| Newsgroups |
gmane.comp.audio.eac.user |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
> On May 30, 2018, at 8:25 PM, David Crooks [email protected] [EAC] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> But is it really worthwhile? Given EAC’s multi extract algorithm, if it doesn’t report any errors or problems, and only reports an Accurate Rip miss-match, why would you think your rip is the problem, and not the accurate rip DB?
>
Yes, it is really worthwhile. If most of your tracks match on AccurateRip, it’s very, very likely that those tracks that don’t match had errors in the EAC audio extraction. If multiple people get the exact same results for a track in the AccurateRip DB, you can be sure that their rips of the track were error-free.
> On May 30, 2018, at 8:25 PM, David Crooks [email protected] [EAC] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If EAC reports problems extracting, then yes, re-ripping would be recommended, but if it’s happy that it got a clean extract, but reports it doesn’t match the Accu-Rip DB, I’m more inclined to believe EAC. Am I wrong in this trust?
>
Yes, you are wrong in that trust. That’s why Andre added support for AccurateRip. He has done an amazing job with EAC, but he can’t overcome all limitations in the hardware, optical drive chipsets, and Red Book Audio standards that work against achieving and verifying error-free extractions.
> On May 31, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Dave Brzeski & Jilly Paddock [email protected] [EAC] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> As for how far the Accurate Rip Database is to be trusted, I suppose it really depends on how may people have submitted data for that disc. If it’s only the one, then it's very possible that theirs was the inaccurate one.
>
Agreed. But if even two submitted data that matched each other, it’s all but certain that the database entry can be trusted for that disc and track.
> On May 31, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Dave Brzeski & Jilly Paddock [email protected] [EAC] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If it sounds error free to you, then it is obviously good enough.
>
Nope. Not all errors are immediately identifiable as errors and not all audio chains are equal in their resolution. Something with errors can sound “fine” and another copy without errors can sound “better.” Something that sounded okay on $30 headphones plugged into your laptop can sound less than okay when auditioned on $300 headphones attached to a high performance DAC and headphone amp.
> On May 31, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Dave Brzeski & Jilly Paddock [email protected] [EAC] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The only reason it wouldn't be would be if you were sharing your rips with fussy pirates who want all their music free, but insist on documented perfection.
>
If you’re “sharing rips,” you are a pirate. Being a pirate who doesn’t care about quality doesn’t make it any better
Most people here use EAC because they “insist on documented perfection” for music they rip from their own CDs. I am making archival copies of my CDs (that I paid for) in a lossless format. Some of my CDs are rare, out-of-print, audiophile “pressings” — and some are showing signs of “bit rot.” I want to get the rip correct the first time, not discover after the CD is no longer readable that there was an error I didn’t notice at first — or that there might be an error that I can’t check against the disc or another rip.
Regards,
Fred Maxwell
Moderator, Exact Audio Copy Yahoogroup