PDA

View Full Version : Pedro's and EAC/dBpoweramp


SummerSamba
03-03-2010, 02:03 AM
Does Pedro's require EAC for its rips, or is dBpoweramp allowed at all?
ca_aok
03-03-2010, 02:05 AM
dBpoweramp is not allowed. Only EAC, XLD, DVD Decrypter, and DVD Fab.
SummerSamba
03-03-2010, 03:14 PM
dBpoweramp is not allowed. Only EAC, XLD, DVD Decrypter, and DVD Fab.

OK, thanks. It's a shame about dBpoweramp. It can produce logs and does take into effect pregaps and offsets, but I guess that is not enough for some folks.
pretend
03-03-2010, 08:22 PM
Since Windows already has perfectly working and free tool for ages, why would you need that?
SummerSamba
03-03-2010, 11:34 PM
Since Windows already has perfectly working and free tool for ages, why would you need that?

dBpoweramp let you do advanced meta-tagging when ripping, plus, it is much faster than EAC at the same tasks.
SideShowBob
03-04-2010, 02:51 AM
dBpoweramp let you do advanced meta-tagging when ripping, plus, it is much faster than EAC at the same tasks.

It's faster because it's not as careful as EAC and they only want the basic tags and ReplayGain is not even allowed.

I think you misunderstand this fantastic site: It's all about quality, no loss in quality in the process of the ripping and encoding. Nothing but the best copy chains (source, process and tools) reasonable available is acceptably.
Uploaders are expected to take maximum care over their offerings following the sites standards and this takes time, ripping speed is low priority.
ca_aok
03-04-2010, 04:48 AM
Actually dBpoweramp is a better ripper than EAC. It's faster, correctly implements C2 error correction, gives you much greater control over the Test&Copy process, etc.

The only problem is it doesn't correctly account for gaps in the cuesheets it creates as far as I know.
SideShowBob
03-04-2010, 05:04 AM
Actually dBpoweramp is a better ripper than EAC. It's faster, correctly implements C2 error correction, gives you much greater control over the Test&Copy process, etc.

The only problem is it doesn't correctly account for gaps in the cuesheets it creates as far as I know.


If that's the case then it is not capable of providing a digital copy that can be burned to a make an EXACT copy of the source CD. What's the point of making non-lossless or lossy copies and sharing them in a lossless format? The loss of information may be very small, but it is a loss.

Many drives don't do C2 properly and most drives don't inform the Hardware Abstraction Layer that read errors have occur if their circuitry thinks it can recover using CRCs. Its the CD format that is the real problem, data CD would be much more reliable than Red Book audio CD.
ceo54
03-04-2010, 04:03 PM
How Abt FHG and Blade ?????
how good are they in comparison to EAC and dbpoweramp
all music i downloaded from mp3sale is encoded with FHG according to dbpoweramp
pretend
03-04-2010, 04:21 PM
How Abt FHG and Blade ?????
how good are they in comparison to EAC and dbpoweramp
all music i downloaded from mp3sale is encoded with FHG according to dbpoweramp

You don't know what you are talking about.
Those are mp3 encoders, EAC and dbpoweramp are cd ripping software.
ca_aok
03-04-2010, 07:47 PM
And to answer your question, LAME is generally considered the MP3 encoder of choice (even though some ABX tests on HydrogenAudio found that people found Helix the most transparent at 128kbps).
SideShowBob
03-04-2010, 10:48 PM
All this mp3 talk is way off topic, mp3 or any lossy format are not allowed on the tracker in question period, its all about quality. Nothing wrong with mp3 if your are happy with it. This site is for people who want the best quality and if you find that over kill its probably not the site for you.

HydrogenAudio is probably the best place to discuss if x audio soft better than y audio soft, or if you don't understand why x ripper is better than y ripper.
SummerSamba
03-05-2010, 03:23 PM
All this mp3 talk is way off topic, mp3 or any lossy format are not allowed on the tracker in question period, its all about quality. Nothing wrong with mp3 if your are happy with it. This site is for people who want the best quality and if you find that over kill its probably not the site for you.


With storage as cheap as it is now, I don't see why people mess with anything less than FLAC, unless they cannot afford more drives. At some point, I am of the opinion that many trading MP3s will regret not having the original lossless source material to re-transcode.

Storage allotments are only getting bigger, not smaller.