• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

is Exact Audio Copy outdted?

O

owlpen

n00b
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
1
hi,

do you guys still use EAC or it's already outdated? i mean, now many softwares (e.g., windows media player) have integrated the ripping function and they provide some very useful features such as getting the disc information on line, do we still need EAC? thanks.

owl
 
Does WMP have secure ripping and the option to use any encoder I care to? Don't get me started on DRM.

In short, No, EAC is not outdated.
 
CDex is still my reference ripper on Windows....I wished they made it for Mac too :(

The MP3 standard is like 10 years old....but it still works. Also WMP only does WMA...try loading those onto a PSP!

I like CDex because I get exact control of how I rip the music. Alt.preset.insane is my scheme of choice for my music archive, but for the PSP I would make a custom flavor that optimized quality for file size.

For my Audio CD creations I would use CDex to rip the songs intially to MP3, than transcode the selected songs to WAV. Then I would Pyro2004 to actually burn the Disc. Not an all-in-one stop, but it did exactly what I wanted.

Now I just use iTunes on the Mac :rolleyes: (iTunes rips 320MP3 very quickly too)
 
Also WMP only does WMA
Click to expand...

Nope, You just need to install a MP3 codec.

For my Audio CD creations I would use CDex to rip the songs intially to MP3, than transcode the selected songs to WAV. Then I would Pyro2004 to actually burn the Disc. Not an all-in-one stop, but it did exactly what I wanted.
Click to expand...

Why convert to a lossy format and then turn right around and decode back to wave just to burn a CD?
That is like buying a gallon of gas and dumping half of it out before you put it in your car. :p
 
Mister X said:
Nope, You just need to install a MP3 codec.
Click to expand...

Hmm, looking at WinXP WMP I see you can download a codec. Honestly I only used WMP for WMV's...as a music player it just had to much "flare".

EDIT: The link that is in WMP points to a purchasable codec, I remember that now. Thats why I never used it. I realize there are probably free codecs available perhaps even Lame or Blade (don't they mean the same thing in different languages?!?!), however since I did not like WMP I never persued that option. On the PC I used a old version of Winamp....didn't have any of the video capabilities or anything just a good clean interface (I used some retro Marantz skin) and intuitive playlist.

Why convert to a lossy format and then turn right around and decode back to wave just to burn a CD?
Click to expand...

Well although 320MP3 is a lossy format, I have yet to ever see someone conclusivly tell it apart from even good 'ol redbook. Its also a good compromise of file size and compatibility...I can take it anywhere.

I rip all my CD's to MP3 so that they are cataloged, I then come through and burn various CD's for usage as my mood requires. The burning programs convert the file to a WAV anyways right before burning it <to redbook>....wave doesn't loose anything. Its just that Pyro sometimes refuses to convert an MP3 to WAV correctly. However CDex has never let me down.

If you are making an MP3 CD, then yes obviosuly that would be dumb.

That is like buying a gallon of gas and dumping half of it out before you put it in your car. :p
Click to expand...

I do that on a regular basis....I drive an SRT-4....20MPG is not economical for a 4cyl :D
 
Back to the lecture at hand...

EAC is the only ripper I've heard of that offers 'secure' mode. You can also hook in compressors for FLAC or MP3 formats.

My question would be, "Why use Media Player?" Maybe I just don't like the idea of proprietary formats.

BTW, EAC has the capability to get CD information online.
 
EAC is by far the best program I've used to do this sort of ripping work. I've been catalogueing my CD collection by using EAC as my frontend and encoding it all into FLAC. It takes time, but time well spent.

Reason? Just got a nice speaker setup, and I don't want to lug my CD's back and forth from the car, load them etc. and still get CD audio quality instead of some other lossy file format.
 
EAC is great but a new version with an updated front-end would be nice. Bit daunting first time you use it and first attempts usually go coasterville.

Great bit of software once mastered.
 
Coasters? I just use EAC to make a Wav and cue, then use Nero to burn it. I don't care for the CD writing plugin. EAC is simply a ripper/encoder for me.
 
dandragonrage said:
EAC can do everything CDex can except suck.
Click to expand...

LOLLerskates. Buncha people just prairiedogged wondering what I was laughing at.

LAME + EAC (converting to FLAC post-rip) = The best archiving setup IMHO
 
DevilDoc said:
LAME + EAC (converting to FLAC post-rip) = The best archiving setup IMHO
Click to expand...
o_O?
Why would you want to lose audio quality by ripping to mp3s and then convert to lossless FLACs? That's a bit backwards....
 
It rips to wav and then converts... You can use any converter you want, either ACM or external program...
 
Vertigo Acid said:
o_O?
Why would you want to lose audio quality by ripping to mp3s and then convert to lossless FLACs? That's a bit backwards....
Click to expand...

Actually you have it wrong. What you are doing is taking an audio format that is perfect (for the sake of this conversation perfect even though we could argue about vinyl) and then encoding it to a maximum of 320kbps (from the original 1400kbps) and then encoding it to a lossless format. What that basically means is that no matter what your FLAC files are encoded only to the maximum that your .mp3 file allows. This makes the point of FLAC useless (since the audio quality between your .mp3 and your FLAC file will be the same).

What you should do is rip to wave (which is inherently lossless) and then encode directly to FLAC which is another lossless solution with compression. In this case your FLAC files will be miles above .mp3 files.

Hope that makes sense.
 
dandragonrage said:
I don't see where he said he's going mp3 to FLAC. You guys are assuming that.
Click to expand...
It clearly says that he's using LAME (an mp3 encoder) with EAC, and then after that using FLAC

unknownsoldier said:
Actually you have it wrong. What you are doing is taking an audio format that is perfect (for the sake of this conversation perfect even though we could argue about vinyl) and then encoding it to a maximum of 320kbps (from the original 1400kbps) and then encoding it to a lossless format. What that basically means is that no matter what your FLAC files are encoded only to the maximum that your .mp3 file allows. This makes the point of FLAC useless (since the audio quality between your .mp3 and your FLAC file will be the same).

What you should do is rip to wave (which is inherently lossless) and then encode directly to FLAC which is another lossless solution with compression. In this case your FLAC files will be miles above .mp3 files.

Hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...
isn't that exactly what I was saying? Encode from WAV to FLAC, and then if you need mp3s get them from the FLAC, instead of what I was questioning that was encode from mp3 to FLAC
 
UnknownSouljer said:
even though we could argue about vinyl
Click to expand...
Ooh, could we really? I've been looking for a good debate.

I still use EAC. cdparanoia if I'm on my linux box and don't feel like moving. It isn't as nice about automatically grabbing titles from cddb, though.
 
I don't miss the *sssrrruuuuttthhhzzz* sound that came at parties when a drunk hit the pickup/sterorack ;)

Terra - Or the dust noise...
 
I wouldn't use anything else now but EAC + FLAC (except possibly Vorbis), especially since recently discovering v0.95pb5 with accuraterip.dll
 
Originally Posted by UnknownSouljer
even though we could argue about vinyl

Ooh, could we really? I've been looking for a good debate.
Click to expand...

A high-quality vinyl pressing will provide superior sound quality compared to other media (CD, cassette). Granted, a vinyl's sound quality will degrade over time and gain the stereotypical 'hiss' sound. Comparatively, a properly maintained CD should remain at the same quality throughout its life.
 
I do not believe EAX or even MP3 for that matter are out of date. I believe MP3 is still a viable codec.

IMHO, its a moot point. I have never seen somebody conclusivly tell the difference between an insane MP3 vs any source. The human brain is not programmed to analyze every piece of information it recieves, but rather concentrate on the most relevant parts at that time.

For example, consider you eyes...certainly one of our advanced sensors. However on average we only see 3 to 5 degrees in focus at any given point. So that means you could take a large picture and make the center very focused then purposefully blur the outside. If your eyes stayed focused on the center you would never be able to tell.

Consider also MPEG's brother, JPEG. If you take a picture and save it as 24bit Bitmap I think its safe to assume that most poeple would view that as lossless. A "normal picture" 24B-BMP at 1600x1400 is a very large file, around 5-6Mb. Using Photoshop and saving that picture as JPEG using the lower compression numbers like 7 or 8 will bring that file size down to under 1Mb...yet I'm not sure anyone would be able to tell the difference between the two. However as you use more and more compression, the JPEG starts to become more evident. Using low enough compression you can almost seamlessy JPEG solid colors without any noticable loss, something that JPEG was not even designed to do (black crosshatches on a red background are a good test).

Personally I think all the hooplaw is a way for poeple to say "I'm better than you". Because they can hear something you obviously can't. Being an avid reader of Stereophile for many years I have heard more metaphores for good sound than is healthy.
Some poeple also believe a sound wave has a certain soul to it that cannot be picked up by anything but our ears. But some poeple believe the traits of a sound wave are mearly changes in phase and frequency and that modern electronics has enough accuracy to outdo the accuracy of our ears.

Now this is not to say that I don't support better technology. I have a SACD/DVD-A player, and I own several discs of both formats (some DTS ones as well). The 2ch discs that I have on SACD and CD are not really discernable (enough to justify 20 years between the formats). The multichannel ones are the real gem. It adds the ambience that 2 speakers just can't.

My whole point with this, is don't discount the usefullness of MP3. Do your self a favor and actually see if you can tell the difference. Don't shortchange yourself either, make it as hard to know which one is which when you do it. There have been a couple times I was suprised by 192kbps. Sitting there in the dark, thinking "oh wow, the imaging is fantastic" and then boom...it was a 192kbps :eek:
 
westrock2000 said:
IMHO, its a moot point. I have never seen somebody conclusivly tell the difference between an insane MP3 vs any source.
Click to expand...

Somebody with time to kill should post an ABX log. Personally, I can pick out a MP3 (insane, 320k CBR, whatever) vs. lossless anytime. You have to have a decent rig. I use my headphone rig.
 
So can anyone recommend a FLAC encoder and or front end? I've been using EAC as well, and am interested in converting my music collection to FLAC, now that there are a few DAPs that support it.

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top