EAC, highly recommended.. Save some hard disk space and convert the files to FLAC format as you rip. (FLAC is lossless and is now supported by just about any media player worth its salt.)
Access to the online database (not gracenote) requires concurrent internet access - probably not an issue unless you have dial up in which case make sure you are connected before ripping if you want to auto populate the title, artist, track names, etc.. Most but not all recordings are in this data base - if not you will be prompted to add the required information and when done can upload to the database.
Use accurate rip as it provides an additional indication that the rip you have performed is accurate.
Read the online user information and run all of the drive tests, and adjust drive offset as recommended.
Access to the online database (not gracenote) requires concurrent internet access - probably not an issue unless you have dial up in which case make sure you are connected before ripping if you want to auto populate the title, artist, track names, etc.. Most but not all recordings are in this data base - if not you will be prompted to add the required information and when done can upload to the database.
Use accurate rip as it provides an additional indication that the rip you have performed is accurate.
Read the online user information and run all of the drive tests, and adjust drive offset as recommended.
kop89
The best way to rip CD to the HDD, is to use E.A.C. and save as .wav files. The best writer to use is a BluRay writer.
Forget all the theory about "lossless" files, and all recovered audio files must sound identical, provided that the check sums are identical. Forget also about ABX testing too.
If you have high quality playback gear from the P.C.,and a good headphone amplifier as well as decent headphones, rip a high quality CD to 2 different HDD folders (to avoid confusion) using both a normal DVD writer and a BluRay writer. Listen to one version of the track, and jot down any special things you notice. Try the same track ripped from the other writer, and I am confident you will hear a difference in favour of the BluRay ripped version. i.e. Cleaner sounding, more precise localisation,better soundstage, better HF detail.
I believe it may be due to the higher precision of the shorter wavelength Blue Laser, and far less jitter to blur transient details.
P.S.
I will not be entering into any further arguments as to why what I claim is rubbish, according to mathematical theory. I suggest that members with an open mind ,try this for themselves
BTW, there has already been discussion in diyAudio as to why BluRay ripped and burned copies often sound better than the original CD.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1686208#post1686208
Sony now has available a couple of sampler recordings, with both a CD created using a stamper burned by Blue Laser,and a conventional recording of the same material,for comparison.
N.B. The checksums are identical from both versions.
The discs are called "Feel the Difference of the Blu-spec CD,Rock Selection,and Jazz selection.They are available from CD Japan.
SandyK
The best way to rip CD to the HDD, is to use E.A.C. and save as .wav files. The best writer to use is a BluRay writer.
Forget all the theory about "lossless" files, and all recovered audio files must sound identical, provided that the check sums are identical. Forget also about ABX testing too.
If you have high quality playback gear from the P.C.,and a good headphone amplifier as well as decent headphones, rip a high quality CD to 2 different HDD folders (to avoid confusion) using both a normal DVD writer and a BluRay writer. Listen to one version of the track, and jot down any special things you notice. Try the same track ripped from the other writer, and I am confident you will hear a difference in favour of the BluRay ripped version. i.e. Cleaner sounding, more precise localisation,better soundstage, better HF detail.
I believe it may be due to the higher precision of the shorter wavelength Blue Laser, and far less jitter to blur transient details.
P.S.
I will not be entering into any further arguments as to why what I claim is rubbish, according to mathematical theory. I suggest that members with an open mind ,try this for themselves
BTW, there has already been discussion in diyAudio as to why BluRay ripped and burned copies often sound better than the original CD.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1686208#post1686208
Sony now has available a couple of sampler recordings, with both a CD created using a stamper burned by Blue Laser,and a conventional recording of the same material,for comparison.
N.B. The checksums are identical from both versions.
The discs are called "Feel the Difference of the Blu-spec CD,Rock Selection,and Jazz selection.They are available from CD Japan.
SandyK
Like everyone else said, EAC.
But, if you're digitizing a lot of CDs, consider using something more automatic, like dBpoweramp Batch Ripper http://www.dbpoweramp.com/download.htm
It also uses Accuraterip to verify rips, and is very configurable. You can churn through a heap of CDs without having to touch the keyboard, just put a new disc in the tray and close it.
If you have various CD and DVD drives lying around, and patience, try getting EAC to identify their ripping features. I went through a heap and found one Mitsumi CD-R/RW and one LG DVD-ROM that had all three desirable features: accurate stream, no caching, and C2 error detection.
But, if you're digitizing a lot of CDs, consider using something more automatic, like dBpoweramp Batch Ripper http://www.dbpoweramp.com/download.htm
It also uses Accuraterip to verify rips, and is very configurable. You can churn through a heap of CDs without having to touch the keyboard, just put a new disc in the tray and close it.
If you have various CD and DVD drives lying around, and patience, try getting EAC to identify their ripping features. I went through a heap and found one Mitsumi CD-R/RW and one LG DVD-ROM that had all three desirable features: accurate stream, no caching, and C2 error detection.
In reality, your weak link is your cdrom drive. Tests in cdrinfo.com have shown some models are better than others in reading audio cds that have errors in them (which in real life are introduced during the manufacturing of the CDs). Error correction is also built into the hardware.
EAC can do no better than other s/w rippers, except that EAC allows you to compare with a database to give you peace of mind. But if your rip is different from that in the database, then the only solution is to get another CD.
EAC can do no better than other s/w rippers, except that EAC allows you to compare with a database to give you peace of mind. But if your rip is different from that in the database, then the only solution is to get another CD.
SoNic_real_one
In that case it must come down to the far better jitter correction abilities and precision of the BluRay drive's laser assembly. Are you also saying that the CDs wriitten by a BluRay writer do not use the Blue laser ? If you are, then please follow the previously mentioned link, and you will see photos of the difference in the discs burned by a BluRay writer.I use the same BluRay writer mentioned in that thread.
Irrespective, I stand by my claim that the EAC copy via the BluRay writer , despite check sums being identical, is audibly superior when played back from the HDD. In fact,with higher resolution
material such as 24/96, and even more so with 24/192 material ripped from DVD-A using DVD-A Explorer 2008 , are markedly better audibly , almost sounding like the rip from a normal DVD writer, and the rip from a BluRay writer are from different discs.
SandyK
In that case it must come down to the far better jitter correction abilities and precision of the BluRay drive's laser assembly. Are you also saying that the CDs wriitten by a BluRay writer do not use the Blue laser ? If you are, then please follow the previously mentioned link, and you will see photos of the difference in the discs burned by a BluRay writer.I use the same BluRay writer mentioned in that thread.
Irrespective, I stand by my claim that the EAC copy via the BluRay writer , despite check sums being identical, is audibly superior when played back from the HDD. In fact,with higher resolution
material such as 24/96, and even more so with 24/192 material ripped from DVD-A using DVD-A Explorer 2008 , are markedly better audibly , almost sounding like the rip from a normal DVD writer, and the rip from a BluRay writer are from different discs.
SandyK
Another excellent method, if you have Linux, is to use a program called CDParanoia. CDP exercises a variety of means to make sure that every single bit on the CD is captured- complete with any anti-copy systems that might be in place.
The fact that all the data is thus transferred to the hard drive is a big deal. The Redbook method of reading CDs is obviously not robust- just using headphones off of the laptop I can easily hear the difference between the CDRom drive and the CDP-ripped file.
The nice thing about Linux of course is that its free, as is CDParanoia, won't crash and its virus-free.
The fact that all the data is thus transferred to the hard drive is a big deal. The Redbook method of reading CDs is obviously not robust- just using headphones off of the laptop I can easily hear the difference between the CDRom drive and the CDP-ripped file.
The nice thing about Linux of course is that its free, as is CDParanoia, won't crash and its virus-free.
Riptastic is another semi-automatic ripper; I haven't tried it. Currently it is only bundled with expensive automatic CD loader systems. However, an old version is preserved at archive.org http://www.archive.org/details/tucows_332351_Riptastic It may just be a time-limited demo.
The cdparanoia project is a wonderful tool, just watch out for your version. Until the latest version from Sept. 2008 (10.2, in debian 3.10.2 (lenny), ubuntu jaunty), cdparanoia did not handle drive cache correctly. A hacks appeared to eliminate the bug (rubyripper) but it has not been generally confirmed to work around the bug properly. Now the easiest solution is simply updating cdparanoia 
mako 1138
After running them through a whole pile of checks using Exact File, and finding identical results, you would expect so, wouldn't you ? However if your PC playback is high enough quality, and into decent headphones, there are audible differences. The rips from DVD-Audio discs using DVD Audio Explorer 2008 , of the higher resolution files, especially 24/192 material, give even more marked audible differences, especially in soundstage and separation between instruments and voices. The previously mentioned Blu-spec CDs also maintain quite a bit of audible difference, even when the supposedly identical BluRay mastered version, and the conventionally manufactured version from the Sony "Feel the Difference of the Blu-spec CD Rock Selection" are ripped to the HDD using EAC and the same BluRay writer. This is despite all the checksums saying they should be identical.
I suspect that the difference is most likely due to greatly reduced "read jitter" from the BluRay writer.
Before you say that my name must be "Wayne Kerr," I should also mention that 4 or 5 other members of the Rock Grotto forum now have identical LG BluRay writers, and a couple have already confirmed these claims. Another RG member has also heard these files played through my PC and X-DAC V3 into a Silicon Chip Headphone Amplifier, and posted the following:
Re: Burning CD-R with a BluRay Burner
« Reply #152 on Apr 4, 2009, 4:54am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have listened to Marvin Gaye's Sexual Healing and carried out a DBT for Alex through my amp. Not knowing which version was which, it turns out that i listened to the conventionaly burnt cd version (from the hard drive) first. The Blu Ray version was far superior to the conventional cd version. Much wider soundstage, far more precise sense of instrument positioning, trebles had more zing and crispness and the bass was much more controlled.
I wouldn't of thought the 2 versions would be that different, but. to my surprise, the Blu Ray cd version was far superior, by a long chalk to.
After running them through a whole pile of checks using Exact File, and finding identical results, you would expect so, wouldn't you ? However if your PC playback is high enough quality, and into decent headphones, there are audible differences. The rips from DVD-Audio discs using DVD Audio Explorer 2008 , of the higher resolution files, especially 24/192 material, give even more marked audible differences, especially in soundstage and separation between instruments and voices. The previously mentioned Blu-spec CDs also maintain quite a bit of audible difference, even when the supposedly identical BluRay mastered version, and the conventionally manufactured version from the Sony "Feel the Difference of the Blu-spec CD Rock Selection" are ripped to the HDD using EAC and the same BluRay writer. This is despite all the checksums saying they should be identical.
I suspect that the difference is most likely due to greatly reduced "read jitter" from the BluRay writer.
Before you say that my name must be "Wayne Kerr," I should also mention that 4 or 5 other members of the Rock Grotto forum now have identical LG BluRay writers, and a couple have already confirmed these claims. Another RG member has also heard these files played through my PC and X-DAC V3 into a Silicon Chip Headphone Amplifier, and posted the following:
Re: Burning CD-R with a BluRay Burner
« Reply #152 on Apr 4, 2009, 4:54am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have listened to Marvin Gaye's Sexual Healing and carried out a DBT for Alex through my amp. Not knowing which version was which, it turns out that i listened to the conventionaly burnt cd version (from the hard drive) first. The Blu Ray version was far superior to the conventional cd version. Much wider soundstage, far more precise sense of instrument positioning, trebles had more zing and crispness and the bass was much more controlled.
I wouldn't of thought the 2 versions would be that different, but. to my surprise, the Blu Ray cd version was far superior, by a long chalk to.
You're not listening - the files are IDENTICAL. Not just "might be" identical, not "should be" - check them with some other hashing method if you like, MD5 should do the trick. Check them with a binary diff. Check them byte by byte in a hex editor. Give them to a monk to transcribe by hand onto paper, and then to another to enter into a computer, ensuring that each page is blessed as it is completed. For greater accuracy, consider using the blood from a sacrificed goat.
What you are describing is simply impossible. We're not talking about the realm of "but we don't understand everything about the universe, maybe there's something else going on here". We're talking about flat out impossible.
The digital file does not "store" jitter, because the reading is not done in real time. It doesn't matter whether one bit gets read 2 nanoseconds ahead of schedule because it's not about to be processed by the DAC, it's being written to a disk. There is no jitter involved in a digital-digital transfer!
Oh, and my name is "Chris Kerr" - we Kerr's really hate that joke.
What you are describing is simply impossible. We're not talking about the realm of "but we don't understand everything about the universe, maybe there's something else going on here". We're talking about flat out impossible.
The digital file does not "store" jitter, because the reading is not done in real time. It doesn't matter whether one bit gets read 2 nanoseconds ahead of schedule because it's not about to be processed by the DAC, it's being written to a disk. There is no jitter involved in a digital-digital transfer!
Oh, and my name is "Chris Kerr" - we Kerr's really hate that joke.
Chris Kerr
Attached is part of a reply from another RG member with the LG BluRay writer. Naturally, you will say he is also imagining things.
P.S. Such a sarcastic reply was not necessary, just because you don't agree with what someone else has posted for the benefit of people with less closed minds to try. I will not be responding to anything further you wish to add.
SandyK
"To try and get a better handle on why the better mojo, I'd played short (~20 sec) track sections quickly changing between rips several times and this is how I came to the impression that it might be HF resolution/harmonics that give acoustic guitar, for example, a newer string sound. There could, however, be a trade off for lower harmonics, hence my comment about starkness of the BR rip compared to richer, although slightly smoothed/dulled sound/tone of the CD/DVD rip. Its not as dramatic an affect as the chalk and cheese BR burned CD-R compared to a CD/DVD burned CD-R, but there is a difference between the HDD files due to some "twilight zone" factor.
Anyways, ABX jumping between tracks in real time didn't help me out much I'm sorry to say for some reason. However, as soon as I went back to playing a short section and then replaying the same section, SQ differences could be detected quite easily and reproducibly. Weird "
Attached is part of a reply from another RG member with the LG BluRay writer. Naturally, you will say he is also imagining things.
P.S. Such a sarcastic reply was not necessary, just because you don't agree with what someone else has posted for the benefit of people with less closed minds to try. I will not be responding to anything further you wish to add.
SandyK
"To try and get a better handle on why the better mojo, I'd played short (~20 sec) track sections quickly changing between rips several times and this is how I came to the impression that it might be HF resolution/harmonics that give acoustic guitar, for example, a newer string sound. There could, however, be a trade off for lower harmonics, hence my comment about starkness of the BR rip compared to richer, although slightly smoothed/dulled sound/tone of the CD/DVD rip. Its not as dramatic an affect as the chalk and cheese BR burned CD-R compared to a CD/DVD burned CD-R, but there is a difference between the HDD files due to some "twilight zone" factor.
Anyways, ABX jumping between tracks in real time didn't help me out much I'm sorry to say for some reason. However, as soon as I went back to playing a short section and then replaying the same section, SQ differences could be detected quite easily and reproducibly. Weird "
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.