I'm fairly new to ripping my entire library (about 2000 CD's) and want part of the process to include full backup capability. For that reason I've chosen WMA9 as my chosen format. Yes, I've looked at the other formats but WMA9 lossless provides the widest software support currently with few limitations. I'll be putting about 3,000 songs onto a hard drive and that will be in a home theater component for SIMPLE playback on a VERY component-like solution.

That said, everyone seems to recommend EAC. I've been using it but it seems to be very basic, crashes on me enough to be annoying and doesn't seem as full-featured as Easy CD-DA.

I have a PlexWriter 40A that works great with it but wonder why it is I should stick with EAC over other solutions. I've yet to see it do anything or provide a file that is in any way better than ECDDA.

Any input on what I might need to consider would be greatly appreciated.

Huh? How did you come to this conclusion?
What do you mean by support?
Certainly there's no warranty expressed or implied, and WMA9 lossless is proprietary.

I was not aware that you can play back a WMA9 lossless file in linux at all, and WMA9 isn't even out yet for WMP on OSX.

Hell, winamp doesn't have a WMA9 lossless plugin yet, and that's saying something.
This tells me exactly the opposite of what you're saying here - WMA9 lossless has some of the most major limitations of any important lossless format.

FLAC is far more cross-platform friendly, has a winamp plugin and encodes and decodes faster (on default), and Monkey's Audio and OptimFROG produce better compression ratios. But don't let that stop you....


EAC is recommended because it has the most comprehensive error correction and is therefore probably the best ripper if you want absolutely bit-perfect rips.
I personally use CDex with full paranoia most of the time, and it's accuracy is likely very close to EAC.
With a plextor driver, you also have access to Plextools.

I hope you are aware that this feat you are planning to do will take about around 600 GB of disk space, that is 5 120 GB hard disks. If you have realized this and have supplied yourself with the drives and cases (since no normal CPU case supports 5 hardrive bays + optical disk drive, AFAIK), then I wish you good luck in your titanic labour.



Ditto, Audible!

Simple. Virtually every player out there supports WMA9 NATIVELY right out of the box, including most importantly, the various Home Theater software solutions. Mainstream players like Winamp, Media Jukebox, Musicmatch and, of course, Windows Media Player all work with it without having to do anything.

I also only care about Windows platforms so if it's not out for CPM, GeoWorks and any other non-Windows platforms, that I don't care about. For me, this has nothing to do with politics, flaming, debating, etc. The bottom line is that people follow Microsoft, period. That benefits many of us when it comes to software options, including me right now. It's the reason most people run Windows and not a Mac. I'm sure you know this but that's another topic. I'm now nearly 40. My days of swimming upstream to "fight the good fight" are pretty much behind me. For this issue, I'm much better served going with the flow. That's a LONG way from where I used to be but again, in this case, it doesn't do me a whole lot of good to choose a solution that paints me into a corner just because I don't like Microsoft. I don't Bush either but I haven't moved because he's running the country.

As noted Winamp plays WMA lossless natively. I also wouldn't use it for running the home theater component.

As far a cross-platform support, I'm only going to use the predominant one so anything else is a non-issue for me. It's about SOFTWARE support. There I have MANY options because of this choice. And APE files were literally about 1/2 of 1% (at best) smaller than WMA9 while OptimFROG isn't natively supported in 99% of software players out there.

I also used CDex and it's still installed but everyone said EAC was the way to go. PlexTools was actually my first thought but software isn't their cup of tea generally.

Finally, I didn't say I was going to back up every song on every CD. I did say I planned to rip about 3,000 songs onto the system from those 2,000 CD's. Those are the songs I want backed up. I found that each song averages about 40mb uncompressed. That's 120GB UNCOMPRESSED (not accounting for overhead) so, with 40% compression, I will have plenty of room on a single 120GB drive and plan to buy a 250-300GB drive for the device anyway.

It has to be noted, though, that WMA9 lossless is not the same as WMA9, but an entirely different codec, just like WMA9 Pro. Winamp (and probably the other players, too) do not support WMA codecs natively in the strict sense of the word, but only do so because WMP9 is installed on the same machine. Or do you think a winamp plugin of only 8 kb can decode WMA files? AFAIK, no hardware player supports WMA9 lossless yet, although I might be wrong.



Sorry, your "entire" was a bit misleading...

I don't believe this is true at all.
Few of the WMA9 supporting players actually support WMA9 lossless, AFAIK but I could be wrong. Certainly none of the WMA supporting hardware players do.

Nor would I call going with WMA9 lossless "going with the flow".
I'd call it exactly the opposite.

Once again WMA9 support does not necessarily mean WMA9 lossless support.

edited for clarity

Maybe you should see what software players you intend to play this back on first before deciding on the format.

Wow. Agra, I think the point people were making is that WM9 Lossless is not as widely supported as you claim. WM9 and WM9 Lossless are different codecs, and just because something supports the former doesn't mean that the latter will also play. Last time I checked, Audible was accurate in his claim of Winamp not supporting WM9 lossless.

Beyond that, your statement indicated that you meant it was the most supported format on all platforms.

"Yes, I've looked at the other formats but WMA9 lossless provides the widest software support currently with few limitations."

Later saying that you aren't interested in non-windows platforms contradicts your earlier statement.

Don't get too hard on him. I can see what he meant by that statement and his viewpoint can be valid when slightly modified. WMA has the widest WINDOWS software support. I didn't know about the WMA9 lossless != WMA9 anything else.

I'm surprised that MS made such a marketing blunder WMA9 Pro != WMA9 non-pro != WMA9 lossless.

@Agrajag, Like I said before, you may wish to figure out what software you plan to use first before you do your encoding job. That will tell you what options you have (i.e. make sure that your software player can handle WMA9 Lossless).

WMA9 != WMA Lossless. There is quite a bit of cross-platform support for WMA7 and WMA8, not so prevalent with WMA9, and I've not heard of anything but a Windows platform that can play WMA Lossless (though I could be wrong). There are several portable players that are FLAC-compatible (Rio Karma, Kenwood Music Keg, PhatBox), but none that can do WMA Lossless (yet). Maybe WMA-L will catch up to FLAC someday with its range of compatibility, but FLAC indeed has a respectable head start, and is definitely a more standardized format.


It sounds like you really hated MS at some point in your life...most people here don't (AFAIK). When we say that WMA-Lossless is not as well-supported as other lossless solutions, it's because it's dictated by evidence...no bias needed to justify that.


Compatibility with the platform(s) you are considering should certainly dictate your decision about an encoding format. But saying that WMA-Lossless is "predominant" in general is not supportable, I'm afraid.


Also, about the features of EAC vs. Easy CD-DA...are you sure you don't have the following option selected in EAC?

EAC Options --> Tools --> Activate Beginner Mode...

This will remove the availability of many options in EAC, and may make it seem less "feature-laden" than other ripping tools, when in actuality it's one of the most feature-rich ripping solutions that I'm aware of.


Edit: Ugh...I started typing this post at ~9:45pm EST (40 minutes before the time of this edit) and got distracted halfway through...oh well, here it is.

Heh, I think that by "predominant", he meant the predominant platform not codec, that is, Windows.

Confirmed.
I just created a WMA 9 lossless file and Winamp 2.95 would not play it (worked fine in WMP9 of course) to save it's life.

I apologise if I came off as harsh; 'twas not intended. I just wanted to point out the discreprency. His statement would make more sense if it were restricted to Windows only, even though it would still be inaccurate as WM9 Lossless support is not widespread even in Windows software.

Edit: Proper punctuation is fun!

if you are going to take so much time/trouble doing this, i think you should consider more "open" formats than MS ones ... you would really hate it if for some reason you need to play your files say, through linux ... also, that a great percent of people use MS products (me included) does not mean is the only choice. i have 4 linux pcs, and an XP one ... The MS monopoly does not benefits any one ... (do you know what is the only part of the PC tha has not gotten any cheaper with time, and that is each time more expensive? hint: Windxx) ... what benefits people is the IBM PC Architecture ... we could be doing just fine without Windows, lets say with linux/beos/os2, etc ... people run windows cause OSX does not run's on a Intel PCs, and (desktop) PCs are cheaper than MACs ... have you heard the story about MS buyin G5 for their art depts? intel, dell and others also? what you said reminds me of an old saying: "eat shit, 3.000.000.000.000.000.000 cockroaches can't be wrong" ...

Hmm ... I must yet find out why Easy CDDA is full-featured whereas EAC is not ... anyway, as an owner of a Plextor CDRW, you might consider Plextools ... if you want to go for WMA9 lossless, you will most likely use Micro$oft's Windows Media Encoder anyway ...

He clearly stated what format he wanted to use. Why can't you guys respect that, instead of flame him with other options? WMA9 Lossless is afterall a good format, isn't it? (it's faster then ape, and generates smaller files than FLAC, so its a good in-betweener). He also said that he will only be using it on a Windows based platform, not on portables, not on other operating systems, or whatever.

EAC is supposed to be the best ripper, and yes it is good, but sadly it doesnt support WMA9 Lossless direct encoding yet. dBpowerAmp Music Converter supports this, and has AccurateRip, and i've had no problems with that ripper at all.

You can download it off www.dbpoweramp.com - That way you dont have to manually re-tag all your ripped files.

Yes, but I think it is pretty safe to say that the guy does not have much of a clue.

His arguments towards choosing WMA9 lossless are not really convinced or informed.

Nobody has REALLY flamed him either.

Nobody has called him names. Everybody has tried to help

It is his choice, after all. But you DO want to help somebody when he/she sounds to be misinformed, do you?

Well I don't see anything I'd call a flame. Certainly people here are passionate about audio compression

What was an issue is that Agrajag appears to believe that WMA 9 lossless decoding support is far more ubiquitous (even strictly limiting your scope to windows players) than it actually is.

This is understandable because of the unfortunate naming conventions MS chose to use.

Judged on the merits of the compression standard alone, WMA9 Lossless is a fine solution; it's pretty fast and makes relatively small files.
Unfortunately it's not that simple in this case because Agra seems to have other critera in mind other than playback in WMP9 - namely wide(st) support and few(est) limitations.
As of now, WMA9 Lossless doesn't seem to possess these attributes at all.

As an aside, WMP9 doesn't seem to support WMA9 Lossless encoding in Win2K, which pisses me off

Okay, this shouldn't be this difficult but here goes:

First, let me again say that I didn't come into this blind. I've spent the last month plus auditioning, evaluating, researching all the various players I had interest in. I then compiled all the features and such and WMA9 Lossless was the ONLY format that was supported out of the box on ALL of them.

Media Jukebox doesn't even support FLAC and it's one of the most popular players in the world. Meanwhile it has NO trouble win WMA9 Lossless.

Understand that I don't need this software to do the encoding. I already have software for that. I just need it to PLAY the files and I don't need support on portables. I'm either buying or building this component and it will be a Windows platform solution for MANY reasons (which should be obvious).

I am, right now, listening to my WMA9 Lossless files in Winamp3 without having added anything to it. Yes, of course I have Media Player 9 installed but so do millions of others and yes, it will also be on the solution I choose.

I do not care that WMA9 Lossless doesn't work on a Rio, on Linux, on my Palm, on my Tivo, on my cell phone, on an old PDP-11 mainframe. I need it to work on a Windows platform which it does, QUITE WELL.

Meanwhile, FLAC doesn't appear to work with Winamp3. I know it doesn't natively as I tried and it failed. It also appears to only work with Winamp2 according to its own documentation. It also doesn't work with Media Jukebox. Well, there are the two most popular Windows platform players outside of Media Players (which we know doesn't support it) and it's out on both of them. Thus, it's 0-3 while WMA9 Lossless it 3-3 on each of them. So again, I would say the word "predominant" stands as being well on its way to being accurate. Far more so than the other options presented. But I did mean platform, though again, now I'll apply it to this as well.

I also don't hate Microsoft but have a healthy distrust of corporate America as a whole. I'm just VERY used to most people disliking them. In fact, in most of my discussions about this, I have gotten a LOT of MS bashing in posts back to me.

On EAC, thanks. Yes, Beginner Mode is apparently set as default. I'm unchecking it now. Now that it's unchecked I've yet to see anything additional but I'm sure I will shortly.

Audible, I'm running Winamp3. It plays WMA9 Lossless just fine for me and again, I haven't touched the install of Winamp3 (I just recently built this system and it's fairly virgin especially the Winamp install). So do you have Windows Media Player 9 installed? If so, it must allow for Winamp3 (and maybe 2) to play the files. Again, I don't care how that happened but it's working in all the critical software products I'm considering. FLAC, OGG and APE are NOT meanwhile.

I've also been told the EAC is better than Plextools. EAC is encoding WMA9 Lossless (which added encoder) just fine.

Thanks for the support Bidz. I do feel flamed and it's not the first time. Here, Yahoo Groups, elsewhere.... Every time I say I'm thinking of WMA9 Lossless I get a bunch of anti-MS rhetoric.

I do have dBPowerAmp Music Converter and aside from hating the interface, it's pretty functional.

AtaqueEG, I don't have much of a clue???? Please enlighten me to where? Please, tell me why my choice is lacking. I want a WINDOWS-BASED SOLUTION that works easily on the widest possible choice of software solutions for a home theater component I am either going to build or buy (I've already checked with the top sellers out there and WMA9 Lossless is what THEY recommended, ALONE.)

So if anyone here is ignorant and uninformed, I think you should look in a mirror. "I" know what it is "I" want. I came here, USING EAC, which I like and simply asked, after a few people recommended Easy CD-DA, if I was missing something. Thankfully I found that I was. That I now have to be flamed as a result of it speaks volumes about the bias here. So take your insults and stick them where the sun doesn't shine. How dare you suggest I haven't been flamed when you start off your post by saying I'm clueless..... Talk about irony.

Audible... Once again, WMA9-L is working flawlessly for me in Media Player 9, Media Jukebox, MusicMatch, Winamp3 and works in the Home Theater software solutions as per their own reps. Thus, support is fairly widespread. The same cannot be said for several other formats.

I should point out that I started down this path trying out Monkey's Audio first and running into all sorts of software limitations. I then went to OGG and ran into the same limitations. I read about FLAC and didn't like something I read which now escapes me. WMA9-Lossless wasn't even ON my radar screen until the reps of home theater software solutions recommended it and I tried it, while being a bit skeptical. It has worked exceptionally well so far without all the limitations previously experienced. Thus, I have become a convert through experience with it, not theory.

Of course, I played it back on the same machine I encoded it with.
It's possible my winamp 2.95 install is borked in some way, but I doubt it (works with mp3s).

Judging by the numbers, winamp3 is still significantly less popular than winamp2 (I prefer it certainly), so perhaps "predominant" might need revision after all

The format is once again, fine on it's own, and if you're certain that the players you've listed are the ones you'll confine yourself to in the future, go nuts.

I personally believe that FLAC will probably have the longest life out of all of these formats, in part because you can already download songs legally in the FLAC format.
It doesn't matter all that much in the end because you can always convert the lossless file back into the source wav...

Audible, I couldn't agree more.

FLAC may very well hang around and may even win but MS does have a way of forcing their solutions on the masses and making it stick. I will also say that, with Winamp3, I became disenchanted as to their product in much the same way I did with ICQ after time. I find I am far from alone in people losing interest in Winamp3. Thus, I have pretty much MADE DUE with Media Player 9 and, surprise, I find it's not actually as bad as I thought it was as I hadn't really bothered with it since around version 5 or so. It lacks MANY things and is far from perfect but it is very functional in many areas. I still won't be using it for this solution in the end.

Frankly, what I'm considering most of you would likely barf at but I have vastly different needs. I need a solution that allows me to replace a 400 disc component jukebox (Sony) with a solution that works almost seamlessly like it. 99% of the solutions available are just way to convoluted to work in such an environment. Then end result is that I need a VERY easy to use transport system and I'd LIKE a sophisticated Grouping/Playlist feature to work with it. I have found the solution for all of that but, to date, nothing is perfect in this area.

Yeah, winamp3 isn't particularly endearing, which is probably why more people still choose the second version.



iTunes might work for you there (adaptive playlists are loved by some, I have no use for them), but I don't believe it supports any lossless format unfortunately. Nor does it support third-party plugins yet.
Of course, QT AAC in the 192-256kbps range is probably just as good for the majority of people as lossless

Perhaps I should show you what the current leader is:

http://www.hometheatercomputer.net/

What I need is a way to take 3,000 songs, put them into different groups (preferably allow for one song to be in more than one group) and easily replay them. I'll have the Rock group, the Easy Listening group, the Frank Sinatra group (yes, my father FINALLY wore me down and I listen to him once in a great while), the Enya group (another long story) the Wife group, the Son group and the Christmas Music group. Just a few examples. On my Sony box, I just push Group 1 (labeled Rock), hit Shuffle and away I go. It has to be that easy as well here and must support a TV-abled interface and not require a mouse and so on.

Oh, and yes, the beauty of the lossless formats is that I can change my mind at any point and convert right out of them.

That looks like an interesting solution indeed, though still proprietary...and hence expensive for it's capabilities. When it can do what my Sony VAIO GRX670 can do as the center of my home theater, then I may consider it.


As for deciding on WMA-Lossless...your mind is made up, and since it meets all of your needs so well, you should definitely use it. No one had a problem with it meeting your requirements, only with your claim that it's a "predominant" lossless solution, or even the most promising one. Speaking for a group of people without clear evidence of support is a sure way to get into trouble in a conversation. Please don't feel flamed here only because you opposed the accepted (and measured) status quo...resistance was inevitable.

Concerning speaking for a group of people...

-1- In regards to the most popular software audio player, this is a poll of software players taken here a few months ago. I'll summarize. Out of 135 people polled (at the time of this post), the top two are foobar2000 at 65.93%, and Winamp 2.xx with 22.96%. Windows Media Player 9 has <=6.67% of users, Media Jukebox is at 1.48% and Winamp3 is at 0.74%. FLAC works "natively", as you would say, with the top 88.89% of audio players. What the "most prominent" solution is depends on where you ask the question.

-2- And regarding the most "predominant" lossless codecs by members of this forum, this is a poll taken a couple of months ago asking people to vote for their favorite lossless codec. At the time of this post, and out of 151 votes, 55.63% use FLAC, 31.79% use Monkey's Audio. WMA-Lossless? 1.99%. Not so predominant by this measure.

--- On a side note, concerning software audio players, you may not want to use Winamp3 to support you point. It was a bit of an aborted experiment in terms of capability which will not even be supported by Nullsoft once Winamp5 is officially released.

Agrajag, I don't think you are being flamed. People were actually trying to help you. Your first post lead us (or at least me) to believe that you were looking for a codec that was future-proof, had cross-platform support, cross-software support, and large hardware support. Obviously, as I have read (or rather browsed) trough this thread, you have more specific needs than that. You want to be able to use some specific software, in some specific situation. In that case WMA9 lossless may very well be the most appropriate choice. But since most of us (I think) thought you were looking for what I described, we just wanted to help out by informing that WMA9 lossless was not the best solution for that.

Aaaanyway, regarding EAC. It is the best ripper out there if you want perfect replication. The error correction used in EAC is the best one out there. Some other software may be just as good (CDex) when it comes to error correction, but EAC has definitely better capabilities to detect and inform you about errors that are not correctable. That is where wins over all other ripping software.

In reply to the poll, I find it's results unrealistic. It was conducted here and this is hardly a place that is reflective of mass market users. In fact, the fact that we're here pretty much removes us from that group, thus, this group is going to be made up of people well outside the mainstream and very likely to be aware of alternate solutions.

Are you going to suggest that Media Player is not THE predominant media player in the WORLD? If so, we're going to have a VERY hard time agreeing on much of anything. It isn't even close. It's like suggesting Internet Explorer isn't a very popular browser or that AOL isn't very popular.

The case here is a simple one of being biased by the "local community". Your perception is skewed by the circles you travel in. It's a very common situation but, in the end, a mistake when used to back up such views.

Don't take that the wrong way. The same problem has happened on Usenet since its inception. I can't tell you how many times people have tried to suggest that AOL wasn't popular simply because, at the time, no one on a particular newgroup used it. I really don't care what poll results here say. All they suggest is the view of the very niche group who frequent here, and again, it's a simple case to show that this sort of group is very much outside of the mainstream.

Magic, thanks. However, you really read a LOT into my initial post and it also assumes that I really came into this whole thing blind as a bat which is mildly insulting as well. Think about it. I understand how that could happen and could have prevented it by being more detailed myself but I admit, I was in a bit of a rush as well. I hoped folks here would assume something positive in that I had already thought out my actions and, if curious, simply say, "I'm curious. Why do you feel WMA9-L is a good choice for this use?"

That certainly would have been much better received than, "the guy does not have much of a clue", etc. <grin>

On EAC, I just wanted to be sure given that I'd be converting thousands of files with it and taking weeks or months to get it all done. For someone without a clue, I seem to have done fairly well having chosen EAC in the first place and mine is pretty loaded up already with several encoders and such. <grin>

you are right on that point ... the player poll was definitely biased towards foobar (although it is indeed a very capable player) whereas the lossless poll was biased towards FLAC (which is a very capable lossless codec) ... I would bet a normal pc user doesn't even know about the possibility of lossless music archiving since M$ claims 96 kbps WMA is CD quality ...

These polls always represent the opinion of a small group mostly consisting of knowledgeable people whereas "out there", no one knows about the great (better) alternative pc audio possibilities being offered to them ... that's why people use the resource-eating (fact), shiny, spyware (fact as well) Windows Media Player ... although I would still bet my money on WinAmp 2.xx being the world's foremost pc audio player software ...

And who says we have to agree on anything? Respect and agreement are two different things. We can have one without requiring the other.

FLAC is the best lossless solution for me. WMA Lossless is the best lossless solution for you.

And the problem with this is...?


[And concerning the main question in your initial post about EAC vs. Easy CD-DA features...I hope that's been answered. Post any specific questions you may have about either one of them...plenty of people here will be glad to help.]

I too was a Winamp2 fan. I miss my FusionAMP skins, Geiss, Jet, etc.

As noted, I'd been away from Media Player for so long that I'd totally written it off. I'll likely be very quick to get Winamp5 when it's final as well. But for now, Media Player is actually, and VERY surprisingly, working quite nicely to handle this process so far. Again, that's temporary until I move everything over to the new component but for now I can easily see my collection, group edit tags, throw together some quick playlists, sort any way I care to, etc.

Scor, I have no problem with us agreeing (or not) either. I simply stated a fact that if you don't feel Media Player is the predominant choice out there, we're likely miles apart on much of our thinking across the board.

Again, none of that says that I like or dislike the software (I'm mixed personally) but I can admit that Media Player is #1 while choosing to use something else myself.

I don't use Windows defragger, don't use MSN Messenger, don't use Outlook Express, go back and forth on IE and so on. But I also know where each of them stand with respect to popularity and how that impacts my choices and decisions.

I wouldn't create a website, for example, that looked great in Opera but looked like crap in IE. That just wouldn't make any sense even though I personally find IE quite lacking.

[somewhat OT]
You have a valid point, indeed, but therein lies a significant difference between us. I care not at all what is the most popular when choosing for myself, with almost any product in the world. I do, however, require a product to meet all of my needs and have an adequate future for support and improvement. The maker of such a product doesn't have to be a monopoly to satisfy these requirements. If it's what many other people are using as well, though, that's incidental.

When the world was using (and still is using) Palm (and Palm-clone) PDAs, I used Psion's. The world uses Nokia and Motorola cellphones...mine is an LG. The world drinks Coke or Pepsi...Dr. Pepper is my exclusive choice among sodas.

That's the greatest aspect of a free society...freedom of choice. This applies quite equally to lossless audio codecs. I may not agree with your choice, but I'll fight to the death for your right to choose it.
[/somewhat OT]

Scor,

You should care about what the most popular item is when making a decision and I'll tell you why. It affects your selection. The list of popular products that have proven to have future support and improvement is a MUCH larger list than products that had a niche following. A HUGE number of niche products that were clearly superior and clearly had solid intentions, died leaving many in the lurch. Many people end up back with the leader simply because they went through this themselves and have come to the conclusion that it's easier, in the long run, to go with the popular choice and enjoy the ride, even if it takes a somewhat less than optimal route.

How many people do you think are Intel users now because they had a bad experience with Cyrix? I'd be willing to bet that 90% of those who bought Cyrix processors way back are now Intel users and NOT AMD users. Today, I'm an Intel user after having had a few problems I didn't need to have with the AMD platform (mainly due to Via chipset issues).

I wonder how much support all those Amiga fans are getting today? Or those Betamax owners, etc. Clearly superior products with fanatical followers that went nowhere.

Understand, this comes from someone who swam upstream in most every area possible. I rarely ran MS-DOS, ran X (old OS), GeoWorks, OS/2, etc. I am a toy nut so I tend to go for quality over quantity but experience has taught me that quantity often wins out over quality in the long run. I wasted an awful lot of time messing with OS/2 when I could have just used Windows 3x, for example. Yes, I learned a great deal but part of that learning was also the negatives of that niche choice. Best features does not always make for best product, in the end. In fact, it often goes the other way. Is AOL the best Internet provider? I think we'd get near unanimous support for them not being that but to the VAST majority of Internet users, they were the best for many years and likely still would win that claim. I won't use AOL myself but I also realize that their popularity affects my choices and experiences. I own an XBOX because, to me, it clearly has the best hardware, but I also realize fully that Playstation 2 is the predominant choice and have to accept that my choice comes with trade-offs. I don't get the library of games they get and often have to wait longer for ports of the games I do have to choose from. I also realize I am more likely to be orphaned as it's all about sales and XBOX isn't doing to well.

In my direct neck of the woods, many would have been much better served realizing the dominance Creative Labs has and had in sound and not gone the Advanced Gravis Ultrasound, Turtle Beach Tropez, Crystal Lake, Media Vision routes. All of those groups had dedicated followers and all of them ended up orphaned with solutions that required endless tweaking and trade-offs that resulted in months and years of missed opportunities because they chose the so-called "best" choice and not the popular choice. The popular choice would have just worked.

I too support everyone's freedom to choose what they want but I don't accept arguments built on faulty data as a by-product of that.

Well, you have a post count of 10 (currently) and registered yesterday, how are people here to know you are not a newbie (or "blind as a bat" in your vocabulary)? Questions like these have popped up quite frequently before from new members of this forum. And given your initial post (which initially was the only one...) how do you expect people to understand who you are and what you know when you present information that doesn't really give us the full picture?

Nevertheless, I can agree on that people in this forum sometimes can be a bit too harsh to new members. But after re-reading some of the initial posts i think you have been treated quite fairly, so I really think you are overreacting.

so you mean that when windows 3.0 was released, it was the most popular OS in the world? people started to use it for many reasons, none of which was the "hugly popular" one ... at the time of launch Win3.0 had 0% market share ... and i doubt that any one was using Windows 1.0, 2.0, or whatever ... so i don't really agree, even if i can respect it, with your thinking of "just follow the leader" ... this type of thinking is what makes AOL be the biggest ISP, Windows de dominant OS, etc, even if they are clearly not the best ... also, if you came to an "audiphile" community, and i feel part of it even without feeling an audiphile, you can't spect people to reply to you simple "yes, use WMA lossless", when we know there are much better choices ...

edit: this reminds me on when ati was the graphics leader, then came 3dfx out of nowhere, then nvidia, and now back again ati ... i can also think of the initial launch of the ps1, when sega and nintendo where rulling ... and many, many more expamples ...

So, by this logic, I should stop using Exact Audio Copy and use Windows Media Player 9 to extract music from CD if it's what most people use?

And I should stop using Ogg Vorbis and LAME and Musepack to encode my music and instead use either FhG MP3 or WMA9?

And I should stop using Tag&Rename and use Windows Media Player to manage my tag info?

And I should stop listening to my music in Winamp5 and foobar2000 and only listen to it in WMP based on popularity?

Uhh...no thanks. Call me naive, but I still prefer product quality over quantity. I guess I'll accept being kicked in the teeth by market attrition if it happens.



Also, could this apply to musical taste, as well? I'd have to stop listening to Nina Gordon, Liz Phair, Pink Floyd and The Chemical Brothers in favor of the more popular Michael Jackson, Celine Dion, Mariah Carey and Britney Spears.

Since when do we all have to fit into, or even pay attention to, the same mold that most people fit into?
Diversity. Learn it, live it, love it.


Edit: grammar, typos.

I don't really see any reason for using larger letters here. Please keep civil.

Agrajag:
At least for Monkey's Audio there's a directshow plugin so any player that can use this will do (WMP, any player that plays video probably).
Also the website claims to have Media Jukebox™ support though I haven't tried that.
Is supported for winamp2 and 3.

There also appear to be a DirectShow filter for flac according to the website.


What we are trying to tell you is that we don't understand at all how you can reach the conclusion that WMA lossless provides anything else than what other formats does.
WMA can AFAIK only be supported using: DirectShow or the WindowsMedia API whereas flac is open source and APE is somewhat open too.

About EAC:
AFAIK only CDex and EAC (for windows) have anything else than burst mode ripping where you'd never know if there were errors. EAC has proven to be best at reporting errors though not neccesarily the best at correcting them.

Lets stop trying to help him ... We are to dumb for his knowledge.
He made his mind , He dont want to change and He dont want to learn
Don't post here anymore ....
Let him use Easy Cd-da , let him usa wm9 and think they are the best.
Those never ending discussion with never wanting to learn people is what kills the comunity.

Just my 2 cents.

[EDIT] Hey , I am relexed ...
I just said that , so we stop this before it irritates me . rofl ...
He came here asking for help

[quote] I'm fairly new to ripping my entire library[/quote]
[quote]Any input on what I might need to consider would be greatly appreciated.[/quote]
Whith claims that is not true
[quote]MA9 lossless provides the widest software support currently with few limitations[/quote]
[quote]Virtually every player out there supports WMA9 NATIVELY right out of the box[/quote]
[quote]As noted Winamp plays WMA lossless natively.[/quote]
[quote]most importantly, the various Home Theater software solutions.[/quote]
[quote]First, let me again say that I didn't come into this blind.[/quote]
Diferent than first quote.
[quote]Media Jukebox it's one of the most popular players in the world[/quote]
[quote]That I now have to be flamed as a result of it speaks volumes about the bias here[/quote]
Dude , you not being flamed ... flame probably will start if you keeping trying to show 1 = 2 ...
[quote]It was conducted here and this is hardly a place that is reflective of mass market users[/quote]
True , but here is a place for all profesionals in the industry. If you want a mass market opinion why did you come here ?
[quote]re you going to suggest that Media Player is not THE predominant media player in the WORLD[/quote]
[quote]The case here is a simple one of being biased by the "local community". Your perception is skewed by the circles you travel in. It's a very common situation but, in the end, a mistake when used to back up such views.[/quote]
Do not forget you can also suffer from the same problem ....
[quote]The list of popular products that have proven to have future support and improvement is a MUCH larger list than products that had a niche following.[/quote]
Where was it proven ? It is not what I see , I see popular products being bought and getting in a downfall ! may i say too ? Winamp 3 and Icq just like you said. (Wow , damm AOL , lol )
[quote]I own an XBOX because, to me, it clearly has the best hardware, but I also realize fully that Playstation 2 is the predominant choice[/quote]
Totaly different things ... Playstation 2 is older , Sony was already a winner with PS One , Xbox is a new player on the market. And what makes console are games, not hardware.
Quality will always win over quantity , I had only 3 games for the N64 the 2 Zeldas and Mario. By far one of the best gaming experiences I ever had.
Better than had 300 titles that was no fun to play.
But fun is something difficult to measure , so lets not discuss this

If you think quantity is better than quality , you should not be asking about EAC , as it is clearly not a mainstren product.

Just to make clearly , I AM NOT FLAMING YOU , just showing my point of view of the problem. You came here asking for help and input and was what everybody tried to give you , and you disagreed with everything this small niche was trying to say you.

So what you really want as an awnser ?

"Yes , wmp 9 is the best for you need as is Easy CD-DA."

If you were so sure about you choices , you would not really be seeking input.

IMHO
Don't worry , be happy
What will make those software good for you is if your happy , not if them work or not

Hey hey, relax, we are only here to provide our opinions, not force them on others.

There's nothing wrong with anyone using Easy CD-DA or WMA9L. If he can hear nothing wrong with his WMA9L files ripped in Easy CD-DA, that's good for him. But if ever a day when he listens closely and detects pops and clicks in his music, EAC will always be there for him to use.
The same goes for WMA9L. As long as Microsoft exists, WMA9L will exist (although I thought WMA9L file playback was only confined to Windows Media Player, which incidentally, and unapologetically, is the ubiquitous player everybody who does not at least use Winamp use. And how many people at least use Winamp?).

As Agrajag said so himself, he always goes on to use the better stuff.

As for me, I once thought there was nothing lighter and more functional than Winamp. I easily see now that I'm wrong.

Windows 3 was a software product that ran on DOS, the most predominant OS at that time. It was not an OS.

Also, nowhere have I said that you should choose popular over best. I have said that I usually opt for best in breed myself over popular but I also factor in how that choice is impacted by the popular products.

Jan, I understand your questioning my view but understand this. I have currently about 8 players and have had many more while researching all this. In every one of them WMA9-Lossless has played without my having to go get plug-ins for each of them. The same was not the case for the other formats. I had to go and get a plug-in, DLL, control, etc., for each one in each player.

TCMJR, in my view it's elitist attitudes like yours that drive people away from forums like this. You twist virtually everything I've said to try and fit it into a view I don't share. Nice contribution to this thread. Please quote me saying "quantity is better than quality", for example.

SLD, thanks for noting that I too choose quality over quantity more often than not. The difference is that I usually get there after much research (not from just someone on a forum like this saying, "Use EAC, it's the best") and consideration of how the other options will impact my choice.

In the mainstream consumer computer market Winamp is virtually unknown. 95% of people just use what came on the system. Media Player plays their files and that's good enough for nearly all of them. There's a lot to be said about things just working out of the box over having to go hunting for better solution.

Would you please tell me how a few clicks more can in any way make any impact on your decision?

It's kinda <censored> when even moderators gets way off-topic. Look at the topic, it says "EAC vs Easy CD-DA", not WMA9 Lossless VS loads of other lossless formats.

WMA9 Lossless is afterall a good format, which will have native support in every new Windows operating system from now on, It's supported by alot of players, so what's really the problem? It is lossless, no format is really better than the other (except the streaming feature that FLAC has, but seriously, who wants to stream a lossless file).

Back on topic, If your discs are scratched, EAC is the ripper to use. You might also want to consider PlexTools Pro 2.x (You had a 40x Plextor drive), which actually is VERY good, and on par with EAC in most tests with Plextor drives. PlexTools also sets the correct read offset for you, so no hassle there either.

Bidz bidz bidz ...
Nobody is questions if wma9 lossless is good or not.
Just that he came here asking for help , with claims he can not back up.
I dont give a #### if he uses wm9 or Flac or ape or eac or plextool or panties.
You just can't go to places claiming things you cant ####### prove.





In my view , it's nonsense thinking like yours , that keep the world from getting better.
People who don't know even know what they said and think they always are the right ones , sometimes I question myself how those people can be parents ...

Oh , btw

Jan, because each of those clicks generally results in another file requiring further maintenance and monitoring, etc. The less components, the less to have to worry about. And again, I'm not married to WMA9-L. It just works for me right now. If ultimately I decide on an interface solution that supports another format in a better way then I'll just convert over.

Bidz, again, thanks for the clarity. I'd wondered about the drift here myself. <grin>

Speaking of scratches, I do have one disk that apparently has damage. EAC just balks on several tracks on it. What are my options now?

How is the interface of PlexTools? I'm not in love with EAC's interface. Guess my next trip will be to Plextor's site.

Get some brasso and a lint-free cloth.

If you don't like the interface of EAC, you're REALLY not going to like the interface of PlexTools. I felt that it was REALLY difficult to work around. It WAS my understanding that PlexTools can extract audio on any copy-protected disc, but I'm not sure on that. (I can't test it, because I don't have any copy protected discs).

Also, you won't find plextools on Plextor's site, but if you do a search on these forums, you'll find a link to the full version of plextools. What's available on Plextor's site is the UPGRADE to the full version, but the installer looks for a previous version and refuses to install if nothing is there.

Try ripping a CD with the slightest scratches on it. I have a cd that had three different skipping points and random pops when ripped with Easy CD-DA. It ripped flawlessly (and effortlessly) in Exact Audio Copy. I listened to those bad rips so long that I still hear the skipping in my head when I listen to the song (this is not an exageration, either). Do yourself a favor and read up on Exact Audio Copy. There are a couple of decent guides listed in the FAQ page under the "General" forum. Unless you keep your cds in immaculate condition, you will appreciate Exact Audio Copy ensuring that your rips are perfect.

This thread has been wandering too far off topic. If you want to discuss popularity vs quality, please open another thread in the off-topic forum. I don't think this helps Agrajag here anymore now.
The WMA9 issue seems settled, thus there is no need to discuss it further, unless Agrajag has some questions.
Any flaming post will be deleted and its posted warned.

Let's go on with the CDex vs EAC question.

Thank you

Hi Agrajag,

and welcome to the forums.

I must say that your choice of WMA9 puts you in an akward position, as far as making a bit-perfect copy of your music is concerned. I don't know of any secure ripping program that support tagging for that format, so you're pretty much stuck with typing the tags by hand (ouch).

The only solutions I can think of right now are the following.

1. Rip a CD with EAC using the "copy image and create CUE sheet" function.
2. Use the freeware Daemon Tools CD emulation program to mount this image as a virtual disc.
3. Use Windows Media Player to rip from the virtual drive.

This way you're guaranteed to get a properly tagged "perfect" copy.

An alternative would be finding a command-line tagger with proper support for wma9 lossless... but I can't really think of any program that does it.

Another option would be to rip to wma9 lossless with EAC, then use foobar2k and its freedb masstagger. But then you'd have to do some clever stuff to avoid highlighting every album by hand, and then run a masstagger script on your files since the tag names aren't going to be compliant with Windows Media Player's standards.

If I were you, I would simply go with a different format. Something that has better support from the audio enthusiast community, even at the cost of worse support in the mainstream software players.

Regards,
Moneo.

Moneo,

Thanks. Have you tried WMA9-Lossless? I'm using tags all over in it. EAC is providing them as well as the few tagging utilities (like Media Tagger for example) I have and the various players.

I use EAC and hit ALT-G on the CD to go to FreeDB to get the CD Title and Track info. I then select the tracks I want as compressed files, right click on one and choose Copy Selected Tracks and then Compressed. The end result is a set of compressed WMA files that have plenty of embedded tags including all the most common ones and several I hadn't seen before.

So, given the above, in what way am I being left short with regard to WMA9-L and tagging?

So far only Winamp doesn't seem to see them. In Media Player I can right click on any WMA, choose Advanced Tag Editor and change all sorts of tags. If I am limited that once again calls the whole choice into question. Clearly I want decent tag support.

Something I have not seen a reference to in this thread...the tutorial for configuring EAC.

@ Agrajag : Here is a popular set of instructions for configuring EAC, if you haven't found them already. It may answer many of your questions, and will hopefully show the full set of features and capabilities of the product.


Edit: uups...repeat post.