| Author |
 Topic  |
post78
Location: USA
Posts: 2887
|
 Posted - Mon May 06, 2002 4:23 am |
|
|
This is mainly directed toward SteveG sinse you highly recommend EAC.
I'd really like to hear your opinion on a ripper called CDex. I've been using it for awhile now for conversions and recently tried its ripper. It takes a long time to rip a track. I'd say it only rips at about 2x, but it does a really good job so far. I successfuly grabbed a cd that had loads of skips, and ripped it perfectly. Just another ripper option. Thanks.
http://www.cdex.n3.net/
_________________
Answer = 1. Probably.
|
|
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
| Posted - Mon May 06, 2002 9:23 am |
|
|
You're right - it's S L O O O W W W...
It came up with the right error count, but still managed to put in two more clicks than EAC managed. But EAC did it 8.5 times as fast on the same system!
It looks suspiciously like a back-to-front version of EAC as well - how strange.
The real test of all rippers is what they do with really bad tracks, and nothing has yet come even close to EAC performance. But thanks for pointing it out, anyway.
Steve
_________________
|
|
|
|
post78
Location: USA
Posts: 2887
|
| Posted - Mon May 06, 2002 9:38 am |
|
|
Good to hear another opinion. I've been using EAC for ripping but sinse CDex had a grip of conversion options and a ripper, I thought it might be nice to have an all in one deal. If it ain't better, it ain't good. Thanks.
_________________
Answer = 1. Probably.
|
|
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
| Posted - Mon May 06, 2002 9:58 am |
|
|
I tried it again with an absolutely awful track that no ripper, including EAC, copes with properly, and it put in a few more clicks than EAC, but in different places! It coped with a few that EAC didn't, but not many. But it is so painfully slow! On balance, if you were ripping a lot of tracks, you really wouldn't want to be using CDex unless you had some serious time to waste!
The different click identification was done using mix-paste inverted in CE - both rippers seem to be accurate enough for this to work fine.
These tracks I've tried it on really are bad - I only keep them for test purposes, and I suspect that for more mundane (less errored) tracks, CEex would be fine, apart from the speed... I dare say that if EAC slowed down a bit, there'd be more similarity (or a better result!).
Steve
_________________
|
|
|
|
post78
Location: USA
Posts: 2887
|
| Posted - Mon May 06, 2002 10:29 am |
|
|
Interesting. I really only ripped one cd, Queen's greatest hits (that probably isn't the name and the case is in my car right now but it is a greatest hits album) and it also hardly plays. There is only one player in the house that can take it! Anyway, it ripped rather nicely. I don't really do that type of work though and I'm not ripping tons of tracks so I'll keep it around just incase.
| Quote: | | I dare say that if EAC slowed down a bit, there'd be more similarity |
Considering that, like you said, this would only make it better, I think there would most likely be less similarity. I remember reading on the EAC site a while back, that on really bad tracks, it might go over the same sector 80 or so times! That's thorough.
Well, if you need MP3 for something, at least CDex lets you choose from a number of algorithms, though I somehow doubt that's your thing.
_________________
Answer = 1. Probably.
|
|
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
| Posted - Mon May 06, 2002 5:00 pm |
|
|
I often create MP3s for the dedicated rack-mount player we have, but these aren't ripped from records - it's part of a repeat-transmission system, and mostly speech. The critical thing with this is speed - although I don't let the quality drop if I can help it, because you can never tell quite what's going to be there, and sometimes there will be music - I don't listen to everything that gets repeated!
Steve
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
Topic
|
All Forums
another ripper