Considerable Improvement with EAC Rips

Let me ask, has anyone run EAC under Parallels on an Intel Duo-Core Mac? Had good results?

One ugly question that enters my mind from time to time is whether the PC is a better platform than the Mac for computer audio, for whatever reason. I've never heard anyone say so, but I have a mild impression that the audiophiles who are truly thrilled with their computer audio systems seem to be running Windows machines more than Macs. As a mainly-Mac user for 20 years, I sure hope I'm wrong.

Drubin, first, I DID say what the "right" drive is. It is a drive that 1) does not cache audio, 2) uses c2 error correction and 3) uses "accurate stream". Mine happens to be a SAMSUNG 20X DVD±R DVD Burner Black SATA Model SH-S203B. Those three features are not present in all drives and EAC test your drive and tell you what features it has. Whether it caches audio seems to be luck of the draw. If your drive caches audio, EAC has a means of defeating it.

Second, it is true that the Goldmund did not do any re-reading. It was also a $6k "mechanically grounded" stand alone single disc device that was designed to get it right the first time. It was a CD turntable that weighed a ton and had a clamp that sat on the CD. It also read in real time at 1x speed. My internal DVD-ROM with EAC seems to do the same job for $30. It speeds up and it slows down. That doesn't bode well for transports.

I have not tried this myself, but it has also been said in various forums that if you compare checksum values for different rips of the same track, it is not uncommon to get different values each time--the file is different. The error correction is supposed to mitigate this. EAC actually compares your rip with a database of rip checksums and will tell you how accurate it thinks your rip is. It usually falls within 98%-100%.

I am not trying to convince you that it sounds better, I am only adding my personal experience with these forums. I don't have enough technical knowledge to make an actual argument for EAC based on theory. My hope was that more people would try it and report back.

EAC includes an option to compare 2 wav files. It is better than trying to do traditional file compares, since it understands the format and can ignore differences that are not important. I do not know if there is a similar utility to compare Apple lossless files, so I compared some wav files. I have not used EAC much but I think I did this correctly. I compared 2 tracks (first 2 tracks on John Coltrane's Blue Train). I ripped one file with iTunes to Apple lossless and then converted it to wav using iTunes. The other file was ripped directly to wav using EAC. For both tracks the EAC wav compare utility identified repeated samples very early in the track on the iTunes files, but no other differences. As I understand it the repeated samples are related to timing issues at the beginning of a track (lead in/gap differences), rather than data differences. So, if I understand the compare program correctly, there were no significant difference in the data for the tracks ripped by iTunes and EAC. If someone has more familiarity with the compare utility, it would be nice to know your experience and whether my conclusion is correct. Obviously, more trials should be done, especially with CDs with known problems. The one I used was new. Hopefully tomorrow I can listen to the tracks to see if I think I can hear any differences. Blackstonejd - maybe you could take some of the tracks that you hear differences on and try this comparison.

Dtc, thanks so much for your input here.

Here is the problem. I did the EAC comparison on the tracks below but I got the same sort of results you did. It did not really turn up anything suspicious and this was true comparing EAC paranoid mode tracks to both Itunes error corrected and uncorrected tracks. It pretty much turned up six samples at the beginning as the only difference, but +6 is also the amount of samples that EAC is set to offset on my drive.

I don't think EAC compare does a thorough binary comparison, however. I think its primary function is to determine the drive offset--which I don't think is critical to sound quality. I could be wrong.

BUT, foobar I know does a bit/binary comparison and this is what turned up when I compared the same tracks that EAC said were the same:

Comparing:
"C:\Users \Desktop\EAC TEST\The Driving Of The Year Nail.wav"
"C:\Users \Desktop\EAC TEST\iTunes\Leo Kottke\6- And 12-String Guitar\01 The Driving Of The Year Nail.wav"
Differences found: 10,048,036 sample(s), starting at 0.1579819 second(s), peak: 0.9287415 at 93.9665079 second(s), 1ch

Note: If I read this correctly, it picked up a difference at .15 seconds with a "peak" at 93.9 seconds

Comparing:
"C:\Users\Desktop\EAC TEST\iTunes\Leo Kottke\6- And 12-String Guitar\02 The Last Of The Arkansas Greyhoun.wav"
"C:\Users \Desktop\EAC TEST\The Last of The Arkansas Greyhounds.wav"
Differences found: 17,147,577 sample(s), starting at 0.1472336 second(s), peak: 0.8823242 at 84.7079592 second(s), 1ch

Comparing:
"C:\Users\Desktop\EAC TEST\iTunes\Neil Young\Live Rust\05 My My, Hey Hey (Out Of The Blue 1.wav"
"C:\Users\Desktop\EAC TEST\My My, Hey Hey (Out of the Blue).wav"
Differences found: 22,194,539 sample(s), starting at 0.0000000 second(s), peak: 0.8122864 at 0.7691383 second(s), 2ch

Comparing:
"C:\Users\Desktop\EAC TEST\iTunes\Sting\Soul Cages\02 All This Time.wav"
"C:\Users \Desktop\EAC TEST\All This Time.wav"
Differences found: 25,913,572 sample(s), starting at 0.0000000 second(s), peak: 1.5827637 at 117.6406349 second(s), 1ch

I am not sure what conclusions to draw from this result but I suspect the differences I am hearing are attributable to the millions of samples that are different? Could this data be right? Could it be millions of samples? These discs were all in good to excellent condition. All of the iTunes tracks were error corrected.

Blackstonejd

Thanks for the step by step path to add the AIF codec.

It truly is as a WAV, but with data embedded into the files tag info. I can’t tell them apart sonically… although sometimes I feel as though I hear a diff… but I doubt it… or it could be attributable to other factors like time of day, or simple humidity.

RE Dupe files
If you uncheck the COPY to itunes folder box in your Itunes preffs, that step will cease to occur. Outputting the EAC files into the actual itunes folder in the first place also saves time and dupes from accumulating.

Of course importing them into itunes or your fav media software still needs to be done.

Also saving the cue sheet at the same time into the same place will allow you to use EAC to burn a dupe more readily.

RE Audible diffs
Vista is audibly better than either XP or XP Pro… outputting the audio via USB. I have all 3 OS on different PCs. Vista sounds clearly better, regardless the media player being used. Some player software however does sound better than some other software with the file types being the same in each case.

RE More PCs?
That’s just a numbers game. PCs carry the bulk of personal confuser sales in general due to the price diffs of the two formats… Apple usually being the higher priced spread.

I have little choice in this matter of “confuser choices” as certain software I require is not Mac compatible…. Yet.

Re compariring the EAC v iTunes rips…
There is an EAC forum… or there was and perhaps the EAC author could input some info here… also the pc audiophile editor might be able to provide some insights as to the true nature of error correction as it applies to sonic reproduction.

I tend to think the author of such Error free (reportedly) ripping software might not be entirely on the same page as us in regards to purity of the data being transcribed. I keep getting the impression the error free aspect as it pertains to ripping, is more akin to overcoming defects on the surfaces of the discs rather than attending to maintaining the purity of the audio information.

Ex. The EAC app indicates you should use both a clean and a scratched disc at one point for comparisons… as well as the DATA base list of known CDs to set up the drive more accurately.

I feel the purity paradigm is a by product or an afterthought, if you will. The term purity too might well not the best one to use either, but I must admit, burning the EAC files to disc in several cases thus far have sounded better and/or as good as the orig store bought disc… especially those which sounded bright or compressed in orig form.

EAC FAQ/Forum
http://www.nabble.com/Exact-Audio-Copy-(EAC)---User-f488.html

pc audiophile
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/

also Hedrogenaudio
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/

All the above sites can be helpful in answering questions regarding PC/MAC audiophile recreation.

Re improving HDD audio
I’ve found merely using a laptop solves much of the issues surrounding digital sourced music. I’m guessing it’s the DC power supply and Vista OS in my case. With desktops, I follow the same methods for audible gain I follow with components. Upgrading the power cables. Using a power cond or filter. Isolation. Outboard storage & DACs or at least outboard sound cards. Lossless file encoding, and ripping with error correction.

I’ve even noticed on XP & XP pro an audible difference between placing files onto a disc formatted in FAT32 or NTFS, with NTFS being the more dynamic, and FAT being the more articulate or resolving and detailed but with less bass. (using the exact ame files, put onto different partitions.) FAT also is cross platform so it’s easier to swap files about from a MAC to a PC or vice versa.

RE error correction
As to the numbers being logged and their comparisons… well, it’s a more simple matter for me. I just go by the outcome. Does my use of ABCs error correction sound better than XYZs error correction? If so, I will use ABC. If not…

The ‘ear’s have it’ usually. Naturally, the more resolving and articulate the system, the easier it is to notice these diffs… and I do mean diffs. Better keeps getting defined and re-defined, all the time.

Now if I could just find software that will allow me to rip CDs into 24/96 or higher word lengths and bit rates with error correction as well.