Exact Audio Copy (EAC)

I used to use it before switching to DBPoweramp.

Mike, I've been using EAC for years and ripped my collection with it when I started streaming with Logitech Squeezebox. EAC works hard to ensure accurate rips by using multiple reads and by using AccurateRip. It is simpler than dbPowerAmp, but it does its main job - perfect ripping - just as well. And it is free.

Adrian

I think its excellent. Have never really been prompted to try anything else.

I have been using it a lot as well. Have moved on to dBpoweramp mostly as the latter allows to simultaneously rip to additional formats (I use this option to create an MP3 copy as well for car/mobile usage). 

Mike-B posted:

Has anyone tried CD ripping software EAC ???         I've d/l'd a copy to try,  so only just started,  it looks interesting & would like to compare notes.

Hi Mike I used in the early days before I decided to use dBpoweramp ... it was fine but seemed a little fussy on setup where as dBpoweramp seemed straightforward and at the time had better meta data support. I haven't touched it in the last few years though - so can't comment on current versions. For me ripping is automatic now and hassle free with dBpoweramp.. If EAC is the same - then use the cheapest - its kind of commodity software. Edit I see EAC is free for personal use... 

I only use EAC nowadays, it's excellent and pretty easy to set up and use.

I used EAC when starting out, switching to XLD only when I moved to Mac for non-work computing. Both very good at what they do. 

Do I recall correctly that Phil mentioned that the Core uses a custom build of EAC for ripping?

Regards alan

Naim’s promo pdf: “................. system uses a custom version of the EAC (Exact Audio Copy) software to extract the files which can be stored as WAV or FLAC lossless files.”

Ahh, thanks Mike! My obsessive reading while waiting has things muddled up in my head! Good to track that down for confirmation. 

Regards alan

I am using EAC from the beginning. It is simple, but does the job and produces good rips. No need to switch. I only use DB-Poweramp to transcode files to the flac format if I get them in a different format, like from livejazzlounge. 

Some people argue there is an audible difference between the Rios coming from EAC and DBPoweramp. Apparently the DBPoweramp ones sounding a bit more rounded. I haven't been able to review this. But if it's true it means might be an additional factor for deciding on a ripper. The more advanced "technical" members on the forum might be able to comment on this.

This is a timely thread for me! Soon I will start ripping my CD collection -- and wondered about how EAC and DBPoweramp compare. In particular, I wondered which one was easier from a meta data point of view. I mainly have classical music, which I fear might cause a bit of headache (composer, conductor, orchestra, soloists...). User experiences with classical CDs would be huge appreciated!

Many thanks!

Hi Timo (& esteemed avid forumites)    I've been playing with EAC & I'm not that impressed.  

Various roadblocks AFAIC.  Yes it works & works well as a ripper,   it's nowhere near as easy to setup & use & is very slow compared to dBpoweramp.   I'm not at all happy with the metadata aspect, so far I have not found how to do anything but the most basic editing,  however I do need to focus more on that area & have not yet got to the end of that learning curve.    So Timo,  my advice is to go dBpoweramp,  plus Mp3tag (open source) & between them they will sort out your inevitable composer, conductor & orchestra tagging challenges to come. 

Also for my specific file handling work:  EAC does not do any codec converting - FLAC (etc) to WAV   It does not handle 24-bit,  so for me its a non-starter & cannot be an alternative or replacement for dBpoweramp as I now use dBpoweramp principally for editing hi-res downloads.    

I rarely rip CD's these days,  but have just acquired a collection of CD's that are suffering damage of various sort & dBpoweramp cannot read some of them,  EAC does correct some damage & in that respect is good for that job, I have yet to get stuck into this

Bottom line is unless I get a 'Eureka' moment in the next day or so,  I will not be keeping it.

Thanks for sharing your experience Mike-B -- much appreciated!! I think you might have saved me quite a few headaches in my upcoming ripping exercise.

Bert Schurink posted:

I am using EAC from the beginning. It is simple, but does the job and produces good rips. No need to switch. I only use DB-Poweramp to transcode files to the flac format if I get them in a different format, like from livejazzlounge. 

 

Some people argue there is an audible difference between the Rios coming from EAC and DBPoweramp. Apparently the DBPoweramp ones sounding a bit more rounded. I haven't been able to review this. But if it's true it means might be an additional factor for deciding on a ripper. The more advanced "technical" members on the forum might be able to comment on this.

This really is history repeating ... like for like there was no audible difference at all.. a few of us on the forum a few years ago did a little test and confirmed this across various rippers and EAC and dbpoweramp were among them.. further I inspected the files, and again like for like (same CD-ROM drive and CD pressing) the data ripped was absolutely identical, not a digit different in the media data chunk .... do a search for the details on the forum. I have also offered to anyone to look for any differences between rips, I still have the development tools I purchased for the task.

FWIW, I use EAC for the actual job of the ripping, and dbpoweramp just to scan the ripped WAVs and update the tagging based on naming convention which EAC doesn't do.

Although I have found EAC a pain to setup at times (finding a disc it recognises the offset off for drive calibration etc), I am comfortable with the job it does of ripping. To be honest, I don't necessarily think it does a better job than dbpoweramp on ripping but don't have a compelling reason to stop using it either.

Much of this comes from testing I did a few years ago with ripping in EAC in secure mode versus iTunes and Media Player and totting up the number of 4byte chunks that differed. While the latter could, once in a blue moon, end up with  several identical rips given a good enough CD, EAC was like a rock and gave just consistent results again and again. Some older discs which EAC managed to get accurate rip confirmation sounded much better on playback than rips in Media Player with many 4byte (16bit word) deviations. For those discs, the difference between a perfect rip in EAC was greater than the difference between a perfect rip and a hi-res download. Ultimately, I put so much effort into this that once I'd settled on EAC I put the matter to bed - not really wishing to visit the topic again in such exhausting detail.

That said, it seems beyond the other members of the house. I sometime ponder the purchase of a Core just in case I get hit by a car or something so that there is something that the computer illiterate at home can use.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Bert Schurink posted: 

Some people argue there is an audible difference between the Rios coming from EAC and DBPoweramp. 

This really is history repeating ... like for like there was no audible difference at all.

THanks Simon,  you stole my thunder -  -   I just posted a reply to Bert along the same lines (deleted) not quite as polite as yours but recalling that it was agreed there is no audible differences in rippers,  I also recall (maybe in another place) some data analysis comparison work showed little or no difference.

Mike - it was this place - in fact looking back it makes me smile - it was a across a number of threads and emotions seem to run a little high from some quarters on it - here his one example

https://forums.naimaudio.com/to...r-alias-wav--vs-flac

and another

https://forums.naimaudio.com/topic/naim-rip-vs-pc-rip

It appears some of the contributing members have had their posts deleted as they are no longer on the forum and perhaps have requested it - so its a little hard to follow at times - but occasionally you get an embedded copy that gives a hint

Simon

The biggest problem I find with a mixed modern / classical collection is the meaning of the <Artist> tag.  For modern music I usually want to select by the Artist (and the <Composer> Field is usually not set), for classical I usually want to select by composer.

This is fine for modern stuff as the <Artist> tag usually contains what I'm expecting to find.  However, for classical material the Artist tag is usually the orchestra / performer (I'm told by someone who used to work in the industry that this is for reasons of copyright).  In consequence for classical material I usually put the orchestra / performer in the <Album Artist> field and duplicate the composer into the <Artist> field.  This approach works for me.

As I said I use DBPoweramp, and the ease of selecting and editing the metadata is the reason for this.  I do however believe that under normal circumstances the rips from the two are effectively the same all bar the metadata.

Mike-B posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Bert Schurink posted: 

Some people argue there is an audible difference between the Rios coming from EAC and DBPoweramp. 

This really is history repeating ... like for like there was no audible difference at all.

THanks Simon,  you stole my thunder -  -   I just posted a reply to Bert along the same lines (deleted) not quite as polite as yours but recalling that it was agreed there is no audible differences in rippers,  I also recall (maybe in another place) some data analysis comparison work showed little or no difference.

Well... if anyone is interested in listening for differences between UnitiCore rips and UnitiServe rips, just drop me an email (nordoen dot jan at gmail dot com) with 'Naim rips' in the title. I'll send you a link to four files ripped twice. I find it fairly easy to identify differences, and it only requires listening to the first minute or so of each track in their 'A' and 'B' versions.

I've compared the files several times on the Serve, the Core and Audirvana, with the same results. I'm aware of the bias caused by possible differences in replay gain, but that does not seem to be an issue here (verified with sound level measurements). 

To avoid copyright issues if you do download the files, please delete them after the tests. Also, I would ask that results be kept private until all testers have reported back.

Thanks !

Jan

I think we will all be interested in your Core v Serve results Jan;,  problem is this thread is about using & the difference between dBpoweramp & EAC rips using home PC's & laptops.  As Simon said, it was a subject a while back & the investigation concluded no differences.  

You need a separate dedicated thread on your subject,  I sure it will create a lot of interest.   I would add that a few people have opinions about what has better SQ - a US rip & fed stream,   or a PC rip fed from a conventional NAS.   So I'm prepared to be 'unsurprised' on your findings. 

Jan - you have mail, all I will compare is whether there are any objective differences in the files which will be a factual confirmations rather than a 'subjective' test. I will post back any physical differences and what they are like I did on here a few years back - I'll let others confirm which sounds better etc  and I understand you might want to hold those kind of  subjective assessments back...

S

Thanks Mike. I posted here to catch Simon's attention. Results will go in the 'Core meets UnitiServe' thread.

Simon: link sent. Try to give them a listen too (if only the first minute of track 8), as I'm curious to understand what may be causing the audible (to me) differences.

Jan

Jan-Erik Nordoen posted:

Thanks Mike. I posted here to catch Simon's attention. Results will go in the 'Core meets UnitiServe' thread.

Simon: link sent. Try to give them a listen too (if only the first minute of track 8), as I'm curious to understand what may be causing the audible (to me) differences.

Jan

One obvious difference between the A and the B files (track 9) seems to be that the A files have a `maximum framesize` value of 12506 bytes whereas the B files have a `maximum framesize` value of 12507 bytes. Similar differences for the other tracks. I have no idea what this means and whether the difference can have an impact on the sound signature of the two set of files.

Jan-Erik Nordoen posted:

Thanks Mike. I posted here to catch Simon's attention. Results will go in the 'Core meets UnitiServe' thread.

Simon: link sent. Try to give them a listen too (if only the first minute of track 8), as I'm curious to understand what may be causing the audible (to me) differences.

Jan

ok but any comment on SQ from a listen I will keep to myself

Ta

S

Thanks NBPF. Let's keep the findings in the other thread, as this one is about dBPoweramp and EAC, as Mike has pointed out.

Jan