Best audio extractor
 

Could someone tell me the best possible digital audio extractor. I've heard about EAC, is this any good? I only started using easy cd-da extractor and still want to keep using it for burning my cd's but just want to know the best ripper. The program i use is good because i can easily add cd-text and so on to the audio.

One thing.....why are there different quality rippers? Why can't the digital audio be extracted exactly the same as the original....If the original was created as a data cd (iso), it would be possible to get it the same as the original? (you only have to copy it)

First, you received answes to this question in the thread you open 5 days ago on the same subject :!:

Second, ALL EXTRACTORS work perfectly well if you extract at x1. The problems occurs when you want to extract to greater speed.

I remember you that CD Audio are burnt in mode2, like our KVCD, and NOT in mode1 like your iso DATA-CD. In mode 2 there is NO ERROR CORRECTION PROTOCOL.
That means that is you misread a single bit, you corrupt your audio stream.

However, the error correction is somehow done in the extractors and that is where the difference occurs : different software, different way to try to recreate informations that were badly read by the CD drive.

Eee, excuse me Phil, but you are partly right and partly wrong :)
There is quite a bit of error correctin in Audio CDs: http://www.ee.washington.edu/consele...udio2/95x7.htm

As to vdk_au's question, the best audio ripping method, is called "CD Paranoia", and it's available in some (most?) of the best ripping programs, like CDex (my favorite).
This mode, can basically reconstruct most scratched audio CDs data, and deliver a great extracted audio, ready for compression to any other format (OGG, MP3, etc.
Here are the methods available in CDEX:
I always use "Paranoia Full" ;)

-kwag

" paranoia full" is my brain working...(when works)!
:lol:

i'm testing and is very cool:
Tobest Audio Maestro 2.6
:wink:

To kwag's reply, does easy cd-da extractor have the ripping method "CD Paranoia"?

Thanks

I think so.
But check their site.

-kwag

All it has is a setting 'read mode. The different options are normal, audio resync, advanced audio resync, error recovery and error recovery repair. This is what they have on their help: Would it be wise to leave it on error recovery and repair all the time, even if the disc is clean. (slowing down ripping times doesn't bother me). Would there be any effects. And is this the same method as you was talking about.

Read mode

Normal; This is the default mode; Reads audio as fast as possible. There will be no problems if the CD-reader that is used for reading the CD supports digital audio extraction correctly and the audio CD is clean and contains no scratches.

Audio Resync; Some older CD-readers may not be able to extract audio data perfectly (you will hear this as extra clicks or pops in the sound). If you don't get clean copy with the default mode (Normal), try this mode instead.

Advanced Audio Resync; If you did not get clean copies with Audio Resync, you can try this mode instead.

Error Recovery; Don't fail on errors, skip errors.

Error Recovery & Repair; Detect faults (scratches, invalid sectors) on an audio CD and try to repair them.

I just read an extractor top10 (in french) and the first one was "Exact Audio Copy". CDex is second, Easy CD-DA was only 4th.

I use EAC and can only recommend it!!
It is not easy to use but there are tons of great tutorials in the i-net!

greetz, Crackhead

Although it's kind of hard to newcomers, ExactAudioCopy is definitly the Ripping tool to use when talking about CDDA.
I've done so many tests with audio extraction in the past that I don't care about any other tools besides EAC.
Plus it's free, if you send the guy (Andre) a nice postcard :wink:
Once in a while EAC will refuse to read some AudioCDs and that's when I use Feurio that always came 2nd on my testings.
CDex is an alternative but it had some ups and downs in the past.
Just remember: EAC is truelly the only piece of software that will try to read and write all bits your audio tracks!
Before using it try a guide on the net: search for "eac AND tutorial" using google and you'll find the coaster factory great tut.
Cheers

I think EAC and CDex are already "a-la-par".
They use the same method ( Paranoia ), which is basically the way the audio track is ripped (with multiple retries, etc. )
On Linux, one of the best ripper is "GRIP", which also incorporates "Paranoia", and actually had it way before EAC or CDex.
Most Windoze programs took those techniques from the U*IX world.

-kwag

I would have say from the Atari's world ;-)

:lol:

So in other words, just use EAC. I'm going to use eac for ripping but for for the rest i will use easy cd-da extractor such as mp3 encoding and i find it is good for adding cd-text, it is really simple.

Fair enough.
As long as Adaptec/Roxio don't buy Easy CDDA extractor :lol:
If so, then I definitly don't advise you on using it at all :wink:
Oh! Just be sure to use Lame to mp3 encode it.
You'll find a nice RazorLame GUI since Lame uses CLI.
Cheers

@kwag
Not quite true about the error correction libraries in the two programs, sorry. CDex uses the paranoia library and EAC does not. EAC have far more advanced error correction. The paranoia library haven't been updated for a year or so (if I remeber correctly) + EAC can use a read offset for the CD extraction.

About the error corrections: I have MANY examples of CDex reporting an error free rip (Paranoia Full) but when I listened to the tracks there were clearly errors (clicks and pops). I have NEVER had that problem with EAC. If there are any suspicious positions in the rip you get a log that tells you exactly where it occured and so it's easy to check. The only "problem" is that EAC isn't very user friendly and there are many settings to do to get the best possible CD rip you can get. With the read offset correctly set you get 100% identical copies of the original CD. No other program can do that (yet!). :wink:

Yep. You're right about that. Look: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.p...DRip/paranoia/ But I guess if you are ripping fairly "scratch free" CDs, the CDex does it's job fine :?:
But I'll take a look again at EAC, specially for heavily scratched CDs ;)

-kwag

I haven't ripped any CDs in a while, but you can also make Ogg Vorbis work with EAC as an external encoder. Right now I think I prefer it to LAME MP3.

And really, CLI encoders aren't that difficult to use with EAC. It's just a matter of figuring out what CL options you want to use for the encode, and typing them in a box in EAC's config. That's about it.

@Kwag
Yes, of course you can use CDex to rip your CD's. Most of the time it works just fine. :wink: But if you're an audiophile like me (I'm a musician myself) I would recommend using EAC instead. Mainly because of the read offsets and the error corrections of this particular program. I love it!!! :D

P.S. From version 0.95 prebeta 5 it now supports AccurateRip which practically finds your CD/DVD drivers read offset for you. Read more and download at:
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de
and
http://www.accuraterip.com

I second that!
I made some tests too and found CDex reporting error free rip but there are audible errors.
IMO, EAC is really the best ripper at the moment.
And if you use EAC with LAME –alt-preset standard, you will get absolutely transparent music.
(thought transparency is too much subjective and personal to measure)

edit: Here is a link at HydrogenAudio about CDex full paranoia versus EAC secure mode

Hear, hear! :wink:

That's absolutely true, my friend. Just make sure you're using the latest recommended version of LAME :!: The latest version is almost never the recommended one. You can find all you need to know about the recommended version of LAME here at Hydrogenaudio.org (and, of course, anything related to audio encoding :wink: ):

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=478&

P.S. If compatibility isn't an issue :arrow: why not try Musepack (mpc) :idea: Unbeatable quality and smaller files compared to mp3 :!: :wink:

I have read many times that you should still be using lame 3.90

its supposedly still the best one

Tests are been made to check if 3.96 will be recommended as the best version, but for now 3.90.3 still the recommended one.
I personally don't see much trouble going with 3.96, but that's just me. :wink:

Old thread, but I must post here gain :D

I am now HOOCKED on EAC, with ogg vorbis :!:
After doing serious tests for several days, when I had some free time :lol:, EAC really does wonders on scratched media, and even disks with tiny holes on them 8O
As for MP3, MPR PRO, AAC(MPEG-4) and the others, Ogg just leaves them in the dust :!:
I did the "Dare to compare" test (with earphones) here: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/listen.html
DAMN!, even at 45Kbps, I still can't hear a difference from my original audio CD :!:
I am now using my PocketPC as my portable player, using this:
http://www.todayplayer.com/ and I'm getting an average of 2 minutes per megabyte with Ogg, encoding with: -q -1.0 :cool:
This is using the command line encoder oggenc.exe version 1.01
I'm NOT going back to MP3s :!:

-kwag

well, i'm still with MP3 to listen in my mp3player.....and nothing was encoded with less than 192! but OGG have good fame and i need to test it too!

Hi Jorel,

There are a bunch of portable players that are now out in the market, and they support Ogg :)
So it's a matter of time before most players will have firmware to play them.
I'm sending you a "little" sample I just did by E-Mail ;)

-kwag

@jorel,

You have a PM.

-kwag

oh thanks!.....i only see that i have a pm now...the pop up window on new private messages fail and in (profile)preferences is choosed "yes"!

The pop ups will work again later, when I switch the domain name back to kvcd.net :)

-kwag

Hi kwag,

About EAC you are completely right. There is no other ripper than EAC. 8)

About Ogg... did you compare Ogg X AAC with the same bitrate?
What kind of music are you encoding?

Hi muaddib :)
It's good to see you around :cool:
Yes, I compared Ogg vs. MP3 Pro, WMA and also AAC(MPEG-4).
It beats them all :!:
I compared instrumental music, "Raul Di Blasio", and also compared the CD of "Fleetwood Mac". You can "feel" the difference, as the AAC (second best in quality) high frequency responce is very close to the original, but you can hear that something is missing.
The Ogg samples reproduce almost identical audio quality, even at Q=-1.0 (quality encode), which is what I am using.
Go ahead and download the samples at the end of this page: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/listen.html

Specially this sample: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/liste..._minus_one.ogg
Which is a 45Kbps sample.
After you hear that, I'm sure you'll agree there's no other audio Codec that can encode that quality at that low bitrate :)

-kwag

That sucks my portable MP3 player only plays MP3,s and WMA :cry:

Hi bigggt,

Mine (Rio 500 and Creative Jukebox) too :(
That's why I'm using my Toshiba PocketPC as my portable player :)
But if you check out the newest breed of Rio, HP, etc. players, you'll find that they are already including support for Ogg Vorbis.
Last night, I finished encoding the following Audio CD's:

The total file size for ALL of these albums is 561,460,298 bytes, and sound is pristine :mrgreen:
I'll encode more tonight, to see how many will fit on one 700MB CD-R.

-kwag

Hi kwag,

Wow... that 45Kbps sample sound amazing for such low bitrate!
But I think I'll never encode at that low bitrate. I just need sound transparency. 8)
And I definitely can’t achieve transparency with that bitrate.

BTW, did you use HE-AAC with that low kbps test? :roll:
I guess that’s what is supposed to be used with low bitrates AAC encodes.

OT in...
@ muaddib
hy my dear friend! :drunkard:
advice: :evil: don't go away! stay with us, we miss you. :sun:
OT out...

@ Kwag
8O 8) fantastic results, colorfull sounds!

@ all
forget mp3! :hihi:

Yes i have the rio S30s

Guess i will have to talk the wife into letting me get a new one :wink:

Hi muaddib,

What do you mean by "transparency" :?: I used two different AAC encoders, and iTunes (MAC)
There's just NO comparison :cool:

-kwag

By "transparency" I mean when you can’t distinguish your source from your encode.

Transparency is really a subjective topic, because we have different ears, but for me, 192kbps MP3 is transparent. I could never distinguish a 192kbps mp3 file from the original wav. But to be honest, I use “--alt-preset standard” (that’s more than 192) just to be safe. :mrgreen:

Hi muaddib,

Try Ogg with -q 0 (~64Kbps), and let me know if you can hear a difference from a WAV to the Ogg ;)
Edit: Make sure you encode with oggenc.exe version 1.0.1 :!:

-kwag

download:
http://www.vorbis.com/files/
and EAC:
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/eac6.html

from hydrogenaudio thread:
For best results, use the quality settings:

oggenc -q n input.wav (where n is a number from -1 to 10)

Note: Most standard oggenc binaries can input FLACs as well!!

To get an idea of the average bitrate for each quality level:

1.0.1/aoTuV/GT3b1/GT3b2:

q -1 = 45 kbps
q 0 = 64 kbps
q 1 = 80 kbps
q 2 = 96 kbps
q 3 = 112 kbps
q 4 = 128 kbps
q 5 = 160 kbps/180 kbps
q 6 = 192 kbps/212 kbps
q 7 = 224 kbps/244 kbps