CDex vs EAC

[ferrarimodena360]

okies just limit your discussions to these 2 only, i know there are others, well dime a dozen...

which1 1 is better and why

[collideous]

Personally I prefer CDex. It's plain and simple and works right "out of the box".

I had tried EAC once, and only got it to do anything if "error correction" was turned off.

[Killawat]

CDex , I had been using that for all my ripping needs back in the day, But nero serves my needs now.Simplicity is also a factor.

[eivioolla]

EAC is the standard in ripping scene. If you want error-free quality rips, that is your choice.

[serrebi101]

CDex has worked wonders for me, but lately I've been using winamp (I know I know) but it does all the Id3 tags for me, and it doesn't always force me to ripp at 128kbps like CDex did!

[RJ5500]

I personally prefer EAC.

It is fast, integrates with the LAME encoder, and has worked great for me many times in the past.

EAC is the best, IMO.

[ferrarimodena360]

i personally have been using cdex, though i tried EAC , when they did not have an installer, i couldnt figure out how to go from Secure Mode (vbr) to CBR...

any quality difference in both???
CDex has LAME 3.92 MMX

[simian]

This has been discussed over at ==> Hydrogen Audio (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=20&t=3164) <==

Conclusion: EAC! :gj

I have been on the eac/lame bandwagon for over a year now and it hasn't failed me yet. Secure mode with alt-preset-extreme(or insane) makes rips indistinguishable from cds imho.

[rebirth]

I have CDs to rip...but why clutter up my HDD? That's the way I see it

I have 256 CDs of Legal Audio CDs from 2001 and b4...so...why waste HDD space...the end............................................... ..........or is it?













Nope....

Also...uuuuuhhhhh...I forgot...SHITE!!!!! Oh well, forgetit

[DainBramaged]

Simian, with a certain degree of certainty, you probably couldn't ABX an --alt preset standard encoding to the original, much less extreme or insane. Everything else is placebo. But hey, whatever sounds best to your ears man.

CDex is very straightforward and requires little reading or know-how to get working fairly quickly. With some configuration it only becomes more powerful.

EAC, however, is the way to go. Specially designed error detection algorithms, secure ripping mode, and super configurability make it the winner. There are plenty of tutorials, guides, web pages, etc devoted to getting EAC going.

[rebirth]

...And I don't wanna be lectured about having a hard copy...cuz a fucking file in a fucking lossy format isn't a fucking hard copy...only reply if you are and intellectual...at least SEMI-normal human being...tho....I dunno ...some of us here are odd....*cough* ME *cough*

[nasrules]

I was a big fan of CDex until I discovered EAC and Uberstandard. You may not think that there's a major difference between 192Kbps CBR MP3 and average 192Kbps VBR Uberstandard MP3, but there can be a world of difference between the two.

[ferrarimodena360]

i read that hydrogen post, comon cdex aint that bad...

With the Memorex DVD-Maxx 1648 drive, CDex is of no use compared to EAC, it returns files full of errors and audible clicks claiming zero errors occured even in full paranoia mode.

[-0-BACKLASH-0-]

cd ex is a great piece of software. def. good stuff.

[matt merch]

eac for me easy to use and better than anything else i have tried

[elperro91]

Does anyone use DBpowerAMP's audiograbber? I've been using that for a while now and haven't noticed any problems.

[method77]

eac is better in those quality checks in hydrogenaudio but you can't really tell the difference as long as you incode in a respectable bitrate. If you use cdex or audiograbber (faster) with the correct lame encoder then you are fine. EAC is VERY slow and hard to use for the average user. Cdex is kinda slow too but very easy.

[collideous]

EAC is VERY slow and hard to use for the average user.

What's very slow? I tried the darn thing once, and found it to be very slow. Since I equate anything "slow" on a computer with "ain't working properly" EAC quickly found itself being uninstalled. So, how much patience would I need to rip a song in EAC?

[Lehk]

you can mess with the jitter correction on CDex if you have to have a perfect file (Personally i have never had a problem with clicks or anything even though i don't even enable jitter correction), Ripping from a CD burner helps alot too cause i have found them to produce much less vibration than normal CD-ROM drives

[Nothingface5384]

Does anyone use DBpowerAMP's audiograbber? I've been using that for a while now and haven't noticed any problems.

yep i use DBpowerpowerAMP Music Converter.. works great, havent used eac nor cdex in a while but i always recommend those 3 to some1 and try out for themselves...

[ducttapeBigSexy]

I personally have never tried CDex, but that's mainly because EAC does everything I want. For me, unless I have a rip that's been reread numerous times and is encoded into a high variable bit-rate, it's just not worth having. When I buy a CD, I paid for all 1411 kb/sec, so I want to hear all I can!

[kiwibank]

eac is better in those quality checks in hydrogenaudio but you can't really tell the difference as long as you incode in a respectable bitrate. If you use cdex or audiograbber (faster) with the correct lame encoder then you are fine. EAC is VERY slow and hard to use for the average user. Cdex is kinda slow too but very easy.


audiograbber 1.82 final with lame3.95.1.....192 bitrate...

http://mitiok.cjb.net/

___________________________________________

on zeropaid, it pays to be "flame resistant". it`s a matter of survival.

[kiwibank]

Does anyone use DBpowerAMP's audiograbber? I've been using that for a while now and haven't noticed any problems.


yep, i`ve used it and it`s very good.



___________________________________________

on zeropaid, it pays to be "flame resistant". it`s a matter of survival.

[ferrarimodena360]

CDex [ 10 ] * 55.56%
EAC [ 8 ] 44.44%

cdex winning kewl

[begoodbebad]

EAC does it for me. It is excellent with LAME and APE compression. Also when combined with Feurio for writing it is unbeatable for making bit for bit perfect copies of original audio CDs. I think the DAE quality and error correction possible with EAC is unbeatable, which is important to me when making an APE release which might be burnt to CD then compressed again to MP3(or whatever) by the end user. The great thing about EAC is that once it is set up right it won't make a bad extraction. Other tools allow compromised copies and may not let you know whereas with EAC the extraction will halt and generate a log identifying the problem. If you are happy with a compromised copy you can go ahead and make it with a different application knowing what you are doing.

I've now copied many hundreds of CDs with EAC and only found 2 which wouldn't copy error free due to severe damage. One I eventually copied with Easy CD DA Extractor with maximum error correction...it took many many hours and of course there is no guarantee that the copy is actually perfect. The other one I just made myself a horrible WMA copy with WMP and lived with it until I found a better original.

I have to say that EAC is not perfect when it comes to writing CDs and will occasionally fail, but I've found that Feurio performs this task faultlessly and works nicely with an EAC cue sheet.

[Digimortal]

okies just limit your discussions to these 2 only, i know there are others, well dime a dozen...

which1 1 is better and why

I've read plenty about both programs and used both. Here's my conclusion...

EAC is technically better (that's why it's used by all the release groups) but CDEX is *much* easier to use, so that's what I use for my every day ripping needs, only if it comes back with errors or I know the CD is scratched do I bother using EAC.

Haven't updated my version of EAC for a while thought, might be a bit more user friendly now. Gota agree with the other guy saying about using good quality VBR over the usual default of CBR, does give much better quality.

Happy ripping!

[crackerjacker]

I have CDs to rip...but why clutter up my HDD? That's the way I see it

I have 256 CDs of Legal Audio CDs from 2001 and b4...so...why waste HDD space...the end............................................... ..........or is it?













Nope....

Also...uuuuuhhhhh...I forgot...SHITE!!!!! Oh well, forgetit

Well its good to make a back up of your cds, because cds do get scratched and its best to back it up. however if u dont want to do that its fine.

hmm I like to stream my stuff too.

[ferrarimodena360]

oh damn eac winning now, comon votw for cdex

CDex [ 11 ] * 47.83%
EAC [ 12 ] 52.17%

[nasrules]

And EAC is pulling away ;)

Yes, it's slower. Yes, it's more complex. However, it produces significantly better results. What more can you say?

[eivioolla]

Great, EAC is leading. I guess we can expect quality rips instead of erroneous crappy ones then. ;)

[killswitch1968]

EAC is the best in terms of high quality rips. This is what you need for uber standard rips.

However CDEx works right out of the bos. With Full paranoia I haven't noticed any problems.

[shawners]

i love dmc audio imput. I rip to wav file and then convert it over.

[ferrarimodena360]

aight some1 tell me in eac once at the begning i have configured it to use secure mode (VBR), can i later on use cbr instead, i wasnt able to do this in earlier versions..and i hade delete it and install it again

edit
and do you get jitter free results in 160 CBR as well,

[lordpake]

Hate to sidestep here ppl but which LAME encoder version should be used with EAC? I understand there are few of them out there so which of them is "officially" sanctioned, so to speak?

[begoodbebad]

aight some1 tell me in eac once at the begning i have configured it to use secure mode (VBR), can i later on use cbr instead, i wasnt able to do this in earlier versions..and i hade delete it and install it again

edit
and do you get jitter free results in 160 CBR as well,

It should be easy:

Bring up your EAC main screen. From the menu tabs at the top click EAC->Compression Options. From here you can choose which type of compression you are going to use, i.e APE/MPC/OGG/MP3. You then just need to point EAC at the program you use for compression, and choose your bitrate. Edit correction: For CBR use command line options: --alt-preset cbr 256 %s %d
where 256 is your bitrate. or choose 320 or 190 etc. There is also the alt-preset insane option for CBR but probably it makes no audible difference. You could go nuts reading all about this type of distinction and if you do want to go nuts, stop enjoying your music and worry about things like this then Hydrogen Audio forums is the place to do it. :tol

If you already have EAC set up for MP3 then all you need to do is change the bitrate from the drop down menu and maybe amend the command line options.

I'm using version 0.95 prebeta3 and this is easy to do. Also this version seems bug free for me.

Edited for dumb mistakes re: command line.

[Ne007]

I use DBPower Amp Music Converter.

[ATLien]

If you want high quality rips, it only makes sense to use EAC, because it is highly versatile and precise.
CDex doesn't even compare to EAC.

[phalkon30]

CDex has worked wonders for me, but lately I've been using winamp (I know I know) but it does all the Id3 tags for me, and it doesn't always force me to ripp at 128kbps like CDex did!
You must not look around much. Cdex allows you to rip at any bitrate, CBR or VBR. Its in the options...

CDex is easy, fast, and produces music that sounds great. I rip at 320/32kbps VBR, so I get great file sizes, and to my ears on any decent sound system I've played it on, it sounds like a cd.

[simian]

More EAC propaganda: Chris Myden dot com (http://www.chrismyden.com/nuke/article.php?sid=104)

Specifically, the config files that take all the guesswork out of making perfect mp3s: Uber Tools (http://www.ubernet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Files&file=ubertools)

It's well worth the small effort of dropping a few files in the right folders, if you know your rips will be perfect. :gj

[ferrarimodena360]

i am with you phalkon, cdex is far superior when it comes to versitality, speed, and ease of use...

i dont have many legit cd's, and those i have are not scratched, so eac for me does not make sense...

hydrogen forum complaining bout noise, and bad quality is all full of shit

[crackerjacker]

i started out with audio extractor long ago.
but i have tried eac and cdex.
and dpoweramp as well
i like cdex.
hmm

[blam blam blam]

I use EAC. I used to use CDEx, but I was noticing some of my rips at 192 had some distortion and then I ripped at 224 and the bass was sounding rather "muddy" and not as clear as some 128 rips I did with Audiograbber 5 years ago! So I jumped to EAC and haven't looked back.

[Mullyman]

CDex...never had any problems with it :gj

[shawners]

doesnt matter how you rip, its what you encode to.. STart useing .APE.. or .flac =) burn two cd's into one..

[Carrie]

looks like I am with the majority. I use EAC.
Its easy to use.

[LordNIkon]

CDex Here, Its great for being Opensourced software.

[PhR34x0r]

cdex worx fine, produces great quality and is open source, so y even bother using eac ? cdex all the way !

[neoufo51]

EAC is SOOOOOOOOO FRICKIN EASY TO USE.

COME ON. CDex is just not as good at getting error free rips even with scratched CD's. Therefore, EAC.

[gollywog]

EAC + Lame = Winning combination.