chill;192622 Wrote:
Can someone who understands these things tell me if this is a correct
assessmenet?
Hydrogen Audio is the best place to get info about EAC, especially if
you're wondering about a specific drive. Since you now know the details
of your drive, I'd use the c2 setting just to
If you are ripping to individal tracks using EAC, and the FLAC
compression is proving to be the bottleneck, you might want to look at
the 'EAC options' - 'Tools' tab. There is an option to allow the
external compressor to start in the background, with a further option
to specify the number of
Thanks for all the helpful tips.
I'm still using EAC and its still taking 15-20 mins per CD, guess it
just doesn't like my DVD drive :-)
Cheers
BT
--
BigTony
BigTony's Profile:
chill;192458 Wrote:
If you are ripping to individal tracks using EAC, and the FLAC
compression is proving to be the bottleneck, you might want to look at
the 'EAC options' - 'Tools' tab. There is an option to allow the
external compressor to start in the background, with a further option
I use CDex to rip everything to 320kbps CBR
--
moley6knipe
moley6knipe's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10014
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34156
I toyed with the higher compression settings, but found that the space
savings for an entire CD image were minimal. More important for me was
the speed advantage of the default - plus I knew that it would not take
much to set up a single almighty unattended re-compressing task should
I decide to
chill;192468 Wrote:
If the compression tasks queue up in the background and ripping
continues even with just one thread, I wonder what the advantage of
multiple threads would be. Might those separate threads run in
different processor cores if they are present?
One thread will use both
chill;192458 Wrote:
Even in C2 secure mode, EAC rips most CDs in 2 to 3 minutes - the
ripping speed increases with the later tracks on a disc, and the last
few tracks are often ripped at close to 40x. This is with a fairly
cheap LG DVD-RAM drive.
Wow, you sure you're not using burst mode?
Mark Lanctot;192477 Wrote:
I'm startled that performance has risen so substantially that you can
FLAC an entire CD in 30 seconds. I know CPU performance has been
increasing, I didn't know it increased that much. That would be about
10 times faster.
I meant tracks take around 30 seconds
Skunk;192482 Wrote:
As you mentioned, it's not 10x faster, but seems much better at
multitasking. No matter how bogged down EAC gets with error correction,
I can still run slimserver+photoshop+mediamonkey+firefox at the same
time.
Aha. This makes me feel better - the motherboard in my
jeffmeh;192262 Wrote:
You could try EAC burst mode and accurate rip. Anything verified by
accurate rip is accurate anyway.
I wouldn't exactly treat it as gospel. Consider this track that
AccurateRip told me was accurate (using burst mode with test and copy,
because secure mode did not
Skunk;192484 Wrote:
I wouldn't exactly treat it as gospel. Consider this track that
AccurateRip told me was accurate (using burst mode with test and copy,
because secure mode did not satisfy accurateRip):
Track 16
Filename C:\jeff\music\Boards Of Canada-Geogaddi\16-The Devil Is
Mark Lanctot;192486 Wrote:
Also I've never seen that timing problem error message before.
It's only an issue in burst mode IIRC. In secure mode you'll get a read
or synch error instead, but burst mode is too dumb to know why the drive
slowed down. The only security in burst mode is checksums
BigTony;192461 Wrote:
Thanks for all the helpful tips.
I'm still using EAC and its still taking 15-20 mins per CD, guess it
just doesn't like my DVD drive :-)
Cheers
BT
I have a DVD drive and a standard CD reader. DVD is 16x, CD reader is
52x. The standard cheapo CD reader is so much
The evident surprise at how quickly FLAC can compress a full CD image
had me worried in case I was completely off in my recollection, so I've
done a quick test on my laptop, which is a Core 2 Duo Intel running at
2GHz with 2GB of ram. This is quite a similar specification to my
Athlon setup at
BigTony;192511 Wrote:
Well I tried dbpoweamp and acuraterip, but I ran into a bunch of CD's
(all old genesis cd .. some connection?) that all failed on all tracks.
This made me wonder if the acurate database has the same discs in it, or
different versions?
AccurateRip primarily holds
Ok,
So I guess that its back to EAC for good, ran a few more disks in
accuraterip and found they either wern't in the database or were
inaccurate!
BT
--
BigTony
BigTony's Profile:
chill;192510 Wrote:
The evident surprise at how quickly FLAC can compress a full CD image
had me worried in case I was completely off in my recollection, so I've
done a quick test on my laptop, which is a Core 2 Duo Intel running at
2GHz with 2GB of ram. This is quite a similar
BigTony;192517 Wrote:
Ok,
So I guess that its back to EAC for good, ran a few more disks in
accuraterip and found they either wern't in the database or were
inaccurate!
BT
FWIW, I use EAC in secure mode, test and copy, and accurate rip. Many
of my disks do not show up as the same
BigTony;192530 Wrote:
Jeff,
Maybe I'm missing something.. How do I get accurate rip to work in
EAC?
BT
From your earlier post, it seems like AccurateRip is telling you that
the tracks are not accurate. If that is true, you may be set up fine
but have not yet ripped a CD that
For comparison, I've now rerun my test on my Athlon at home, and have
obtained very similar results. I expected a bit of variation in the
times, but what I didn't expect was a difference in the compressed
output FLAC files, since the input WAV file was the same in both cases.
This means that the
Mark Lanctot;192477 Wrote:
Wow, you sure you're not using burst mode? Mine tops out at 10X.
Definitely secure mode with C2 error detection (see settings.jpg). Not
all CDs rip at this speed. i tested one just now, and the attached
29X.jpg shows that the image extraction reached 28.9X at
chill;192544 Wrote:
The obvious question is, if I expand the files back up to WAV, do I get
the same original file in every case. That's my next test.
Having just spot-checked a few of the compressed files, I can confirm
that they expand back up to the original WAV correctly, even though
chill;192549 Wrote:
Definitely secure mode with C2 error detection (see settings.jpg).
It's recommended to check the box that says 'drive caches audio',
whether your drive does or not, because if it does it will be defeated,
and if it doesn't then no harm either.
It's also recommended to
Skunk
Thanks for the advice. I must admit that I didn't/don't really
understand these options properly, so let me see if I have this right.
For the C2 error detection, drives which have this feature will
accurately report when a read error occurs (prompting EAC to try that
bit of data again),
As I am currently at Dylan in my CD collection, and with 600 CD's to go
I thought I se if there is a better way of getting music off the silver
discs!
Currently I use EAC and its slow (runnign for accuracy not speed)
taking 15 minutes on average for a CD.
This lunchtime (yeah I try and rip a
BigTony;192240 Wrote:
So the question is, should I use Itunes to rip ro .wav, then FLAC the
wav's - or is it not making a good digital copy?
As far as I can tell, the advantage to EAC is that it can in theory get
more off the CD if the CD is a bit suspect by repeated reads. Since the
error
I'm doing my collection now and I find EAC really quick to get a CD to
WAV, it's just when the external flac begins that there is a
bottleneck( takes 5-10 minutes a disc). Also I'm doing it on a laptop
and my external CD drive is much, much qwicker tha n my internal DVD
drive at reading the
On the same CD, EAC extracted at 2.5 times, whilst Itunes ripped it at
17.5 times, so its not the converting to FLAC thats the bottleneck.
BT
--
BigTony
BigTony's Profile:
When I went from using my internal to using the external my difference
was something along those numbers. Of course I just stuck with the
external drive. Maybe there something in the drive options in EAC.
Sounds like we're both novice at this, hopefully someone with some more
experience will
How much impact do things like the amount of buffer memory on your CD-R
drive have on ripping speed and accuracy?
--
PhilNYC
Sonic Spirits Inc.
http://www.sonicspirits.com
PhilNYC's Profile:
EAC can be more accurate than iTunes on damaged discs. It retries and
may be able to recover the error, or at least report it to you. iTunes
doesn't do this.
But when trying to recover errors, EAC won't be fast.
On undamaged CDs, iTunes is as good as EAC.
BTW EAC in burst mode should be much
PhilNYC;192258 Wrote:
How much impact do things like the amount of buffer memory on your CD-R
drive have on ripping speed and accuracy?
Buffer or cache?
Skunk's more the expert on that, but you don't want the drive to cache
when ripping, at least with EAC, because re-reading will be
I know others decry iTunes and ALAC as not bit perfect, but I'm with
CF... I use iTunes to rip to ALAC with error correction turned on. I
clean the CDs before ripping and since these CD have all been in my
home, not used in a car or used by my 20 year old daughter they are
virtually scratch and
jeffmeh;192262 Wrote:
I always find that the FLAC compression takes longer than the EAC rip,
so I do not worry about the ripping time. If you are concerned about
bit accuracy, I suggest that you stick with EAC. After all, you should
only have to rip once.
There are certainly other ways
creativepart;192264 Wrote:
I know others decry iTunes and ALAC as not bit perfect
To be clear, no one's suggesting (or should suggest) that ALAC is not
bit perfect. It is.
It's the bit extraction that's possibly not bit-perfect. But this is
only on damaged CDs, undamaged CDs should be fine.
haunyack;192265 Wrote:
Has released a minor upgrade (1.1.4) FLAC and boy-howdy - it's very
quick now.
.
I run FLAC 1.1.4, and with my computer, while it is faster than
previous versions, it is still slower than the rip in all cases where
the CD is not damaged.
--
jeffmeh
Mark Lanctot;192268 Wrote:
To be clear, no one's suggesting (or should suggest) that ALAC is not
bit perfect. It is.
I wasn't trying to run down iTunes here.
Yes, I know. I'm not trying to point any one poster out or anything. I
get a lot of folks on various forums saying that if it's not
If speed is that much of an issue, use EAC in burst mode and check the
rips with AccurateRip. This is great with popular CDs (i.e. ones in
the database), but less good if you're not ripping big sellers, I
find.
But ripping with EAC is like compressing to FLAC vs 320kbps - even if
you can't hear
I stopped using EAC a while ago and went with dBpowerAMP's CD Ripper.
It has a secure mode with AccurateRIP, and it's quite fast. EAC is
good, but is painful to get configured properly and pretty slow. The
dB ripper isn't nearly as geeky but does the same job. It isn't free,
though, it's
jeffmeh wrote:
I always find that the FLAC compression takes longer than the EAC rip,
so I do not worry about the ripping time.
This will vary depending on the speed of the host machine.
Before upgrading my box with new mobo, cpu and ram, FLAC took longer to
run and EAC+FLAC took about 7 or
creativepart;192264 Wrote:
I know others decry iTunes and ALAC as not bit perfect, but I'm with
CF... I use iTunes to rip to ALAC with error correction turned on.
I do this too. Most of my CDs are in excellent condition anyways, and
I do find iTunes on my Mac to be very simple.
One
ron thigpen;192313 Wrote:
jeffmeh wrote:
I always find that the FLAC compression takes longer than the EAC
rip,
so I do not worry about the ripping time.
This will vary depending on the speed of the host machine.
Before upgrading my box with new mobo, cpu and ram, FLAC took longer
43 matches
Mail list logo
