Talk:Exact Audio Copy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Are special features important?

Dear friends - At the recommendation of a friend, I've been using EAC for a few months now. I rip in the most secure modes. I came here to find out more about WHY. In particular, how often does it really make a difference, especially on new CDs? I understand the value of EAC on scratched CDs, and clearly hear the difference. But are there really a lot of errors on new CDs? Does iTunes really not detect most of them, even when one checks its "correct errors" box?

I had been happily ripping my new mint condition CDs with iTunes for years, until my friend told me he uses EAC exclusively and why. I am a technically trained CS graduate and understand all the bits and the mp3 internal formats and all the tech talk. But I'm not an audiophile, and I never actually *heard* any problems with my iTunes rips. My friend says that if I listen really carefully I will hear plenty of little glitches, even on mint condition CDs. I must admit that even on new CDs, I often see EAC go into its "line of 8" error correction(often just one set of 8 re-tries, very rarely more). But when I listen to the iTunes-ripped version of the CD vs the EAC I don't really hear any differences. Admittedly, that's not a side-by-side A/B comparison, just a good listen to each version of the same track.

So can you add any content here, a paragraph or two, on this topic. How often does it make a difference? An essay to convince me I aught to switch to EAC when iTunes ripping is about 20x faster and I don't actually hear any problems with it?

I have gone to a few other websites on EAC, esp. those recommended in this article (a number of which are 404's btw), and find no essay on this topic. How about helping me out? Thanks! SB.

It sounds like you don't have a Golden Ear. Like most of us! There are two ways to go at this: 1) If you can't tell the difference, it does not matter. By this standard, you should be happy with iTunes or whatever. 2) You want the best. Even if you can't tell the difference. If anyone anywhere claims to be able to hear a difference, you want what they say is the best. If any tech test can tell the difference, it must be real... By this standard, seems like EAC would be the One! -69.87.203.95 01:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slow

EAC can be slow, needs quite a bit of computer power. On a PII-266 Win98SE laptop, the overall speed of extraction to MP3 is about 0.5X -- it takes over twice as long to rip, comparing to playing the CD normally. Most of the delay is converting to MP3 -- it seems to read the WAV file at about 4X. -69.87.203.95 01:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The speed of the conversion from WAV to MP3 is dependent on the speed of the computer processor. Likewise, if the processor is a Pentium-II, it can take a very long time for the file to convert. If the processor used is one of the mainstream/hi-end types, then the conversion is a lot faster than the older-generation processors. The speed of ripping a CD in EAC is dependant on the drive used to rip the CD, the extraction mode, and how scratched the CD is. --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)