I'd like to rip my CD collection to FLAC files on my Linux laptop. From what I've read, if I use a secure ripper like rubyripper, I will end up with perfect track copies except for a few issues:

1. Lead-In/Lead-Out
Must my drive be capable of reading the lead-in/lead-out in order to rip perfect copies of tracks? If so, how can I determine if my drive is able to do this?

2. Offset
I think I must know the offset of my drive in order to make perfect copies. How can I determine the offset?

3. Drive Caching
Is it true that if my drive caches data, my secure ripping process will be not so secure? If so, how can I determine if the drive caches? If it does cache, can I disable the caching?

4. Copy Protection
Does effective CD copy protection exist?

First let me say that I am not at all familiar with Ruby Ripper. I use EAC. Anyway...

2. I'll talk about offsets first. The offset is basically the fact that not all drives start reading a disc at the same place. Some start sooner, some start later. Imagine laying two rulers on a table, one above the other and perfectly aligned. Now move one ruler a bit to the left. That's essentially what an offset is. The rulers are still the same length, one just starts a little sooner than the other. That does not make the measurements wrong, just still skewed in one direction. Thus, in my opinion, using offset correction is not absolutely necessary to get a perfect rip. However, since there is a standard in place for offset correction, it's preferable to use it for consistency and the excellent benefit of being able to verify your rips against the AccurateRip database. The easiest way to determine your offset is to let AccurateRip auto-configure it. If you decide not to use AccurateRip, you can also look up your drive's offset at this page.

1. So now that you are using offset correction, if by perfect you mean to copy precisely the entire disc, start to finish, then yes, the drive needs to over-read at least one direction, depending on the direction of the offset. For example, most drives have a negative offset (thus requiring a positive offset correction). Such drives would need to over-read into the lead-out to get every bit of data. That being said, worrying about this isn't really worth the time in my opinion. Even if your drive can't over-read into the lead-out has a large offset, say -1000 samples, that means you'd lose 1000 samples at the end of the disc. 1000 samples is .023 seconds. Losing a tiny fraction of a second of what is almost always silence isn't really a big deal. I'm not sure how to test for over-reading. I've never done it.

3. Drive caching could be an issue, but it's very easy to deal with. If using EAC's secure mode, simply check the "drive caches audio data" and EAC will perform cache flushing to work around the cache. This slows down the rip, but the cache is no longer an issue. Caching is a non-issue in burst mode, so if you use that plus AccurateRip to verify the rips, it's, well, a non-issue. heh

4. I don't think so, but not all drives can handle the various copy-protections schemes. The best solution is to not buy copy-protected discs. Failing that, if you have trouble ripping a copy-protected disc on one drive, try to rip it on a totally different drive. That might work.

Lastly, let me again re-iterate, I'm primarily familiar with EAC. I don't know anything about Ruby Ripper, so I don't know how it handles caching drives and the like, but I'm sure most of this information can be applied to it. Also, I would strongly recommend incorporating AccurateRip into your process. It's a great way to verify a rip as being accurate. I know that EAC can run under WINE on Linux. I don't know about dBpoweramp, though.

That is great info and thank you for taking the time to write it.

Is there any way to discover my offset with certainty other than using EAC?

How can I discover if my drive can read can over-read in the necessary direction?

I've lost some faith in AR after reading the second half of this post:

http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Verify-data-in...76684s2885.html

I do want perfection. Maybe the right thing to do is buy a well-regarded external CD ripping drive. Something with a known offset, any necessary over-reading capabilities, no caching, and good copy protection defeating. Is there anything like that available?

You aren't going to find any good optical drives that "defeat" copy protection. Copy protection is in place via software and has nothing to do with your hardware. You can use a ripper such as EAC or dBpowerAMP as they have the options of stopping a CD from auto-running whenever it is inserted. Either that or you can use your ripper of choice and simply hold the shift key while inserting the CD. The copy protection will never run.

You shouldn't need a drive with a know offset though as programs such as EAC and dBpowerAMP can automatically configure themselves for secure/accurate ripping. I think that if you are looking for perfection, you should use either of those programs to rip your CDs. Both also have the ability to compare your rip to an online database (AccurateRip) just to check for accuracy.

kornchild2002, please see above link.

In Linux, I normally rip using EAC under Wine.

Well the first problem as they put it is not a problem:



When CDs are manufuactured, there is no universal offset, different manufacturing plants decide upon different offsets, EACs offset and the supposidly real offset (EAC + -30) are very close, you will find CDs that have an offset of +3000.



No, and you cannot have one public database which is supplied from drives with different offsets and abilities and expect them all to overread. So it does the next best thing. When it comes to secure ripping there are layers of 'helpers' they are (in order of usefulness IMHO):

AccurateRip
C2 Pointers
Secure Ripping (re-reading)

With all 3 you are going to detect any and all errors with high degree of certainty. If there was a time when everyone ripped with the same drive, I could design accuraterip3 (ar2 is in progress) which would be bit perfect start to end.

It sounds like there does not exist a 100% reliable method for extracting perfect digital data from a CD. We have different methods for determining drive offset yielding different offset values, and AR can't be considered 100% because it doesn't consider the overreading areas (because of all the drives it has to deal with).

Does the manufacturer ever release reliable information about its drives' offsets and overreading abilities? If so, I think I should be able to buy one of these drives and use it with a secure (cache-flushing if necessary) ripper to yield 100% reliable perfect rips.

Now this looks promising:

http://www.plextor.com/english/support/faqs/G00049.htm

Do any other manufacturers have something like this?

Now that is not correct. I would like to point out that running the same exact system with AnyDVD in place and turned off autostart a disc will rip perfectly using a PLEXTOR PREMIUM, but will definitely not work without sync errors using a SAMSUNG 203B or any other drive that does not 'overlook' hardware/bad sector copy protection systems. Yes, some software based protection can be avoided holding down the shift key or just running a non-Windows OS, but you cannot avoid non-Redbook adhering protections that way.

So, to answer the initial question: your best bet is a Plextor Premium in my opinion and experience, but also a LiteOn 20A1H seems to be a good bet for any type of protection. Running AnyDVD in the background may also help with some protections.

flacflac

If the AR offset determination is (very slightly) off, is there another method of determination that is accurate?

I really don't see the point but I'm sure you could buy 3 different drives, rip the disc with each drive in your private offset mode and run your own database of checksums / md5 hashes over the ripped and encoded files.

To reiterate spoon's earlier point, the fact that the "standard" offset is 30 samples different from the "natural" offset has no little to no bearing on the accuracy of the AccurateRip system, because:

1. The AR system's checksum ignores areas that could possibly be effected by offset (small fraction of a second at beginning of first track, small fraction of a second at end of last track).
2. Those areas are almost always silent (digital nulls, or low-level analog noise equivalent) due to industry-wide recording norms.

-brendan

Thanks for everyone's input thus far. Pretty much identical conversations happening now. Let's continue over there:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=64117

It is correct from the software copy protection systems put in place. I wasn't talking about copy protection systems that violate the redbook standard though. I have yet to come across a CD like that so I can't comment on them. I have had experience with a handful of copy protected CDs that use software and/or rootkits. So, when it comes to copy protection via software, it really doesn't matter what drive one uses.

I haven given up on trying to get perfect rip CDs. I have ripped a copy of Depeche Mode Black Celebration UK 1992, this master contains at least 1 loud click on "Stripped" and 5 subtle clicks. I got a confidence of 12 in AccurateRip with this copy. It's not AR's fault. It's the record label fault. You may find that even a technically accurate rip is "defective" because of the mastering shortcommings.

Some example of mastering shortcommings:

Kraftwerk/Computer World (EN) - Computer Love (Track 5)
Channel collapse before the songs turns a minute.

Depeche Mode/Personal Jesus (single) - Dangerous (Track 2)
Has a small glitch, channel colapse before the singing.

A-Ha/Stay on These Roads (album) - This Alone is Love (Track 4)
Contains a perceptible click before starting second stanza.

MiD30s,

Do you hear the clicks in "Stripped" when you play the CD?

sure! it's a pressing problem... defective copy as it is
I know of two other pressings that are different, one from 1986/US pressing that is perfect clean. Other UK pressing but not from the same year as that one... this one hasn't got the loud click but it does have the 4 subtle clicks in the beginning of the song.
I believe all three pressings are in AccurateRip, and the one containing loud click has about 12 or more Accurately Ripped confidences.
This whole thing is based on luck, so that's why I just don't care anymore about this.

Umm, what does bad mastering have to do with getting a perfect rip? Are you saying you don't care about getting an accurate rip because it still contains clicks?



Weiiiirrrd!

yes, what do you do when you do have an accuraterip but one of the tracks have a subtle perceptible click in your pressing...?

It sounds like an accurate rip to me. All you can hope to do is make a copy of whatever is on the CD.

The CD market is shortening more and more. In the future we will be able to buy lossless downloads and their next move is to convince you that the lossless are from master tapes 24bit/96kHz being "much better" than CD.

The CD market eventually will go down, yes, but downloading only makes up a minor share of the total sales in the music industry today. And 24bit FLACs might be a bit further ahead than you think, considering the majority of folks is running their music on portables that can't handle anything but MP3 (read ipod) or such high bitrates (read hardware limitations). I'm not saying these releases don't exist (Nine Inch Nails comes to mind) but currently these things remain 'experiments'.

And yes: if I rip a CD that comes with a mastering error I damn sure want this error to be in my rip, anything else would be inaccurate. You should not give up on obtaining the most accurate rips possible, but rather keep supporting artists that actually take care of their mastering, by specifically purchasing their records and returning items that are faulty.

Cheers,

flacflac

What makes you say that?



Yeah but I want DRM-free files.

NIN's pioneer model will be soon adopted by others. Take a look at their site.
They are offering a master quality FLAC files for their new album for free.

I've heard the NIN album, but that doesn't mean the CD market is shortening.

Actually, in the U.S., the CD market is shortening. The iTunes Store is the number one music retailer as they continue to sell more CDs (and songs) than Wal-Mart (they were #1), Best Buy (they were #2), and Amazon (they were #3 or maybe #4). This shows that the U.S. is steadily going towards digital distribution as a viable method. Not only that but digital distribution is catching on in many European nations where a CD costs $20 (U.S.) yet they can download it for $10 (U.S.).

I would love DRM-free lossless files and Amazon's mp3 store, the iTunes Plus format, and many others are moving in the right direction by finally offering DRM-free files. However, the majority of people are happy with iTunes' 128kbps DRM ridden files. Not that 128kbps AAC (iTunes encoder) is a bad format and setting, it is just that the average consumer is fine with paying for DRM lossy files. You (and I) might want different but you have to remember that the mob rules and bands/record companies are going to follow whatever is popular.

I think Trent has it right with the new Nine Inch Nails album. In fact, I wouldn't have minded paying $5 for it either but free works for me. The success of the iTunes Store and Trent's recent move shows that the U.S. is beginning that transition to digital distribution. That and CD sales have been at an all time low for quite a bit of time while iTunes continues to sell song after song at record rates. I think the number was 24 million. Apple sold 24 millions songs just on Christmas day of 2007 and, ever since April, they continue to sell about 13 million songs a day. That is a lot of music being purchased online that definitely isn't being purchased in stores.

The CD market is still there but it is slowly being taken over. I myself wouldn't mind digital distribution as long as lossless files were offered. That way I would have a perfect backup of the music and I can encode down to whichever lossy format/bitrate I want.

Yes, but as I have pointed out for some time now, helpers 2 & 3 will not be used in dBpoweramp if there is an AR match, so it would be nice to have an OPTION to force ultrasecure ripping on the parts of the first and last track not covered by AR.

I second this

Sorry, but it seems you are not quoting correct figures. According to the 2008 IFPI report 'Recorded Music Sales', 82% of all music sales were generated by physical media that year, read CD and a couple music DVDs and even tapes and vinyl. According to the report this translated into roughly US$ 16 billion. Digital sales did grow by about 1/3, but generated 'only' US$ 2.9 billion.

Your whole post seems a bit less relying on facts than on feeling.



Where can I download my CDs for 6 Euros? Russia is not exactly Europe when it comes to economical discussions, so these 'providers' of DRM free music won't count here. Amazon has yet to open their MP3 stores in Europe. And if you meant to talk about Itunes, then maybe first check the actual pricing of their items: a 1:1 conversion of Dollars to Euros makes it incredibly expensive to buy anything from them. (in lousy quality, if one might add)

I for one (and it seems like I'm not alone) will stick to purchasing select new CDs. And I'm pretty sure this option won't disappear in the short term.

flacflac

Look at Apple's website here (which took their numbers from the NPD) and you can look here for a graph. The January 2008 music sales state that 19% of all music sold in the U.S. was through the iTunes Store making them the largest retailer (other than "other" which consists of non-classifiable methods for obtaining music). I never said that the iTunes Store sells more than Best Buy, Amazon, and Wal-Mart combined (representing #3, #4, and #2 respectively) or that the iTunes Store was selling more music than all the other methods along with physical distribution combined. I simply said that they sell more music than those stores. Wal-Mart and Best Buy alone represent 28% of the music market, that is a big chunk that will take the iTunes Store a while to even get close to. So please don't insert words into my mouth or say that my sources don't have correct figures. I pulled those figures from Apple's website and then double-checked them with the NPD and many other websites. Again, the iTunes Store being the number one retailer in the U.S. doesn't mean that they are selling more music than all the physical distribution methods combined. It just means that they sell the most music, more than any other store (again, not combined).

As for the other comment, I am simply going off of a friend who lives in East Germany. It is very possible that they are lying to me but they are a big proponent of digital downloads. Not through the iTunes Store or anything like that but still through legal websites (ie not Russian ran sites that charge $0.05 for an illegal mp3).

That and the sound quality of the iTunes Store is subjective. I, and apparently many others, find the quality suitable and even past ABX tests ran here on Hydrogenaudio show that the iTunes AAC encoder at the 128kbps VBR setting can perform just fine. It is no FLAC but still...

Edit: It seems that I am getting off-topic now though. I will leave it at that.

Apologies if I misunderstood you. The numbers by Apple might be a bit funky as the reaction to the Ars Technica post showed. But you are right, it does state that as a single store they sell the most music. Still yet, it should be kept in mind that physical media still generates by far more revenue, so it might well be more 5-10 years until the CD is really down. Dead it will probably never be (phsyical media, that is).



Hmmm, East Germany does not exist as a country, but living in Germany for quite some time, I can tell you that the DRM-download market is pretty much the only existant one for legal downloads (Itunes, Musicload, MP3.de), offering only lossy quality at pretty steep prices: The current Kid "barf" Rock single goes for a sweet 1.49 Euros, equaling rougly USD 2.40. Hardly a steal... .



Well, I don't claim to have ears to hear a difference between 192 and 224 kbit/s, but to me having things in a lossless format is always much more desirable. That is mostly due to the fact that I like to be able to make a lossless copy of my music for my car, or a lossy version if need be. And even if I saved 2 Dollars by going the download route, it would really not be worth it to me. That's why I try to keep the CD alive... . (at least until we get direct master 24bits, as you promised me )

So, again, apologies if I came across too rudely earlier. You should still try to become a lossless advocate though... .

It is OK. I too used to question Apple's numbers especially since they were in trouble not too long ago (I want to say around 2005 or 2006) for their iTunes catalog size. I think they said that they had over 8 millions songs that were available for download, then that actual number turned out to be 6 million, and then Apple later said 5 million. So they have been know to falsify their numbers. I trust them now though as Apple waits for official NPD releases, they no longer use their own estimates when it comes to iTunes Store sales. I don't think that CDs will ever be dead. iTunes' sales numbers just show that the U.S. doesn't mind downloading. I still prefer to purchase the CD as I like to have a lossless backup of my music that I can encode to any lossy format at any bitrate setting that I like.



I think I am going to have to get more information from them. Although the division between East Germany and West Germany has been dissolved for quite a bit of time, he still likes to refer to his place of residence as East Germany. I don't know why though. Maybe his parents still hold some grudge or maybe that is how the people are over there. I live in the U.S. so I can by no means judge a person from a different country (unlike other Americans but that is a different story). It could also be similar to the U.S. in that the Civil War was oh so long ago yet people from southern states still like to refer to them as The South.



I too prefer to have a lossless backup but the majority of people who use the iTunes Store simply don't care. I like having a lossless backup as it means that I will never have to rip my CDs again when a newer lossy encoder comes out that can obtain transparency at much lower bitrates or just when a new encoder comes out. I have run down a couple of optical drives simply because I continued to rip my CDs every time a new version of Lame came out. I find that encoding the lossless files is just easier. I would prefer DRM-free lossless stores downloads but that probably won't happen for many years to come. It has taken the music industry about 4 years to finally start offering DRM-free lossy files. Tack on at least another 4 years before lossless and probably another 4 years for DRM-free lossless. You never know though.

I too am sorry if I came off as rude. That was not my intentions at all. I simply wanted to state that digital downloads are taking off in the U.S. as the iTunes Store has been the number one retailer for pretty much all this year. I will sometimes purchase content on the iTunes Store but only if that is the only method of distribution. For example, Head (the guitarist who quit Korn back in 2005) will be releasing his new single (called "Flush") only through the iTunes Store next month. I will probably download it. I also use the iTunes Store if the prices are insanely cheap. I purchased Otep's "The Ascension" album off of the iTunes Store as it was encoded at 256kbps (not that I can hear a difference), was DRM-free (one of the major selling points), and came out to $5.99 for the entire album. I would have spent $12.99 purchasing the CD at Best Buy or $16.99 buying it at Hastings (a dedicated movie, music, book, and game store). I think that over the years, I have spent about $200 on the iTunes Store but I started purchasing content even back in 2003 when it first opened (again, only consisting of singles that were either too hard to find on CD or just weren't released on CD along with digital only releases).

Again, I am sorry if I came off as being negative and rude and I hope that we didn't go too far off-topic with this discussion.

I think what is different these days is that, people are buying more singles than albums. It's just if it's your favourite artist or band that you blind-purchase an entire album. One thing I am noticing in my behaviour is that not even my fav bands I'm getting all songs from their albums they release. And to think of how many LPs and Cassettes I had to buy just because of 1 song. Specially here where the singles market was never existant. I think FLAC or TAK downloads are just around the corner, and it would be REALLY nice to have a large downloadable catalogue like Amazon.com does. The DRM issue might be necessary because of P2P networks, it would be the only way to stop it.

Well there are still SOME artists that actually produce an album that is supposed to be listened to in its entirety. Now this does not necessarily go for generic pop/r&b trash, but then again these "artists" are not necessarily worth supporting. Itunes and its buy-one-song-only mentality is what is really ruining music, and turning it into a degenerate pseudo art form, wihle less and less albums with an artistic vision are being financed.



What a pity........ not.



Haha, now that's just nonsense, sorry. DRM is not working, obviously, which is why Amazon went without it from the start. It's also why Yahoo Music is closing down and why P2P is as big as it is. Or are you suggesting P2P has really suffered from Itunes' success as DRM king?

And I'm just wondering and really not meaning anything by it when I ask: why are you following a thread on perfect rips of actual CDs if all you do is purchase single tracks from Itunes?

Anyways, like kornchild mentioned earlier: this is way off topic. Sorry, couldn't help it.