2. digital
  3. 1230454626

Considerable Improvement with EAC Rips

associated equipment:
-Squeezebox III w/ Transparent Reference Digital Link .wav or .aiff
-dCS Delius
-dCS Purcell Upsampler 1394 (DSD)
-Levison 336
-B&W N802
-Transparent Reference Cabling and Power Conditioning
-ASC Tower Traps

I will be short and to the point. I think error correction, or "secure ripping" is absolutely crucial to hard drive based music server performance and I think the free program EAC probably performs this task better than iTunes. The difference is audible.

On disc after disc, EAC ripped tracks had a more refined, pleasant presentation, greater resolution, improved dynamics, with better imaging and instrument separation than iTunes tracks. In addition, electric and acoustic bass was tighter with more articulation and string attack. The imaging of loud swells in the music that on the iTunes tracks would sound "congested" held together more on the EAC tracks. Vocals were not as boomy or forward sounding. It goes on and on.

I tested with a fellow audiophile and we both heard and were able to describe to each other the same type of improvement on each track in most cases. In every case we heard a material difference in the tracks and on the majority of the discs we could successfully identify and distinguish EAC tracks from iTunes tracks in a blind test.

In some cases, tracks that iTunes ripped rather quickly took over an hour to rip as EAC read and reread bad sectors on the disc. Average rip speed was around 4-6x normal playing speed and on some discs dropped as low as .1x normal playing speed. We used iTunesEncode to allow EAC to automatically use iTunes' encoders to convert the raw EAC wav into .aiff and add it to the iTunes library with the proper metadeta. The entire process of EAC ripping and adding to iTunes is one click, once setup properly.

EAC indicated it was performing error correction on several discs that were thought to be in good enough condition for real time playback on a CD transport.

As a side note, the CD drive we have used has, what based on my research (also known as googling), is the best combination of features for a CD-ROM ripper: 1. it does NOT cache audio when ripping 2. it uses c2 error correction and 3. it utilizes "accurate stream".

I believe the final result with EAC is as good, if not better than the Goldmund Mim36 transport the Squeezebox replaced. On almost every disc I found myself saying "it sounds like the old transport!"

The bottom line is that if you are seriously building an archive on PC you should probably at least test this program. If you can't bring yourself to use EAC, at a minimum, iTunes error correction should be engaged.

This is a tweak for serious listening and like a lot of audiophile upgrades the differences are subtle, but important. I could not identify a difference on my Pro-Ject Headbox SEII, Sennheiser HD600 headphones and PC soundcard, but out of my main system it was obvious to me.

In conclusion, the right drive and EAC has made the system sound better than ever, without a doubt. There may be other software that rips as well or better but I am not aware of it. It also suggests computer software may play an important role in the future of the hobby, especially with USB DACS on the rise.

At the very least, the meticulous manner in which EAC reads and rereads suspicious sections of a disc, the ability to detect and compensate for unwanted drive behavior like caching, the reduced speed at which it rips, the accuracy reports it gives, and the program's reputation give me piece of mind that my files are about as good as they could be.

It is either my imagination or the best free tweak I have found to date.
blackstonejd

Showing 2 responses by blindjim

blindjim
3,092 posts
 

Blackstonejd
No question. I agree entirely.

I would love to know the steps needed to use the itunes AIF codec with EAC if that wouldn't be too much to ask.

I've been using EAC > FLAC, and to WAV to burn a dupe CD if needed. I would prefer to rip and not convert thereafter, however, if at all possible.

have you also noticed the EAC app always chooses the 'master' drive as the better, or less error ridden drive, when more than one drive is installed in the PC? I've two desktops and even swapped one pair of drives around... which ever was master on the IDE CHAIN WAS SAID TO BE THER BETTER UNIT. i SORT OF THOUGHT THAT WAS FUNNY.

It is however, spooky good once done, despite the slow rip speeds.

Lastly, when you rip, do you rip directly to a server or NAS drive? Or right to a HDD, and then copy them to some other unit?

Ever notice ripped and then copied files being of lesser quality following such a move?

Cheers
blindjim
3,092 posts
 

Blackstonejd

Thanks for the step by step path to add the AIF codec.

It truly is as a WAV, but with data embedded into the files tag info. I can’t tell them apart sonically… although sometimes I feel as though I hear a diff… but I doubt it… or it could be attributable to other factors like time of day, or simple humidity.

RE Dupe files
If you uncheck the COPY to itunes folder box in your Itunes preffs, that step will cease to occur. Outputting the EAC files into the actual itunes folder in the first place also saves time and dupes from accumulating.

Of course importing them into itunes or your fav media software still needs to be done.

Also saving the cue sheet at the same time into the same place will allow you to use EAC to burn a dupe more readily.

RE Audible diffs
Vista is audibly better than either XP or XP Pro… outputting the audio via USB. I have all 3 OS on different PCs. Vista sounds clearly better, regardless the media player being used. Some player software however does sound better than some other software with the file types being the same in each case.

RE More PCs?
That’s just a numbers game. PCs carry the bulk of personal confuser sales in general due to the price diffs of the two formats… Apple usually being the higher priced spread.

I have little choice in this matter of “confuser choices” as certain software I require is not Mac compatible…. Yet.

Re compariring the EAC v iTunes rips…
There is an EAC forum… or there was and perhaps the EAC author could input some info here… also the pc audiophile editor might be able to provide some insights as to the true nature of error correction as it applies to sonic reproduction.

I tend to think the author of such Error free (reportedly) ripping software might not be entirely on the same page as us in regards to purity of the data being transcribed. I keep getting the impression the error free aspect as it pertains to ripping, is more akin to overcoming defects on the surfaces of the discs rather than attending to maintaining the purity of the audio information.

Ex. The EAC app indicates you should use both a clean and a scratched disc at one point for comparisons… as well as the DATA base list of known CDs to set up the drive more accurately.

I feel the purity paradigm is a by product or an afterthought, if you will. The term purity too might well not the best one to use either, but I must admit, burning the EAC files to disc in several cases thus far have sounded better and/or as good as the orig store bought disc… especially those which sounded bright or compressed in orig form.

EAC FAQ/Forum
http://www.nabble.com/Exact-Audio-Copy-(EAC)---User-f488.html

pc audiophile
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/

also Hedrogenaudio
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/

All the above sites can be helpful in answering questions regarding PC/MAC audiophile recreation.

Re improving HDD audio
I’ve found merely using a laptop solves much of the issues surrounding digital sourced music. I’m guessing it’s the DC power supply and Vista OS in my case. With desktops, I follow the same methods for audible gain I follow with components. Upgrading the power cables. Using a power cond or filter. Isolation. Outboard storage & DACs or at least outboard sound cards. Lossless file encoding, and ripping with error correction.

I’ve even noticed on XP & XP pro an audible difference between placing files onto a disc formatted in FAT32 or NTFS, with NTFS being the more dynamic, and FAT being the more articulate or resolving and detailed but with less bass. (using the exact ame files, put onto different partitions.) FAT also is cross platform so it’s easier to swap files about from a MAC to a PC or vice versa.

RE error correction
As to the numbers being logged and their comparisons… well, it’s a more simple matter for me. I just go by the outcome. Does my use of ABCs error correction sound better than XYZs error correction? If so, I will use ABC. If not…

The ‘ear’s have it’ usually. Naturally, the more resolving and articulate the system, the easier it is to notice these diffs… and I do mean diffs. Better keeps getting defined and re-defined, all the time.

Now if I could just find software that will allow me to rip CDs into 24/96 or higher word lengths and bit rates with error correction as well.
More to discover