adamslim;175432 Wrote:
Hey, this is fun :) I suspect that CD correction is not inaudible
(otherwise, why not use it for compression, none of this messing with
FLAC and MP42). However, I have no evidence for this, thoughts
welcome.
Since the read buffer of the CD or iTunes or EAC ends up
I've seen a variety of comments in this thread which could do with a
little bit of clarification:
If you use secure mode it re-reads everything, which is why it's so slow
when set up properly.
Most drives these days are capable of reporting C2 errors, and in those
cases EAC doesn't re-read -
cliveb;175624 Wrote:
Not sure exactly what you mean by damaged, but if you are talking
about scratches and the like, these aren't the only ones that need
error concealment. In my experience, the majority are not as a result
of scratches, but that the CD was originally pressed with
CardinalFang;175634 Wrote:
I must admit I'm not sure - I don't use EAC, too slow and too much
fussing about to set up. I thought it had concealment via the drive
electronics, but you could be right and it does nothing. In that case,
EAC would be creating audibly broken rips on bad discs
cliveb;175643 Wrote:
As far as I can make out, based on some experiments, if the drive is
capable of reporting C2 errors (which most are), then EAC tells the
drive NOT to conceal uncorrectable errors, but report them instead.
It's at this point that EAC does its re-reading to see if it can
Clive - yes, that is exactly what I meant (C2 errors + re-reads in EAC
on 30% of 2,000+ CD's). Thanks for clarifying that.
Phil
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View
CardinalFang;175634 Wrote:
I thought it had concealment via the drive electronics, but you could be
right and it does nothing. In that case, EAC would be creating audibly
broken rips on bad discs rather than a barely-audible concealment. Is
that really the case?
Yes, this is the case. I'd
I'm trying to follow this thread, but have a basic question -
I have a Plextor Premium that I am using with EAC. The drive does have
C2 error correction. However, the setup instructions for EAC stated to
use Secure Mode, but not to check the box that asks if the drive has C2
error correction.
cliveb;175624 Wrote:
I've seen a variety of comments in this thread which could do with a
little bit of clarification:
If you use secure mode it re-reads everything, which is why it's so
slow when set up properly.
Most drives these days are capable of reporting C2 errors, and in
those
whdean;175734 Wrote:
I have a Plextor Premium that I am using with EAC. The drive does have
C2 error correction. However, the setup instructions for EAC stated to
use Secure Mode, but not to check the box that asks if the drive has C2
error correction.
Checking the box defeats the drives
Skunk;175739 Wrote:
You might want to check your facts :-)
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/
edit: link failed to go 'technology' page. See first two sentences.
There's no arguing with what Andre has written on his web site.
So how come discs which are known to be free of C2 errors rip
cliveb;175818 Wrote:
There's no arguing with what Andre has written on his web site.
So how come discs which are known to be free of C2 errors rip
considerably faster when the C2 option is checked than when it isn't?
This suggests to me that the sectors are being read fewer times.
cliveb;175818 Wrote:
There's no arguing with what Andre has written on his web site.
Looking back at my comment, you were right to clarify. EAC isn't always
slower in secure mode, because if you can trust your drives C2 and
enable the feature there is no re-read.
It's all explained really
cliveb;175643 Wrote:
But in hindsight, I might not have tried EAC using secure mode but with
C2 capability switched off, so I'll give that a go and report back.
OK, I've just tried this again, making sure to try EAC with the C2
option set both ways. I also tried setting the drive caches audio
Skunk;175832 Wrote:
It's all explained really well in the tooltip rollovers in the
application, e.g. when you mouseover the c2 checkbox.
Thanks - I've just tried the tool tips in EAC, and see that it does
indeed say that it doesn't re-read when C2 is checked. Which is in
accordance with what
I ripped one CD to Apple Lossless using ITunes. It was a disaster. It
didn't sound worse, it was unlistenable. I have no idea what went
wrong. Before I got around to troubleshooting I decided to go with Flac
and EAC instead. That has worked great.
The fact that ITunes went ahead created this
Pat yes sorry I understand that, lossless is lossless... regal I've
never had a problem with itunes not ripping a good copy.. I just wonder
if the ripping software in itunes is as good/acurate as EAC or good
enough?
--
ErikM
Erik, it's certainly good enough. I've never had a ripping problem, as
the earlier poster did, and when I first found out about EAC I ripped a
few CDs with it and compared to Apples Lossless through my headphones
(out of the PC soundcard) and heard absolutely no difference. Neither
method had any
ErikM;175299 Wrote:
Pat yes sorry I understand that, lossless is lossless... regal I've
never had a problem with itunes not ripping a good copy.. I just wonder
if the ripping software in itunes is as good/acurate as EAC or good
enough?
Did someone in a past thread mention ripping in alac
ErikM;175299 Wrote:
Pat yes sorry I understand that, lossless is lossless... regal I've
never had a problem with itunes not ripping a good copy.. I just wonder
if the ripping software in itunes is as good/acurate as EAC or good
enough?
Well you changed your question from definite sonic
Ok jeez lets not split hairs.. the point of my post was Audible this
is the audiophile forum... I don't really care if EAC is a better
tool for ripping if there is no sonic difference. And for me I define
better, as the ripped file sounding better.. I'm not all that concerned
about the geeky
The most important difference between lossless formats is the amount of
processor they consume while encoding/decoding. The second most
important difference is the compression ratio (vs. raw PCM/WAV format).
I'm speaking technically...I suppose the most important functional
difference is the
balthazar I must repectfully disagree. The most important difference at
least in my opinion is if they sound any different. The technogy should
be in the service of audio quality, not for it's own sake.
--
ErikM
ErikM's
ErikM wrote:
I just wonder if the ripping software in itunes is as good/acurate as EAC or
good
enough?
I tend to not use EAC as my main ripping tool. It is too slow.
So I use something else (grip or CDex) first, and only use EAC if I find
problems.
I can't spell iTunes, but I would expect
Pat Farrell;175340 Wrote:
ErikM wrote:
I just wonder if the ripping software in itunes is as good/acurate
as EAC or good
enough?
I tend to not use EAC as my main ripping tool. It is too slow.
So I use something else (grip or CDex) first, and only use EAC if I
find
problems.
I
EAC is certainly a more accurate ripping tool, but for a CD in good
condition there should not be much, if any, difference. CD's with some
damage should be another matter, as EAC should be superior here.
Assuming the same rip, lossless compression is lossless compression, so
once you decompress
tomjtx;175307 Wrote:
Did someone in a past thread mention ripping in alac and flac and then
comparing the bits and they were bit identical?
I have a faint memory of that, but then my memory of 1 minute ago is
faint as well :-)
Yeah, that was me. Did a bunch of cds in flac and alac,
I should say I have had ALMOST no problems with alac. Out of 1,000 CDs I
have 3 that have a crackling sound at the beginning song or piece. The
rest of the CD is fine. All 3 look scratchless so I don't know what the
prob. is.
So with EAC I suppose I could diagnose the prob more easily?
Still,
I've only been asking because I've been using itunes for awhile and it
rips fast, all of the cd's I've ripped play perfectly, I like how easy
it is to build playlists, and it sounds good.. For me I don't want to
spend hours dicking around with various programs. I rip them ,
slimserver finds them
ErikM;175327 Wrote:
I'm not all that concerned about the geeky computer part of all this,
just about sound quality.
That could've been lifted from Mac's new ad campaign, the one with
geeky PC guy and cool Mac guy.
I guess I didn't realize you weren't trying to get into the RPM Warrior
ErikM;175353 Wrote:
I've only been asking because I've been using itunes for awhile and it
rips fast, all of the cd's I've ripped play perfectly, I like how easy
it is to build playlists, and it sounds good.. For me I don't want to
spend hours dicking around with various programs. I rip them
ErikM;175338 Wrote:
balthazar I must repectfully disagree. The most important difference at
least in my opinion is if they sound any different. The technogy should
be in the service of audio quality, not for it's own sake.
Sorry to respectfully disagree but B is right...lossless=lossless so
To answer your question about ripping, on unscratched CDs there's
unlikely to be any difference. I use EAC, and it usually rips the
entire CD without needing to re-read, and the accuracy of the rip is
confirmed by accuraterip. For those discs I expect any ripping program
would make a perfect
adamslim;175363 Wrote:
There is much more likely to be a difference in EAC vs iTunes than ALAC
vs FLAC. Lossless is lossless, and it seems highly dubious to me to
suggest that the SB3 will decode one better sonically than the other.
However, EAC will make a difference. iTunes will take
totoro;175386 Wrote:
In the test that I did, I started with alac generated by itunes and flac
generated by eac. Then I used dbpoweramp to transcode the alac back to
flac. Differences will happen, but I would guess not all that often.
Interesting* - were these differences 'bit-differences'
opaqueice;175374 Wrote:
I use EAC, and it usually rips the entire CD without needing to
re-read, and the accuracy of the rip is confirmed by accuraterip.
I think you mean without needing to correct errors.
If you use secure mode it re-reads everything, which is why it's so
slow when set up
I guess in a perfect world I'd be able to rip cd's using EAC right into
itunes! And even even be able to choose flac or Apple lossless files..
in the mean time since it appears that there really isn't any
difference SONICALLY between music ripped to itunes and the other more
convoluted procedures
ErikM;175402 Wrote:
riding my BMW, working on projects around the house, being abused by my
wife :-)
I'd prefer abusing the BMW and.. oh nevermind.
--
Skunk
Skunk's Profile:
regalma1;175294 Wrote:
I ripped one CD to Apple Lossless using ITunes. It was a disaster. It
didn't sound worse, it was unlistenable. I have no idea what went
wrong.
I would have checked to make sure your file-type conversions on
SlimServer weren't converting Apple Lossless files into MP3
Skunk;175394 Wrote:
I think you mean without needing to correct errors.
If you use secure mode it re-reads everything, which is why it's so
slow when set up properly. ReadFlush drive CacheRe-read, for each
sector at least once, until they match. If a re-read doesn't check out
then you get
EAC doesn't have to be slow. I mainly use it in burst mode (much
quicker, and similar to other rippers). If AccurateRip shows it matches
then I'm done.
In the relatively rare cases where there is a mismatch then Secure Mode
is used. AccurateRip is the key to saving a lot of ripping time
adamslim;175363 Wrote:
However, EAC will make a difference. iTunes will take the first rip it
gets, and will use error correction (i.e. guessing) if there is a
problem; EAC will make sure that the rip is correct by rereading dozens
of times, if necessary. (This is simplified, but close
Bit perfect. I md5'd the contents of the resulting flac files.
--
totoro
squeezebox 3 - mccormack dna .5 - audio physic tempo 4
totoro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5935
View this thread:
CardinalFang;175418 Wrote:
Sorry, but that's a misunderstanding of the process. Error correction
isn't guessing, it's using additional data on the disk to fix missing
data perfectly. Error *concealment* is when a drive has to make up
data by interpolation. Only damaged disks require
CardinalFang;175418 Wrote:
Sorry, but that's a misunderstanding of the process. Error correction
isn't guessing, it's using additional data on the disk to fix missing
data perfectly. Error *concealment* is when a drive has to make up
data by interpolation. Only damaged disks require
adamslim;175432 Wrote:
Hey, this is fun :) I suspect that CD correction is not inaudible
(otherwise, why not use it for compression, none of this messing with
FLAC and MP42). However, I have no evidence for this, thoughts
welcome.
So you found sonic differences on identical files,
Phil Leigh;175434 Wrote:
I'd agree with that - roughly 30%+ of my (well looked after) disks
needed some correction - not concealment. a small minority - I'd say
about 10-15 out of over 2,000 - fell into the concealment bucket.
So you think EAC is well worth it?
totoro;175446 Wrote:
No.
Adam - yes I think EAC is well worth it.
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32212
48 matches
Mail list logo
