Especially EAC 0.9 beta 4 and the newest EAC that supports accuraterip? I know **** requires EAC 0.9 b4 to be used, but why that version instead of EAC that supports accurate rip? Thx
MOD: don't mention ripping groups, thanks.
Full Version: What's the difference between the EAC versions?
They claim that 0.95 would be unstable. Also, 0.94 is able deal with audio CDs having corrupt TOCs. Andre had to remove that feature in 0.95 due to the new European (or German, not sure) law.
Are there any CD's out there with corrupt TOCs that the newest EAC version isn't able to deal with? Is the ability to deal with corrupt TOCs that important? If not then I'll use the newest version as it supports accurate rip.
QUOTE(Sgt_Strider @ Aug 19 2004, 09:23 AM)
Are there any CD's out there with corrupt TOCs that the newest EAC version isn't able to deal with? Is the ability to deal with corrupt TOCs that important? If not then I'll use the newest version as it supports accurate rip.
Ripping corrupt CDs depends more on the drive than on anything else. My Lite-On DVD-ROM can read most corrupt CDs with the newest EAC, even "retrieve native TOC" works. However, i found those corrupt CDs to mostly give quite bad ripping quality, due to the CP tricks of "saturated C2" where the tiniest scratches result in clicks.
QUOTE(Sgt_Strider @ Aug 19 2004, 07:23 AM)
Are there any CD's out there with corrupt TOCs that the newest EAC version isn't able to deal with? Is the ability to deal with corrupt TOCs that important? If not then I'll use the newest version as it supports accurate rip.
Good question. Here's some further reading that may help:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=16186&hl=
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=11504)
QUOTE(Sebastian Mares @ Aug 15 2004, 08:43 AM)
They claim that 0.95 would be unstable.
who claim? 0.95 is as stable as 0.94 afaic
A certain "uber" group that cannot be mentioned here.
QUOTE(kwanbis @ Aug 19 2004, 03:43 PM)
QUOTE(Sebastian Mares @ Aug 15 2004, 08:43 AM)
They claim that 0.95 would be unstable.
who claim? 0.95 is as stable as 0.94 afaic
QUOTE
CDs MUST be ripped with Exact Audio Copy 0.9 beta 4 (mirror) (pre-beta versions 0.95pb4 and so on are unstable, have important features removed (for "legal reasons") and have known bugs involving the tags; you SHOULD avoid them but MAY use them.
I think it's BS, as I (and others) never experienced problems with EAC 0.95.
QUOTE(Sebastian Mares @ Aug 19 2004, 02:54 PM)
QUOTE(kwanbis @ Aug 19 2004, 03:43 PM)
QUOTE(Sebastian Mares @ Aug 15 2004, 08:43 AM)
They claim that 0.95 would be unstable.
who claim? 0.95 is as stable as 0.94 afaic
QUOTE
CDs MUST be ripped with Exact Audio Copy 0.9 beta 4 (mirror) (pre-beta versions 0.95pb4 and so on are unstable, have important features removed (for "legal reasons") and have known bugs involving the tags; you SHOULD avoid them but MAY use them.
I think it's BS, as I (and others) never experienced problems with EAC 0.95.
Well this was one of the things said a certain "Uber" site.
"First off, 0.9b4 is the last one that supports the Uberstandard way to tag track numbers, i.e. 1 2 3... instead of 01 02 03... or 01/03 02/03... There are also other changes, most notably the "Manually detect TOC" function was removed from the later versions. It can help with some copy protections."
Just thought i'd put a "snipit" of what was said there.
There's more.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.