Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: [NONSENSE] Windac 32 Against Eac? (Read 4910 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[NONSENSE] Windac 32 Against Eac?

Hello everyone,

 
One often says that the software EAC is the Extractor audio par excellence. 
 
For my part, I am not of this opinion. 
I don't put in doubt its qualities nor its capacities to answer the requirements of the musical extraction, but my choice turns toward the benefits of Digital Audio Copy (more known as WinDAC 32). 
 
Why? 
IIts qualities of extraction are slightly over to the of EAC. 
It is sufficient to make a test of monitoring continuation the extraction of a musical track to see  it. 
For me, the quality of EAC resides in returned sound, a cordial side, pleasant to the ear. But the definition, the clarity and the dynamics are shortened in the low and the top of the musical specter contrary to DAC. 
It is compared CCE 2.70 pro in Canopus procoder 1.5. It is not the video but it is all as (test chromatic more faithful CCE, honest of its homologous Procoder). 
 
Attention, EAC stays an extractor of quality. 
And you the defenders of EAC What do you think about ? 


Sorry for my english.

[NONSENSE] Windac 32 Against Eac?

Reply #1 –
sounds like a troll.  definition, clarity, and dynamics of music are not altered when ripping from a cd. 

[NONSENSE] Windac 32 Against Eac?

Reply #4 –
It will also sound better if you then encode with the 1337 encoder "Blade"

"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'

[NONSENSE] Windac 32 Against Eac?

Reply #5 –
Windac32 uses Winamp input plugins for playback, doesn't it?

Some people in Korea swear Windac32 gives the utmost highest quality available from a software player.

[NONSENSE] Windac 32 Against Eac?

Reply #6 –
Scientific proofs and testing weights much more then subjektive and placebo affected meanings.

Try doing an abx on a EAC and a windac ripped wave if you indee can hear a differnt in 16 trials in a row i believe you
Sven Bent - Denmark

[NONSENSE] Windac 32 Against Eac?

Reply #7 –
You need to run EAC for at least 72 hours to let it "burn in".

When I did so, I heard a more expansive sound field.  There was also a decreased level of background hash heard earlier. The background was quieter and had more blackness to the sound, and the sound was fuller and had more body. Vocals were more present and focused and sibilance was not as prominent and instead of sounding spitty and harsh they became more lifelike. Everything was more real, more powerful, and more dimensional.

You should also upgrade the power cord on your PC to an audio-phile grade cable such as  Kimber Kable Palladian.

After changing the power cable, I noted that sense of space, air, and depth improved.  There was more breath to the sound of instruments, and images occupied a larger, more life-like space on the soundstage. Plugging back the normal PC power cord,  there was more of an edge to the sound and it wasn't as liquid as with the Kimber. The size of the soundstage shrank from left to right, and the depth decreased, making the overall image flatter from front to back.

I should say that I didn't use the Hydrogenaudio ABX standard while conducting these tests, and was under the influence of LSD at the time.  YMMV.

[NONSENSE] Windac 32 Against Eac?

Reply #8 –
WinDAC?
Is it even around anymore?

Damn! Haven't used that software in 7 years!

Cannot even remember what kind of ripping method other tham burst it had
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

[NONSENSE] Windac 32 Against Eac?

Reply #9 –
I know it's really bad to rate a program on when it came out, but honestly, the last version of WinDAC was on May 19, 2002. We're closing in on 3 years. I'm sure CDeX 1.51 rips better.
[span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\']"We will restore chaos"-Bush on Iraq[/span]

[NONSENSE] Windac 32 Against Eac?

Reply #10 –
I tried WinDAC a a few times, problem I found is that it has little documentation about it's error options so it's hard to know what to use & what not to use. It seemed to work well with my Plextor (detected errors) but not with generic
drives.

Quote
I should say that I didn't use the Hydrogenaudio ABX standard while conducting these tests, and was under the influence of LSD at the time. YMMV.

.lSd iS dAnGeRoUs mAn

Anyway I think what everyone is arrogantly trying to tell you is that when you copy an Audio CD digitally & no errors occur the source & copy are exactly the same.

[NONSENSE] Windac 32 Against Eac?

Reply #11 –
Quote
Anyway I think what everyone is arrogantly trying to tell you is that when you copy an Audio CD digitally & no errors occur the source & copy are exactly the same.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=274448"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah, I don't like this attitude either. Back on topic, westgroveeg is right. Apart from some offset differences (some ms of silence in the beginning or end of each track),  the extracted wavs will be exactly the same as the ones in the CD. There's no chance the EAC rips could sound inferior. We're talking about digital extraction here.

[NONSENSE] Windac 32 Against Eac?

Reply #12 –
Quote
You need to run EAC for at least 72 hours to let it "burn in".

When I did so, I heard a more expansive sound field.   There was also a decreased level of background hash heard earlier. The background was quieter and had more blackness to the sound, and the sound was fuller and had more body. Vocals were more present and focused and sibilance was not as prominent and instead of sounding spitty and harsh they became more lifelike. Everything was more real, more powerful, and more dimensional.

You should also upgrade the power cord on your PC to an audio-phile grade cable such as  Kimber Kable Palladian.

After changing the power cable, I noted that sense of space, air, and depth improved.  There was more breath to the sound of instruments, and images occupied a larger, more life-like space on the soundstage. Plugging back the normal PC power cord,  there was more of an edge to the sound and it wasn't as liquid as with the Kimber. The size of the soundstage shrank from left to right, and the depth decreased, making the overall image flatter from front to back.

I should say that I didn't use the Hydrogenaudio ABX standard while conducting these tests, and was under the influence of LSD at the time.  YMMV.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=274423"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

   
I hope this post was meant ironically...
This thread should be moved to the trashcan in my opinion.

edit: I reported the original post to the moderating team.
I know that I know nothing. But how can I then know that ?