Considerable Improvement with EAC Rips

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.

Blacksonejd - I tried doing the comparison with foobar and got results like yours - one track had 56 million differences. However, this seems strange to me. The CD was newly opened yesterday and has only been played twice - once to rip with iTunes and once with Exact Copy - both on the same PC drive. It could be a poor quality CD, but I do not think so. Exact Copy file compare does compare bits - I have seen references to people seeing differences using it and certainly if you compare 2 different tracks it reports lots of errors. Without more work, I am not sure which to believe. EAC may not sensitive enough to the differences. But maybe EAC is correct and foobar is doing a bit by bit comparison without adequately accounting for non-important issues, like gaps. It is hard to believe that iTunes with error correction on is making 56 million mistakes in the copy on one 10 minute track. Unfortunately, I cannot find any real information in various forums discussing these comparison routines in detail. Not sure many people have taken the time to do a thorough compare. I do believe Exact Copy deals with poor CDs better than other rippers, but I am very suprised that there is a significant difference with good quality CDs. I think more work is in order to uderstand the difference. I need to do some more critical listening. FYI my setup is a Musical Fidelity A3.24 dac, Classe CP-65 pre, Levinson 432 and Sonus Faber Cremona speakers with Transparent Ultra cables. My iTunes rips have been very close to my Classe CDP-10 player. It would be nice to think that the EAC rips would sound better, but I really do not want to re-rip all my CDs. I am not even thinking about the vinyl. Interesting discussion.

Here is the thing. When I rip the same track twice using iTunes w/ error correction and then use Foobar to compare the two .wavs, it typically finds NO differences. In one case it found a difference of 24 samples which obviously is negligable. The same is true with two consecutive rips using EAC. So it is not as if iTunes is not capable of producing consistent results. It just produces results consistently different from EAC--if Foobar is to be believed.

Whether those difference are material to sound quality I don't know--but Foobar at least gives some support to the idea that the files are different IN SOME WAY.

Dtc, I think your hunch about the EAC's offset correction (in my case it was set to +6) throwing Foobar off was correct. If you go into the EAC folder and temporarily disable the Accurate Rip function by changing the filename of acurraterip.dll to acurraterip.dll.whatever, you will find when you fire up EAC that you can now adjust your read offset and that it is set to +0 by default.

When I used Foobar to compare an EAC rip with +0 offset to one with +6 I found that it reports the millions of samples that we have been encountering. Further when I Foobar compare the +0 offset EAC .wav to an iTunes .wav, Foobar reports NO DIFFERENCES!

So I think at this point both EAC and Foobar are telling us that there is no difference between the EAC rips and the iTunes rips--at least on the track I tested.

At this point I have to acknowledge that there may be have been a powerful placebo effect at work in my listening tests. I can't say I believe any longer that EAC is better under all circumstances. On the disc I tested today I could not detect any difference in sound quality between the two. I was able to play it a bit louder today because I had the house to myself. That disc was in pretty good condition.

I will continue to use EAC because I like the way it behaves and the feedback it provides, but I am not sure what if any value it adds with respect to sound quality.

Very interesting. I will play with the offset when I get a chance. But it sounds like you figured it out. Great work. Now we can compare real differences, rather than these offset issues. I do think EAC may handle damaged disks better than iTunes. I have a couple of tracks that iTunes will not read. If I can remember which ones they were I will see how EAC does it, although they were not on CDs I listen to very often. I have read reports of people finding differences between EAC and iTunes until they cleaned the disk. EAC read the dirty disk correctly but iTunes did not. I did spend some time with the ABX capability of foobar today trying to hear differences - it plays 2 different files randomly and lets you pick which one it is playing and records your results. You can set the start and stop times, so you can zero in on particular parts of a track very easily. Makes blind testing very easy. It was hard for me to do better than 50/50 when comparing the iTunes and EAC rips. If you have not used it you might give it a try. Just need a PC with an optical out or a usb to optical/coax converter. It is a function I have wanted for a while, so was glad to find it, even though I do not plan to use foobar on a regular basis. I may use EAC in the future - but since I recently ripped everything with iTunes I will probably just stay with that. I am really amazed at the sound quality you can get these days with free software and a little hardware. The old European school of thought that the source is the critical part of the chain is still valid - but it is no longer as expensive, although the dac is still critical to the sound quality - and for many it is the weak link. Of course for you it is a strength of your system. For me having easy access to all my CDs is the great pleasure of these systems. Using the visual interface of iTunes is much easier than trying to remember what I have on the shelves. Great discussion and glad that we got to the bottom of at least some of this. But I still will not give up my vinyl. Enjoy the music.