title
Products            Buy            Support Forum            Professional            About            Codec Central
 

View Poll Results: EAC vs dBpoweramp 13.3

Voters
132. You may not vote on this poll
  • EAC

    48 36.36%
  • dBpoweramp 13.3

    84 63.64%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: EAC vs dBpoweramp 13.3

  1. #31

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    9

    Re: EAC vs dBpoweramp 13.3

    Quote Originally Posted by Teknojnky View Post
    I could see that remove silence might be useful when converting to LOSSY for use in portable or other situations.
    Like, compiling a library for a radio station? :smile2:

    Quote Originally Posted by Teknojnky View Post
    But I would expect that most people who use dbpoweramp (or eac) are more concerned with having an ACCURATE rip which includes any included silence.
    Let me check that I understand you: you would PREFER to include the 2 seconds of silence at the end of a CD track because it is more 'accurate?'

    Quote Originally Posted by Teknojnky View Post
    When you remove silence, you no longer have a lossless, accurate rip, at least compared to the source.
    Ah! Remember that the Trim Silence DSP is run AFTER the track is ripped (and in my case, BEFORE encoding to MP3). So, it does NOT affect the accuracy of the rip as reported by dbPowerAmp in any way. Does that make sense?

    So, once a completely accurate rip is finished, the Trim Silence DSP removes the redundant silence at the end (and in some cases, the start!) of every track. This is very important for a radio station, or for any other use where you might want to crossfade or segue tracks. A lot of radio playout automation software relies on tracks NOT containing silence at the end (the excellent mAirList is a notable expection to this). So, if your CD ripper application doesn't remove the silence for you, guess what? YOU (or your staff) waste many hours removing it manually, and (usually) less accurately than dbPowerAmp's Trim Silence DSP would have done the same job.

    If you are using (for example) Winamp to play maybe a hundred tracks for a party in sequence and segue (crossfade) between each track in the list, the result WILL play those annoying it-sounds-like-a-CD two-second gaps; but if you use the Trim Silence DSP while ripping, the end result is much more pleasing and sounds much more like a DJ is playing the music! :D

  2. #32
    dBpoweramp Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    323

    Re: EAC vs dBpoweramp 13.3

    I understand perfectly that trim silence works after the rip, my point is not that the rip process is affect, but the resulting files are not the same perfect lossless waveforms that were captured from disk.

    any good player should deal with pre/post silence itself and NOT rely on the user to manually remove it, it sounds like you have poorly designed automation software.

    foobar, winamp, mediamonkey can all crossfade tracks or remove silence from tracks that have it, on playback, without affecting the source files.

    to summarize, its my opinion that the remove silence function should be performed on PLAYBACK, not on the SOURCE files.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    9

    Re: EAC vs dBpoweramp 13.3

    I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

    The silence isn't part of the original recording: it's added by the CD (or vinyl) mastering engineer. So, removing it isn't detracting in any way from the original, in my view. On the contrary, it's actually restoring the original to the way it came out of the studio.

    To me, your argument is the same as saying that a book is ruined if a completely blank page is missing from it (even though you can still read everything that was originally printed in it!).

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1

    Smile Re: EAC vs dBpoweramp 13.3

    Quote Originally Posted by SojiOkita View Post
    In fact the feature I miss is when EAC says "suspicious rip from 2:31 to 2:35" so you can check the rip focussing on the real problems.

    Apart from that, for my opinion it's a tie in rip quality between EAC and dbPowerAmp, with the (huge) advantages of speed and tag management in dbPowerAmp.

    So here's my "workflow":
    - I rip with dbPowerAmp, for 95% of CDs, all tracks are AccurateRip
    - sometimes the CD is not in AccurateRip database (or is a different press that the one in AccurateRip database) but gives secure results for all tracks
    - sometimes only one or two track are secure and the other ones are Accurate -> suspicious, I give a try with EAC for those tracks, sometimes I got an accurate rip... most times I got the same as dbPowerAmp, with the same CRC.
    - when the CD is really damages... none of the programs can do anything...
    I think this sums it up. Damaged disc canít be recovered regardless of settings. The real problem are those ridiculous copy protected with systematical errors on. Other wise DBpower is far superior to EAC in speed and functionality.

  5. #35
    dBpoweramp Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    323

    Re: EAC vs dBpoweramp 13.3

    Quote Originally Posted by Cad View Post
    I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
    yes of course

    The silence isn't part of the original recording: it's added by the CD (or vinyl) mastering engineer. So, removing it isn't detracting in any way from the original, in my view. On the contrary, it's actually restoring the original to the way it came out of the studio.
    in any case, it is not YOU or I who determines what is part of the original recording or not. All we have is the final recording itself.

    By removing any bits, you are no longer adhereing to the recording, this is antithesis to anyone who does want to adhere to the recording.

    To me, your argument is the same as saying that a book is ruined if a completely blank page is missing from it (even though you can still read everything that was originally printed in it!).
    No, it would be the difference between a used book in fair to poor condition (pages wrinkled, smudged or missing entirely), vs a new one in perfect condition.

    Anyway, as I have said before, there certainly are situations where you may want to remove silence and this is fine.

    I can't believe that no-one else has mentioned my number one most important (and to my knowledge, unique) feature of dbPowerAmp in this thread.

    I refer to the Silence Removal feature of Power Pack.
    No one else has mentioned it, because most people here want the exact opposite: exact duplicates of the cd.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    9

    Re: EAC vs dBpoweramp 13.3

    Quote Originally Posted by brodeur View Post
    he real problem are those ridiculous copy protected with systematical errors on.
    In the past, a very reasonable priced application program called IsoBuster has helped me with those.

    IsoBuster can read the 'hidden' TOC on the disc, and can copy the tracks using that info.

    (I have no links with IsoBuster other than as a satisfied user, by the way! :D)
    Last edited by Cad; 04-21-2010 at 04:02 PM.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    9

    Smile Re: EAC vs dBpoweramp 13.3

    Quote Originally Posted by Teknojnky View Post
    No one else has mentioned it, because most people here want the exact opposite: exact duplicates of the cd.
    Well, if I wanted that, I would take my (silence removed) tracks, then burn them in the correct order to CD, asking Nero to add the standard two-second silence at the end of each track! :D

    But I accept what you say, even though it sounds utterly barking mad to yours truly. As I said before, we'll agree to disagree.

  8. #38
    Engelsstaub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere
    Posts
    3

    Re: EAC vs dBpoweramp 13.3

    I'm seriously impressed with this software. The latest implementations (like CUE/Image and multi-threading on my i7 cpu) are enough to make me stop using EAC all together.

    I originally purchased the reference version for FLAC to ALAC conversion alone. (I archive CDs as FLAC comp. lvl. 8 but convert them from thence to Apple Lossless for my iTunes library and iPod 160 Gb.) I didn't really "need" the reference version but felt that the converter itself was top-notch and Spoon was more than deserving of the asking price for that alone.

    EAC is good software, too. I'm just personally sick of it. Been using it for quite some time now. For me it's a pain in the arse to set up (often over and over.) It's slower than dirt to no better effect. In fact, I can rip my CDs twice with dBpoweramp, once as an image/another as individual tracks, in far less time than EAC takes messing with my drive(s.)

    Now that I have the CUE/Image option and my Alienware m15x laptop speeding through conversions on eight threads I don't see any point in using EAC anymore. I only paid for EAC in wasted time, frustration, and hair-pulling headaches. The CD-writer in EAC is still worthwile. I've tested my images made with dBpoweramp and burned with this writer; as you'd expect they match the retail CDs in the database.

    I'm glad EAC exists and works great for many. It's just not for me anymore. I'm grateful to Spoon for his efforts and good support of his apps (this is something very lacking in EAC for whatever reason.) I'd happily pay for upgrades in the future if it were necessary.

    If you'd asked me a while back, I'd have voted for EAC. Now you can guess where my loyalties lie. This is probably one of the most essential apps I use on my PC of all for any reason.

    I don't want to sound like I don't appreciate Andre Wiethoff's contributions to the world of secure ripping. I truly do. It's nothing personal.

    I like choice :D

  9. #39

    Re: EAC vs dBpoweramp 13.3

    Quote:"Sorry, my mistake. Logs set to "Complete" does actually log the track time index on each line where an error occured. Logs set to "Detailed" shows on one line the start to end time indexes such as "Insecure Audio from 00:43:23 - 1:24:14".

    I'm probably missing something but I don't get the time index as shown above on my logs, and I would really find that a useful feature. Is this setting logs to "complete" or "detailed" a feature of the power pack option? If so where do I find it? I have the "write to file" & "add to information" boxes checked. Cheers .......... Bruce.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •