The Myth that EAC works

[Parsifal]

For a while I have been using EAC (Exact Audio Copy) to burn CD's to FLAC files (with cue sheets). I guess I came to the conclusion that EAC is the most reliable ripping program based on the general consensus, and because of the arrogant and contemptuous tone of of its web site.

Today, I had a rude awakening, it is not accurate. I decided to rip the same CD using two different CD-ROM drives connected to the same computer running EAC V1.3, an internal drive and an external drive. The results were not the same. On the external drive there was an alignment error, causing left and right channels to be swapped with a phase delay on one channel with respect to the other. I confirmed this by ripping to *.wav file and printing out the raw data.

Beware of this program. Now I have to wonder if I ripped any CDs with this drive in the past that have been mangled.

On a related topic, anyone use a different program to rip to FLAC file with cue sheet?

[71 dB]

The Myth that your external drive works. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

I use EAC, but only to rip tracks from CDs. I have yet to see any problems with it, but I haven't burned any CDs using it. My process is no doubt more tedious and involves more pieces of software, but it seems reliable:

1 Rip tracks from CDs using EAC.
2 Open the tracks in Adobe Audition to confirm they have arrived safely.
3 Burn the CDs using Nero.

[Spineur]

I have also been using this program to RIP CDs and have occasionnally had problem but mostly because of CD defects.  Their error correction scheme only goes so far.
You may also want to replace your external drive as some of them are really crappy.  Replacing mine with ASUS impresario was like day vs night.

Keep us posted if it turns out that major flaws exists.

[Parsifal]

The internal drive that works is a cheap $50 dollar unit. The external drive that EAC can't deal with is a very nice, high performance LG unit. It works great with iTunes and for every other purpose.

The problem, I think, is that EAC bypasses the device driver/operating system interface to access the drive more directly, then screws it up. It has arrived at some special parameters to "fix" the data from this drive which are wrong. The most annoying thing is that EAC shows the self-important message about how there were no errors, even though it the rip was bad. 

[71 dB]

I used EAC years ago when I was a windows user. If I remember correctly, the software had some settings to make it work with different drives. You kind of need to tell the software what kind of hardware it is dealing with.

[mc ukrneal]

EAC does have a lot of controls. And it is not user friendly. So it is very possible that something is 'out of alignment'. EAC is my 'go to' only when other programs can't read it. It is the only program that has been able to successfully rip (if after quite some time) several discs. For this alone, it is worth having.

But it will never be my 'go to' for everyday type stuff. I hate the interface with the user. In any case, I was under the impression that it really doesn't matter for the 'regular' stuff as long as the disc is in good shape and the codec is the same (in this case, the LAME codec). Maybe it's different for those who get more scratches and the like.

For free programs, Media Monkey has been ok. I actually rip with something else and use media monkey mostly to convert FLAC to something else when the need arises. SO perhaps of use to you in any case.

[Parsifal]

I used EAC years ago when I was a windows user. If I remember correctly, the software had some settings to make it work with different drives. You kind of need to tell the software what kind of hardware it is dealing with.

That's the issue, it recognizes the drive and sets the configuration with supposedly correct parameters, and reads incorrectly. Every other program seems to read by the default operating system procedure and has no problem.

[prémont]

I use EAC, but only to rip tracks from CDs. I have yet to see any problems with it, but I haven't burned any CDs using it. My process is no doubt more tedious and involves more pieces of software, but it seems reliable:

1 Rip tracks from CDs using EAC.
2 Open the tracks in Adobe Audition to confirm they have arrived safely.
3 Burn the CDs using Nero.

Why is it better to rip the CDs using EAC? During the last many years I have used Nero for ripping CDs (wav files)and also Nero for burning downloaded FLAC files. And I have had no technical issues.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Why is it better to rip the CDs using EAC? During the last many years I have used Nero for ripping CDs (wav files)and also Nero for burning downloaded FLAC files. And I have had no technical issues.

Didn't say it was better. I just didn't know Nero could rip the CDs as Wavs. Where do I find that? I'm a big fan of Nero.

[prémont]

Didn't say it was better. I just didn't know Nero could rip the CDs as Wavs. Where do I find that? I'm a big fan of Nero.

I use Nero 9.

Use Nero start smart, go to "copy and burn", and then to "copy audio CD", where you will find the dialogue-box you need for ripping.

[Parsifal]

I think I'll try Nero. Can it rip a CD to cue sheet + FLAC file? That's my default format. I store it that way, to listen on PC I use foobar, to listen on Mac, I convert to Apple Lossless files and use iTunes.

[prémont]

I think I'll try Nero. Can it rip a CD to cue sheet + FLAC file? That's my default format. I store it that way, to listen on PC I use foobar, to listen on Mac, I convert to Apple Lossless files and use iTunes.

Nero 9 can only rip CDs to wav, mp3 (from 96 - 320 kbps) and Nero Digital Audio, here called mp4.

I have no experience with the mp4 quality.

Nor do I know the possible options in newer Nero programs.

[Gurn Blanston]

I think I'll try Nero. Can it rip a CD to cue sheet + FLAC file? That's my default format. I store it that way, to listen on PC I use foobar, to listen on Mac, I convert to Apple Lossless files and use iTunes.

I've been using dBPoweramp for years to rip to FLAC with excellent results. There have been disks that it choked on, but very rare. Usually I can rescue them with EAC... Anyway, DBP is free (although I registered it) and things like the batch converter let me create MP3's (or practically anything else) from my FLAC's to use on my portable.

[prémont]

I've been using dBPoweramp for years to rip to FLAC with excellent results. There have been disks that it choked on, but very rare. Usually I can rescue them with EAC... Anyway, DBP is free (although I registered it) and things like the batch converter let me create MP3's (or practically anything else) from my FLAC's to use on my portable.

Are FLAC files that much better than wav files? At least wav files seem easier to handle.

[Mandryka]

Are FLAC files that much better than wav files? At least wav files seem easier to handle.

Flac files take up less space than WAV, without any quality loss. More importantly  you can hook metadata to Flac files in tags, tags can be a problem with WAV. That's only really an issue if you're storing the music in a database. Flac isn't a very natural format if you use MacOS. And the algorithm for ripping Flac may be slower than for WAV.

[prémont]

Flac files take up less space than WAV, without any quality loss. More importantly you can hook metadata to Flac files in tags, tags can be a problem with WAV. That's only really an issue if you're storing the music in a database. Flac isn't a very natural format if you use MacOS. And the algorithm for ripping Flac may be slower than for WAV.

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I have to store the metadata to my WAV files in separate text and picture files on the HD, which - I admit - is a bit clumsy. But all the files I have downloaded are, as far as I recall, FLAC files, so with these there is no problem. And rather many of the files, I have downloaded from Presto, come without notes, which is bad. But this is often the only practical way to get hold of the recording.

[Gurn Blanston]

Are FLAC files that much better than wav files? At least wav files seem easier to handle.

Better? Well, they are both lossless, so sound-quality wise they are identical. They ARE 'better', because they are less than half the size, an average 'album' size being maybe 240 megs, which is roughly twice the size of MP3's but half as big as WAV. For me, they are perfect. 

[Gurn Blanston]

.... Flac isn't a very natural format if you use MacOS. And the algorithm for ripping Flac may be slower than for WAV.

Yes, I understand the Apple equivalent is ALAC, probably the same in all but name. Ripping FLAC with EAC is a 2 step process, rip to WAV, convert to FLAC. However, dBPoweramp rips to FLAC, or at least, it is a rip and encode with no intermediate stage. If you have a multi-stage processor, you can see the progress of ripping and encoding going on nearly simultaneously.

I have a hard time feeling bad about a process taking longer when it only takes seconds anyway. I have always ripped new disks when they arrive, so I rarely have to rip more than a very few at a time. Encoding time is the least of my worries. My finickiness with tagging is much more time-consuming. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Nero 9 can only rip CDs to wav, mp3 (from 96 - 320 kbps) and Nero Digital Audio, here called mp4.

I have no experience with the mp4 quality.

Nor do I know the possible options in newer Nero programs.

In Nero 14 I see it extracting to MP4 video, which I don't like. I'll stick with EAC.