[bprice2]

I've seen no definitive answer to this question and am curious what you guys think.  The sense I get is that both are about the same in the accuracy department, but I don't know for certain.  If you can offer up rational for your opinion, I'd love to hear it.

[AlexMUK]

Hi,

I use dbpoweramp exclusively, but have tested EAC in the past. I don't think there is any real difference if the CD read is 'clean' and accuraterip checksums match. If the CD has some damage that results in an uncorrectable CIRC failure, then I think the most important that the drive supports C2 error reporting, and that read caching on the drive can be defeated.

If I get anthing other than a perfect read, I buff and polish the disk until it is fixed. letting re-reading try to get good data takes forever and rarely delivers a perfect rip anyway. I didn't think that EAC or dbpoweramp are any more effective than the other at this.

Personally I prefer dbpoweramp for speed and features, so that's what I use..

Regards,
Alex

[mfsoa]

While I can't define what Accurate means (I think it means different things to different people), I did a quick test of EAC vs. dB, with each program set up for bit-perfect rips. dB sounded better. Not tonally, but the image seemed so much more fleshed out/sophisticated/more developed - hard to describe.
Is it possible that one program inverts phase? Crazy idea, I guess.

So, it's dB for discs that are in good shape, but if dB needs to re-rip too many sectors then I go to EAC which does damaged discs faster.

-Mike

[JDUBS]

db is better ime.  Much faster...plus if you're using AccurateRip, and your cds are in its database....should be the same results.

AccurateRip is the key. 

-Jim

[wilbert-vanbakel]

I have one CD that EAC rips without showing any error, but one track is truncated.When I rip the same CD with dBpoweramp it shows me that this track has a problem.

[mikel51]

does anyone know if you can use dbpoweramp to check the quality of previous rips?  I'd hate to re rip my entire library, but would love to check the library against the accurate rip database to see if my rips are OK.

[andy_c]

Mike, try CueTools for that.

[Mike B.]

I use dbpoweramp. It is a fast and easy to use. I am completely satisfied with the sound quality. I do everything to WAV files.

[wilbert-vanbakel]

does anyone know if you can use dbpoweramp to check the quality of previous rips?

If your library sounds alright and you enjoy listening to it, why worry?

[jhm731]

Audio grabber set to rip to ram produces the best sounding rips. 

[shadowlight]

From dbpoweramp's website, Securerip is based on technique pioneered by EAC:

http://www.dbpoweramp.com/secure-ripper.htm

[firedog]

I don't think there is any difference in ripping quality. There seems to be some difference in speed; there is definitely a difference in features available, ease of use, etc. That's the reason most users who go over to db do so, I think.

[adydula]

No difference, Have both..use both for thousands of FLACS. EAC is slower and more convoluted, but once setup it works but DBPoweramp is much easier to setup, is faster and simpler to use.

All the Best
Alex

[bpape]

I've used EAC from the beginning.  Not all that hard to set up - at least not this revision.  Does an excellent job IMO

Bryan

[bprice2]

So far the poll shows a  60/40 split between neither and dbpoweramp, with EAC getting no nods as the best.  I voted for neither, because I think they both will produce accurate rips in normal situations - normal being to rip a CD that someone before you has ripped, therefore being in the Accurate Rip database.

However, if you are ripping a CD that's not in the database, is dbpoweramp still as accurate as EAC?  I've heard arguments that EAC is superior in this situation, because it reads smaller pieces of the data than dbpoweramp, which reads larger swaths of the track and is therefore more prone to errors.  Does anybody know whether or not this would be true?