Mediamonkey and FLAC quality? Options

[infecto]

I was playing around with mediamonkey ripping some cds in FLAC and I was curious is there going to be much of a quality difference between doing this compared to running with EAC?

[Junon]

That depends on the capabilities of the drive used for the task. If it was able to extract the tracks without any errors via MediaMoneky, then the results wouldn't differ from those created by EAC. EAC's secure mode just provides higher chances that errors don't occur during the ripping process.

[greynol]

...except EAC's rip may be offset corrected.

Forgetting about possible ripping differences, flac should be doing the same regardless of the program. "FLAC quality" (from the subject of your post, EDIT: and the forum you chose for your post) is always lossless.

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 3 2007, 19:48

[infecto]

...except EAC's rip may be offset corrected.

Forgetting about possible ripping differences, flac should be doing the same regardless of the program. "FLAC quality" (from the subject of your post) is always lossless.

Sorry if I didn't explain well. I realize FLAC is lossless I was just curious if there was a big advantage using EAC for possible reduction in errors.

[infecto]

That depends on the capabilities of the drive used for the task. If it was able to extract the tracks without any errors via MediaMoneky, then the results wouldn't differ from those created by EAC. EAC's secure mode just provides higher chances that errors don't occur during the ripping process.

Thats what I was thinking. Might as well go with EAC then. Thanks.

This post has been edited by infecto: Jul 3 2007, 19:39

[jeffnyc]

That depends on the capabilities of the drive used for the task. If it was able to extract the tracks without any errors via MediaMoneky, then the results wouldn't differ from those created by EAC. EAC's secure mode just provides higher chances that errors don't occur during the ripping process.

Thats what I was thinking. Might as well go with EAC then. Thanks.

I am finding that Mediamonkey is a lot faster at encoding files into FLAC format than EAC. Would you recommend a strategy of using Mediamonkey unless I see an error, at which time I would go to EAC? Does it make sense that Mediamonkey would be much faster?

Thanks!

[jeffnyc]

Hi all -

I didn't receive any responses so I thought I'd ask the question a little differently. What do you think of this strategy:

1- Rip all of my CDs in FLAC format using Mediamonkey
2- Somehow write a script using EAC that does a mass CRC test of all the files.
3- Redo only those files that failed the CRC test.
4- Repeat until no errors.

Would this be the equivalent of using EAC for the whole process? I'm trying to save time and sanity in ripping my entire collection, and Mediamonkey is a lot faster. Also this is only theoretical unless I can somehow get a script that does the mass CRC test. Advice would be much appreciated!!!

Thanks,
Jeff

That depends on the capabilities of the drive used for the task. If it was able to extract the tracks without any errors via MediaMoneky, then the results wouldn't differ from those created by EAC. EAC's secure mode just provides higher chances that errors don't occur during the ripping process.

Thats what I was thinking. Might as well go with EAC then. Thanks.

I am finding that Mediamonkey is a lot faster at encoding files into FLAC format than EAC. Would you recommend a strategy of using Mediamonkey unless I see an error, at which time I would go to EAC? Does it make sense that Mediamonkey would be much faster?

Thanks!

[greynol]

What do you think of this strategy:

1- Rip all of my CDs in FLAC format using Mediamonkey
2- Somehow write a script using EAC that does a mass CRC test of all the files.
3- Redo only those files that failed the CRC test.
4- Repeat until no errors.

Would this be the equivalent of using EAC for the whole process?

What do you mean by a mass CRC test? Without ripping a second time you have nothing to compare in order to get a pass or fail.

Specifically what is it about EAC that is so much slower than Mediamonkey? If you set up EAC to start external compressors in the background while ripping you shouldn't have a problem unless it's the ripping process that's responsible for the speed difference; but that's the price you pay for secure ripping (in situations where AccurateRip can't be of assistance).

Depending on the characteristics of your drive, dBpowerAMP may give you a significant increase in speed without sacrificing security.

[jeffnyc]

What do you think of this strategy:

1- Rip all of my CDs in FLAC format using Mediamonkey
2- Somehow write a script using EAC that does a mass CRC test of all the files.
3- Redo only those files that failed the CRC test.
4- Repeat until no errors.

Would this be the equivalent of using EAC for the whole process?

What do you mean by a mass CRC test? Without ripping a second time you have nothing to compare in order to get a pass or fail.

Specifically what is it about EAC that is so much slower than Mediamonkey? If you set up EAC to start external compressors in the background while ripping you shouldn't have a problem unless it's the ripping process that's responsible for the speed difference; but that's the price you pay for secure ripping (in situations where AccurateRip can't be of assistance).

Depending on the characteristics of your drive, dBpowerAMP may give you a significant increase in speed without sacrificing security.

I thought that EAC compares the CRC code of the ripped files to something standard which is on the web. Am I wrong about this?

I don't know why EAC is so much slower - it just is. I already have it set up to do the converting in the background. I often get one or 2 files that have CRC codes that aren't equal so then I have to go back and rerip those, so it takes even longer.

Thanks,
Jeff

[jeffnyc]

What do you think of this strategy:

1- Rip all of my CDs in FLAC format using Mediamonkey
2- Somehow write a script using EAC that does a mass CRC test of all the files.
3- Redo only those files that failed the CRC test.
4- Repeat until no errors.

Would this be the equivalent of using EAC for the whole process?

What do you mean by a mass CRC test? Without ripping a second time you have nothing to compare in order to get a pass or fail.

Specifically what is it about EAC that is so much slower than Mediamonkey? If you set up EAC to start external compressors in the background while ripping you shouldn't have a problem unless it's the ripping process that's responsible for the speed difference; but that's the price you pay for secure ripping (in situations where AccurateRip can't be of assistance).

Depending on the characteristics of your drive, dBpowerAMP may give you a significant increase in speed without sacrificing security.

I thought that EAC compares the CRC code of the ripped files to something standard which is on the web. Am I wrong about this?

I don't know why EAC is so much slower - it just is. I already have it set up to do the converting in the background. I often get one or 2 files that have CRC codes that aren't equal so then I have to go back and rerip those, so it takes even longer.

Thanks,
Jeff

OK - after browsing through the forums, I'm starting to understand a bit better. It seems that dBpoweramp might serve my needs better than EAC. I actually just downloaded it and purchased the license. So now I'm ready to go with that. A few related questions:

1- As I mentioned before, I have a bunch of files which I already ripped into FLAC format using MediaMonkey. Is there a way to bulk check those files using dBPoweramp/AccurateRip? Would that be a sufficient test? I'm trying to avoid having to rerip those files, although I would do it if necessary.

2- It was mentioned that dbPoweramp would be a good choice "depending on the capabilities of my drive". Was this in reference to C2 checking? If so, is there a good way to check whether my drive supports this?

3- Do you recommend "Ultra-secure" mode in dbPoweramp or is "Secure mode" sufficient. I read an article by "spoon" that seemed to suggest that Secure would be very accurate.


Thanks so much!!! This forum is great!

Jeff

This post has been edited by jeffnyc: Oct 8 2007, 18:18

[footballking3420]

2. dBpoweramp will test your drive for C2. It will ask you to insert a disc with a lot of scratches on it and then begin to check the disk. It will report back if C2 errors were found. It also has a feature that displays information about your drive. Though, it said mine did not have C2, although the C2 test proved otherwise.

3. I believe the only difference between Secure and Ultra-Secure is that Ultra-Secure is only used when there were no results from AccurateRip (not in database, different pressing, etc.), or it did not pass AccurateRip match. Ultra-Secure does a 3-pass rip by default. If you do not use AccurateRip, Ultra-Secure mode will be used for every track (if enabled).

[greynol]

1- As I mentioned before, I have a bunch of files which I already ripped into FLAC format using MediaMonkey. Is there a way to bulk check those files using dBPoweramp/AccurateRip? Would that be a sufficient test? I'm trying to avoid having to rerip those files, although I would do it if necessary.

2- It was mentioned that dbPoweramp would be a good choice "depending on the capabilities of my drive". Was this in reference to C2 checking? If so, is there a good way to check whether my drive supports this?

3- Do you recommend "Ultra-secure" mode in dbPoweramp or is "Secure mode" sufficient. I read an article by "spoon" that seemed to suggest that Secure would be very accurate.

1- You should probably re-rip.

2- No, it was regarding drives that cache audio data, though you can use EAC to rip in burst mode check the AccurateRip results and then perform a test pass (F8) if you think you have a different pressing. If you think you have tracks in error (because of AR results or CRCs that don't match after a test pass), you can switch to secure and re-rip tracks that are in error. dBpA automates this process and can save you a pass or two on tracks with errors.

3- Ultra-secure and secure passes are a bit different. If you're using C2 pointers then you should probably configure dBpA to perform at least one ultra-secure pass unless you trust your drive can give accurate C2 information when using dBpA's non-ultra-secure pass. http://www.dbpoweramp.com/secure-ripper.htm

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 8 2007, 19:12

[spoon]

RE1: It is not possible to check Media Monkey riped tracks, as mentioned earlier Media Monkey does not correct for the CD drives offset, so each different cd drive will give different rips.

RE3: If your drive supports c2 well then as a compromise of speed / quality, you could have c2 and 1 ultra pass, if the CD is in accuraterip only one pass is done if there is a match.

[jeffnyc]

RE1: It is not possible to check Media Monkey riped tracks, as mentioned earlier Media Monkey does not correct for the CD drives offset, so each different cd drive will give different rips.

RE3: If your drive supports c2 well then as a compromise of speed / quality, you could have c2 and 1 ultra pass, if the CD is in accuraterip only one pass is done if there is a match.

Thanks so much for all your help! I really enjoy dBpowerAmp - it's perfect for dummies (like me)