Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: EAC vs CDex; error correcting (Read 5006 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EAC vs CDex; error correcting

Pio's test was for how any errors it reported. This one is to see how many errors it fixed.

Ok, I had gotten a CD from the library, and it was horriblly scratched(anyone that rents DVDs at blockbuster here knows how bad they can get). So I wrote down the positions on each track where it would skip. Then I tried something with EAC and CDex. I wiped off the CD with a wipe, still skipped.

So I try EAC, and just see if the drive picks up C2 errors, and it does, it sees errors on the CD, obviously. So I try it three times, rip with CUE sheet(this way I'd have to compare three WAVs in EAC and not over 30), in secure mode, once with no C2, once with C2 to detect errors, and once with C2 to detect and correct errors.

All the WAVs in EAC's compare WAV were the same. It reported no errors, and %99.9-%100 track quality(I am not sure, but I remember it was one of those two). I listened at all the points where I wrote down there were pops or skips, and there were none, at highest volume.

Then I try ripping track by track so I can compare to CDex in full paranoia, since I am not familiar with CDex outside of ripping single tracks. I rip it with the three modes I did before, and all the WAVs in all three modes came out the same, so I know I only have to compare one set of them to CDex.

Then I try CDex in full paranoia. All the WAVs come out the same as EAC's, no jitter errors reported.

Then, just for the hell of it, since I'm beginning to think that even though the CD was scratched, it was easy to rip, I try MusicMatch 7.5 with error correction. It took out, out of all the skips and pops, 5 skips. The rest stayed, there were about 42 I had written down. EAC's compare WAV sees many differences.

The only thing I learned here is that CDex is a hell of a lot faster, even in full paranoia, than EAC, and did the same job on a heavily scratched CD.

Now sure, there may have been skips in pops I and my friend couldn't hear, but this was to see what would do a better job. Apparently, they both work the same mostly in repairing errors even on scratched CDs, just CDex works faster, and MusicMatch, well, spoke for itself. 

And I had to return the CD before I could do dBpowerAMP; guess that's what I get for putting it off 'til the last minute 

EAC vs CDex; error correcting

Reply #1 –
Interesting, I use EAC all the time but have been toying with Cdex.  I once had problems while ripping an album (can't remember which one) in secure mode, it would always fail on this one track. So I took a note of the error position on the track and ripped it with Cdex in full paranoia mode, the track ripped with no trouble and when I played the rip back I could hear nothing wrong with it, even when listening closely at EAC's reported error point. I for one will be giving Cdex a closer look, I like it.

EAC vs CDex; error correcting

Reply #2 –
I'm trying another CD right now, this is scracthed even worse. I'm not doing anymore with MM anymore tho, what a JOKE!

Edit; did it, same results! CDex and EAC have the same output, just that CDex did it way faster. No errors.

EAC vs CDex; error correcting

Reply #3 –
If I've interpreted the situation properly, this post could be of some value.  If not, then everyone please ignore my ignorance...

What EAC is generally applauded for is its ability to detect errors, not necessarily correct them.  EAC in secure mode ensures that what gets extracted from the CD is exactly what is there, and the wave file produced should be the same as that if you ripped the CD 100 more times.  And not all "error correction" necessarily means "scratch correction".  There are all sorts of things that could cause the laser to incorrectly read your CD - a speck of dust (even in midair, I assume), vibration, and of course, damage to the disk.  By reading the data multiple times, EAC is very good at detecting these and reporting where on the track an error might exist.  Will EAC be able to "fix" that error?  Maybe.  EAC in burst mode, cdparanoia, or some other ripping technique might produce a wave file that best "corrects" the error, but the key is still knowing where it might exist, and EAC seems to be the best at doing that.

EAC vs CDex; error correcting

Reply #4 –
100 % quality means that EAC didn't detect any error to correct. The CD was perfectly read by the drive. Is this case, any other software, in burst mode, can get a perfect result. You must find a CD on which either CDex or EAC fails before drawing any conclusion.
Mekon21, did the EAC extraction click ? Many errors are inaudible. It might have been detected by EAC, not by CDex, and be inaudible in both cases.

EAC vs CDex; error correcting

Reply #5 –
Quote
100 % quality means that EAC didn't detect any error to correct. The CD was perfectly read by the drive. Is this case, any other software, in burst mode, can get a perfect result.

Then it must've been %99.9. If any software in burst can get a perfect result, then MusicMatch's got a lotta explaining to do. The EAC one and the MusicMatch one were completely different, so it had to be %99.9.

Quote
Many errors are inaudible.

Drat. Then I have five CDs off the bat I have to order, I'm out $75.

EAC vs CDex; error correcting

Reply #6 –
I had a bad experience with EAC a couple of days ago. CD_ex managed to perfectly grab a damaged track, which took several hours for EAC to read (and it was not fixed!!!!) in secure mode  But this was the only time...
Btw, is Cd_ex secure for making EXACT CD copies?

EAC vs CDex; error correcting

Reply #7 –
Quote
I had a bad experience with EAC a couple of days ago. CD_ex managed to perfectly grab a damaged track, which took several hours for EAC to read (and it was not fixed!!!!) in secure mode  But this was the only time...
Btw, is Cd_ex secure for making EXACT CD copies?

How can you be sure CDex ripped without errors? Rip twice with CDex then use EAC\tools\Compare wavs. If there are diffrent samples there where unreported errors in CDex.

EAC vs CDex; error correcting

Reply #8 –
Quote
EAC\tools\Compare wavs

Or use CDex/File/Compare two files 
Quote
is Cd_ex secure for making EXACT CD copies?

If you are using CDParanoia, in theory, yes.
And about the 100% exact copies... I prefer a 99.9% exact copy without audible noises. You know what I mean.

EAC vs CDex; error correcting

Reply #9 –
Quote
What EAC is generally applauded for is its ability to detect errors, not necessarily correct them.

Yes, and also to tell where the error occcured.

With my old DVD drive I could easily see the difference in EAC and CDex, it was a night and day difference in that EAC would perform better than CDex in ripping quality. More precisely EAC was more apt to report a read or sync error whereas CDex wouldn't show any problems occurred.

I now take my prior experience between the two programs with a grain of salt since my new CD-RW drive very rarely has any reported "problems" even on previously unrippable CD's I could never rip before with my old drive. This new situation has left me even more paranoid since I now wonder just how good the new drive really is since I have heard some problem spots not reported by EAC or CDex.

The more I see comparative differences between EAC and CDex I'm thinking more and more that it comes down to the actual drives that are used. Sure EAC states were the error occured which is very useful however correcting an error with a not-so-great drive can be a dreadful task that's nearly impossible.

EAC vs CDex; error correcting

Reply #10 –
Quote
Mekon21, did the EAC extraction click ? Many errors are inaudible. It might have been detected by EAC, not by CDex, and be inaudible in both cases.


I don't know, no matter what I did I could not get the whole song to rip. I just deleted what was there without listening to it. What I was trying to say was that I could not get EAC to rip it (maybe it was not EAC's fault !) but Cdex ripped it with no audible errors, (to my ears anyway).

Cheers

EAC vs CDex; error correcting

Reply #11 –
As soon as EAC slows down and shows a read error, don't waste your time, stop the extraction and switch to test and copy burst mode, and if necessary, lower the reading speed.

It would be interesting to compare CDex full paranoia and EAC test and copy burst mode.

EAC vs CDex; error correcting

Reply #12 –
Quote
Cdex ripped it with no audible errors

I have the same experience. Maybe then it's not a 100% accurate copy, I don't know, but... that's one of my motives for use CDex.
 

EAC vs CDex; error correcting

Reply #13 –
Do you use On-the-Fly-Encoding? Do you see any differences?

Big_Berny