote from: rajacat

Why bother to convert WAV to FLAC? Hard drive space is cheap and the conversion needlessly introduces another step with possible degradation of SQ.

No doubt hard drive space is cheap. I do it because of the tags....I'm pretty sure you can't tag WAVs.

-Jim

maxwalrath · « **Reply #49 on:** 20 Feb 2006, 09:24 pm »

Quote from: Horizons

I agree with you. However, I don't think the argument is over the quality of Apple Lossless. I think the argument is whether a CD ripped with Apple Lossless is as good or better than EAC/FLAC. My point is that IMHO and experience, the two click iTunes method is as good or better than EAC which I find overly cumbersome to use.

How does the quality of Apple Lossless vs. WAV/FLAC compare, and how does the amount of space the two take up compare?

EAC/FLAC is a pain in the ass for me. I'd be very happy to get everything onto Apple, even if it costs me more in harddrive space.

rajacat · « **Reply #50 on:** 20 Feb 2006, 09:30 pm »

Quote from: JDUBS

Quote from: rajacat
Why bother to convert WAV to FLAC? Hard drive space is cheap and the conversion needlessly introduces another step with possible degradation of SQ.

No doubt hard drive space is cheap. I do it because of the tags....I'm pretty sure you can't tag WAVs.

-Jim

I tag WAV's within EAC using freedb. DATABASE> GET INFORMATION FROM>REMOTE FREEDB. It works well ...so far. I'm new to this; just purchased the SB3.

JDUBS · « **Reply #51 on:** 20 Feb 2006, 09:40 pm »

Quote from: maxwalrath

Quote from: Horizons
I agree with you. However, I don't think the argument is over the quality of Apple Lossless. I think the argument is whether a CD ripped with Apple Lossless is as good or better than EAC/FLAC. My point is that IMHO and experience, the two click iTunes method is as good or better than EAC which I find overly cumbersome to use.

How does the quality of Apple Lossless vs. WAV/FLAC compare, and how does the amount of space the two take up compare?

The advantage of EAC lies in its ability to read / re-read multiple times in an effort to make an EXACT copy. There are other features as well (which I'm not well-versed in).

Also, if you use AccurateRip in conjunction with it, your rips get compared to those made by other people. This provides a further level of confidence that your rips are exactly correct.

I don't think Apple Lossless provides this functionality.

rajacat · « **Reply #52 on:** 21 Feb 2006, 01:07 am »

Quote from: JDUBS

Quote from: rajacat
Why bother to convert WAV to FLAC? Hard drive space is cheap and the conversion needlessly introduces another step with possible degradation of SQ.

No doubt hard drive space is cheap. I do it because of the tags....I'm pretty sure you can't tag WAVs.

-Jim

Yes, you can tag WAV'S from within EAC. Open EAC, click on DATABASE, click Get CD information from and click Remote freedb.

James Romeyn · « **Reply #53 on:** 21 Feb 2006, 02:35 am »

Being an old fart from the bad old vinyl analog days, it sure is comforting to read all the digital discussions. Exactly like we discussed cartridges/tt's/tonearms, head amps vs. mm vs. mc phono amps, Studer vs. Ampex, 10" Sony vs. Teac, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc (minus the internet forums)

I visited Guitar Center on Van Ness last week for rackmount parts. The digital music gear is everywhere in sight, from carpeted floor to horizontal & vertical jewel cases to the spotlight-studded 10' ceiling. A little different from my ARP 2600 analog synthesizer...(warm it up to stabilize the pitch)...

JDUBS · « **Reply #54 on:** 21 Feb 2006, 05:06 am »

Quote from: rajacat

Quote from: JDUBS
Quote from: rajacat
Why bother to convert WAV to FLAC? Hard drive space is cheap and the conversion needlessly introduces another step with possible degradation of SQ.

No doubt hard drive space is cheap. I do it because of the tags....I'm pretty sure you can't tag WAVs.

-Jim

Yes, you can tag WAV'S from within EAC. Open EAC, click on DATABASE, click Get CD information from and click Remote freedb.

I already do this with my .FLACs. Does genre, year, etc. show up when you play back the .WAV file?

sunshinedawg · « **Reply #55 on:** 25 Feb 2006, 01:52 am »

I started to mess around with easy cdda extractor after using EAC for years, because of reading this post. What does everyone use for read mode on the cd-reader tab in easy cdda?
I ripped a cd that EAC had a lot of read and sync errors and then ripped it with easy cdda in normal mode and it had no problems with it. I'm just wondering if I need a more strict setting.

Nick B · « **Reply #56 on:** 25 Feb 2006, 02:17 am »

I just started using Easy CD-DA recently and my read mode settings are 10 sectors per read (which I presume is default for my reader), read mode normal, enable C2 error information and disable buffer overflow checking. I've only done a few CD's, but it's worked so far. I like the software, but it is lacking in documentation for a novice like me.

jp1 · « **Reply #57 on:** 28 Feb 2006, 03:12 am »

if your cds are in decent quality shape (few scratches) then you will be hard pressed to find ANY difference between EAC and itunes when importing in lossless format. just be sure to check off error correction.

itunes is easier, faster and will achieve virtually the same level of quality.
unless you have run your cds through a sandbox you wont e able to tell the difference.

Horizons · « **Reply #58 on:** 28 Feb 2006, 10:39 pm »

Quote from: jp1

if your cds are in decent quality shape (few scratches) then you will be hard pressed to find ANY difference between EAC and itunes when importing in lossless format. just be sure to check off error correction.

itunes is easier, faster and will achieve virtually the same level of quality.
unless you have run your cds through a sandbox you wont be able to tell the difference.

AMEN, this has been my contention all along. Lots of PCaudiophiles tout EAC as being superior to that crappy iTunes SW but I have never seen any data or objective proof to support that argument. On severely thrashed CDs, I would assume that EAC's methods would then be validated.

Charles Calkins · « **Reply #59 on:** 28 Feb 2006, 10:47 pm »

Being the worlds worst computer user I have to use the windows media player to rip CD's It's very user friemdly. I've noticed that if a CD has a booboo the ripping stops until I clean up the CD. I also have noticed that my CD player has a bad time playing CD's with booboo's. After they get ripped to my computer and I play them back through the SB3 there is no more booboo's. That's a real plus for computer audio!

Cheers
Charlie