I usually use CDeX to rip to wav then use oggenc to encode at quality 8, I should probably try the GTB3 version instead).

So what do you use? I'm just after some more recommendations as I like to see what else there is.

CDex is pretty good, but its still slightly below the quality of results you get with EAC.

But hey, whatever ur most comfortable with.

I would use EAC because it provides the best quality and it's very easy to use.
As far as I know, EAC is also the only program which allows you to set read/write offsets and encoder/decoder offsets.

There was a test once which compared CDex with EAC using a scratched CD and a CD with a hole in it, and EAC reported lots of errors (which was correct), while CDex reported none.

I've had a few people saying that dbPowerAMP dmConverter or something is quite good.

How do those offset things help?

Offsets aren't really that important. But if you want 100% perfect copies, it is a must. The problem lies in that a CD-drive can not read/write at exactly where a track starts but starts reading at an offset number of samples from the true starting position of the track. This means that when ripping you would either lose a number of samples in the beginning of the track and get some extra samples at the end of the track, or vice versa.

The positive thing here is that all (except very old...) drives have a fixed offset, lets say +x samples. That means that it is possible to correct this by telling the drive to start reading at -x samples from the where the track starts, and voila...

Same thing goes for writing, and EAC can handle all this.

A drive with non-consistant read offsets would not show "accurate stream" reading and thus would need to be sector-synchronized (often falsely called "jitter-corrected") during DAE ...

Sector-synchronized read modes are offered by almost any ripper out there ...

Well, it also depends on how accurate your drive is. I've never ever run into a single ripping-error with my beloved TEAC, although it is already about 5 years old.

So, i can safely avoid EAC, and use CDex instead, because i do like the GUI of CDex much more than EAC. Besides of this, CDex is avery easy to setup (don't tell me its so easy to setup EAC - every app is easy to setup if you know HOW - but this isn't what i was meaning.)

However - if your drive isn't 100% secure, EAC could be your only option.

A while ago i did use audiograbber, but i throw it away on my mission to switch to free software

- Lyx

So how are you supposed to find the offset of your drive. I have a "LITEON DVD-ROM LTD163D"

EAC has an internal database with several CD's ... a read offset can be obtained if you own a CD listed in the database that came out of the same production batch as the one listed in the database.

Another way is to look for web resources on your drive ...

http://www.hilfe-stellung.de/eac/offset.php is a german site which features the "offset base" ... your drive is listed with a read offset correction of +594 samples ...

However, those samples you lose amount to a very short fraction of a second.
You would probably never notice it, not even after ripping and burning a CD using a non-offset corrected drive a 100 times.

I think this needs to be cleared up, because, IMHO, setting offsets is too difficult for the "benefit" it brings to ripping.

And even if you set up your offsets, you would still need a drive that could read lead-in AND lead-out to ensure a 100% perfect copy. Good luck finding one of those.

I'm not completely sure what's the meaning of 'secure' here - could you please explain?

It just needs a certain ammount of damage - how much depends on the drive - to cause extraction errors. So how could any drive be 100% secure?

As JeanLuc says, EAC compares a CD you insert against an internal database to detect whether it's a reference disc for setting your drive's read offset. However, you have to find two reference CDs to accurately determine your drive's read offset and compensate for it in EAC.

Here is the page listing the reference CDs along with the pressing codes. The page is out-of-date by about a year though, I believe, but the CDs in the list should be valid none-the-less. I found two in my collection after trying about 7 or 8.

Also, AtaqueEG makes a good point that offset compensation is not really necessary, unless you are wanting a dead-on accurate archive copy of your CDs. For normal listening, I'd doubt anyone could ABX an uncompensated read offset unless it were over a couple-thousand samples (very unlikely).

Funny thing is that the same album can show different amounts of nullsamples at start/end from one production batch to another ... offset correction really isn't that important

And don't forget that the FAQ features a whole section devoted to offsets http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....7516#entry74072

okay, sorry - should have made that more clear.

Since i'm carefull with my CD, i never run into the problem that i do have a cd with heavy damage.... only slight-damage, if anything. Therefore, with secure i was meaning "no extraction errors on slightly damaged CDs", and i wasn't considering heavy damage.

- Lyx

1st choice: EAC !GREAT! (cardware)

2nd choice: CDex !great! (free)

shareware: audiograbber (fine)
WinDAC (fine)
Easy CD-DA Extractor (Idunno)
dbpoweramp (Idunno)

I use Plextools for audio CDs and EAC for protected discs.

Plextools seems to rip correct and has a great advantage when ripping scratched discs: Extraction can be cancelled within seconds. EAC has a bad tendency to lock up and require a system reboot in order to get the CD out.

What about foobar for ripping audio CD's ?
Nice CLI encoder but no ripping options.
And of course it's not made to rip but....

It is not "secure", I'll tell you that.
But it is good for emergencies

It would be nice if somebody could write a ripping plugin that used cdrdao, but I remember Peter said something about conflicting licenses.

Strangely enough, CDex was able to rip CD's in Paranoia mode that EAC couldn't - not sure WHAT was going on there!

Ok, so the majority of people on these forums consider EAC to be the best. However, if you're encoding to a lossy format, it seems kinda pointless in my opinion. Sure, if I wanted to compress everything to FLAC, I would use EAC, but for lossy it seems like overkill. Personally, I hear nothing wrong with the rips with CDex in Paranoia mode, but that's just my personal opinion - if you want the absolute best quality, go with EAC.

EAC has the ability to correct minor glitches and scratches, which is a wonderful thing even if you're using a lossy codec. Because you can sometimes hear a scratch (sometimes it sounds like a click, skip, or distortion) better than you can hear the loss.

What about Accurate Rip ?

http://www.accuraterip.com

What do you like more:

1. An MP3 which sounds good, but it's lossy.
2. An MP3 which is full of clicks and gaps.

A commonly held misconception. The real point of EAC is that it avoids introducing new errors by getting perfect digital extraction, where possible. That is, it isn't allowing the errors, then fixing them. In Secure Mode, it's not allowing errors due to disc damage (and other software does allow errors to go undetected and get into the rip).

Of course, at some point the damage is to great, and Secure Mode will not finish or will finish with errors. So what if you have a disc that has glitches burned into the wavs, or something that cannot be extracted using Secure mode, you use Burst, and errors result. EAC does have a glitch removal feature, but then it's not giving an exact copy, it's a repair. Also, it's not the best approach out there. So don't use EAC to deglitch. (I believe Pio has posted on this elsewhere?)

I don't mind that EAC doesn't deglitch well, because I'd rather AW focused on being the best ripper, and using any spare time on burner support.

Read this for a more explanation
http://home.wanadoo.nl/~w.speek/deglitch.htm

I just repeated what I read elsewhere : deglitch was the best. The info must have come from a test run in this forum about two years ago.

I don't believe it. You are a member of HA and you don't use EAC? EAC is the best. Try it.

I can see your point, but everyone is just a little too paranoid. I've never had a bad rip from CDex. If you keep your CD's clean and aren't one of those people that leave them lying around on the floor, then there's no reason not to use a ripper like CDex. And if you don't get a good rip, just use EAC. My point is that CDex is very good in Paranoia mode and I personally don't need the extra stuff that EAC brings. Plus isn't EAC supposed to be bad for CD drives in the way it reads from the CD?

From what the author of EAC (which supports a paranoia mode as well - actually paranoia mode was EAC's first secure mode) states, it is more likely to damage your drive during reading of defective CD's in paranoia mode than in secure mode ...

True for the skips and clicks, but EAC cannot do miracles (no other ripper can do as well) ... the point is that EAC uses a "voting system" (the Re-Read concept, based on the assumtion that an error will not be read twice in the same way - this has been proven wrong in some cases) to obtain the original data with a high probability.

Plextools is my no.2 on the list with a different approach of excessive C2 error information usage to "reconstruct" defective blocks with CU errors ... problem is that you 1. need a plextor drive (newer RW recommended) which can be twice as expensive as a liteon and 2. you have to rely on your drive's C2 error reporting accuracy which often has been proven wrong (see the later cdrinfo.com drive reviews) ...

Both pieces of software use the method of re-reading with lower read speeds to gather data ... the only difference is the approach of error "correction" and the fact that EAC has the more sophisticated interface (while plextools shows a diversity in functionality).

Also we must never forget that CIRC has never been designed for perfect data integrity under all circumstances ... the paramount object during CIRC development was to handle error levels up to a certain limit and take care that excessive error counts (CU cannot be "mathematically" corrected) pass your ears without significant audible detection by using statistical means of data weighting, interpolation and muting.