IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Cdex Vs Eac : The Results !
Pio2001
post Aug 26 2002, 20:56
Post #1


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3936
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



Secure audio extraction : CDex full paranoia versus EAC secure mode


This test is aimed at knowing if these programs can guarantee a perfect audio extraction from an audio CD when it is possible, in other words, do they really warn the user as soon as any error occurs ?

The test was run with Windows 98, Aspi layer 4.71, and a Memorex DVD-Maxx 1648 IDE drive, that supports C2 and have no cache according to both EAC and Feurio.

A CDR that was becoming barely readable was used. As the results seemed strange, a quick test was made with a scratched CD, and another CD with a hole in it, in order to ensure that CDex is working properly.
Here are the results of these tests first, then the real test about secureness.

CDex was set in full paranoia, Feurio has C2 error detection enabled, EAC was in secure mode, accurate, no cache, C2.


CD with a hole in it




CDex
The drive makes strange noises at 82 % of track 2, the extraction slows down completely, no jitter error is detected, I cancel, afraid to damage the drive.
Feurio
C2 error reported at 71% of track 2. I check ignore all. The drive makes noises at 87 %, the extraction completely slows down at 89%, I cancel.
EAC
Error detected at 71%, uncorrectable error at 73%, then endless error correction takes place. I cancel.


Scratched CD




CDex
This time, jitter errors (2) are reported. Extraction takes forever.
Feurio
A C2 error is reported, then the extraction takes forever
EAC
Read error, takes forever.


Now the interesting part is the


Bad CDR


One of the tracks is bad enough to produce clicks, but not enough to stop the extraction.

EAC
"There were errors"
Reports 16 isolated suspicious positions, and 2 whole ranges of suspicious positions. Track quality 94.5 %

No C2 : "there were errors", reports 16 isolated suspicious positions, and 5 whole ranges of suspicious positions. Track quality 96.7 %

No C2 + cache : I canceled the extraction after 2 hours of error correction.

Feurio
Reports 9,462 C2 errors !

CDex
Zero errors !

In order to check if there were really no errors in the CDex wav, and in order to get an idea of the sound quality, the track was extracted again with EAC and CDex, so that we have now 6 wav files : 2 from CDex, zero errors, 2 from EAC with C2, some errors, and 2 from EAC without C2, some errors.

If there are really zero errors in the CDex files, there should be no differences at all between them. Let's check with EAC's compare wav :



Notice the scrollbar at the right side of the window. There is obviously a problem with CDex here, all these errors went unnoticed through the full paranoia mode. It is active though, since two errors were reported with the scratched CD.

Using SoundForge, let us invert one of each pair of wavs, and mix-paste it over the other one, so that only differences remain. All remaining noise will be read errors, but the absence of noise won't mean no error, since the same error can have occured the same way in both wavs.
Since the result can vary from nothing to twice the error (if the sample was misread with opposite errors), the result gives an idea of the average read errors.

CDex



This shows the entire track. The highest peak is -23.72 db. Some little clicks can be heard in quiet parts.

EAC with C2



The scaling is the same as in the previous picture. The highest peak is -21.85 db. It looks and sounds quite the same as CDex file.

EAC without C2



There seems to be a little more clicks, but the difference is small.
Also, the CDex file seems to have less clicks than EAC with C2 in the main part, but more isolated ones on the left. Therefore nothing can be concluded about the reading quality of the programs themselves, because the exact number of clicks varies from a reading to another. Here, we can say that the three results are quite the same, if we take into account the variations that can occur.
To be able to judge the reading quality, many more extractions would need to be made, in order to make statistics and to evaluate how stable the quality is for a given ripping mode, then to deduce if the differences between the files are due to the programs, or to random variations.


Conclusion


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.
Though the C2 error detection is currently very criticized, it is still, at least for this drive, infinitely more accurate (9462 times more accurate, according to Feurio ) than CDex full paranoia mode, and as accurate as the reading twice method in EAC, while much faster.

This conclusion stands for the Memorex DVD drive. As we don't know how the paranoia mode works, other drives should be tested the same way in order to confirm this result.


_________________________________________________________

Edit : Version 2 : removed the "I" and rephrased the text in a more clear way, expanded the idea of randomnes in rips, commented the EAC log
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Aug 26 2002, 21:13
Post #2


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



Very interesting, thanks Pio2001 smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somebody
post Aug 26 2002, 21:16
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 178
Joined: 30-September 01
Member No.: 107



Interesting read, thank you, Pio2001!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnV
post Aug 26 2002, 21:23
Post #4





Group: Developer
Posts: 2797
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 6



Nice indeed pio2001!


--------------------
Juha Laaksonheimo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pio2001
post Aug 26 2002, 21:54
Post #5


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3936
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Aug 26 2002, 23:11
Post #6





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



Très beau travail !


I did some tests too, very small, on a scratched CD with my LiteOn bruner (24x). I waited a long time before extraction finished. Job was not perfect, but pops were really small compared to Cdex Paranoia. Deglitch.exe removed them on one CD : miraculous !!!
Cdex was really bad - even dBPoweramp was better (faster extraction maybe).

I never test on bad CD-R.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Delirium
post Aug 26 2002, 23:22
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 300
Joined: 3-January 02
From: Santa Cruz, CA
Member No.: 891



Interesting results, thanks.

Unfortunately I'll have to keep using CDparanoia, as it's the only of those available for Linux. And since I keep good care of my CDs, it shouldn't be a big problem. =]
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
j8ee
post Oct 28 2002, 11:21
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 118
Joined: 31-January 02
From: Sweden, Gothenburg
Member No.: 1212



I haven't used CDex much at all, but cdparanoia under Linux quite a lot in periods, when I haven't had Windows installed. EAC is the program I normally use. My Impression of cdparanoia vs. EAC is that they have been roughly equal when it comes to detecting and taking care of errors, in my case mostly scratches. But when an unrepairable error occurs, cdparanoia produces "softer" pops and clicks - they are less noticable then the clicks that EAC leaves behind.

I have been trying out cdparanoia vs. EAC on four different drives (an Acer 36x, a noname 40x, a standalone 20x scsi-cd rom and a LiteOn 24x burner) with a lot of scratched cd:s and have always experienced the same thing.

EAC is however _much_ faster, always, but especially with my noname reader, wich don't cache but reports c2-errors: it reads in 8-10 times speed with good error detection. It is lousy in correcting the errors however, so for that I have to use the LiteOn, wich does a great job in that area.

I highly recommend the DAE quality checking method/tools on www.exactaudiocopy.de for testing your cd-roms in their error detecting capabilities. Be careful and accurate when preparing the test record however. (I recommend the 3M "removable" graphics tape for masking.) Also be prepared that it will take quite a long time for the analyse program to finish - on my 400 MHz box it took 24 hours, and to that came eight hours to make the test wav...

Regards, Johan
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tangent
post Oct 28 2002, 18:11
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 674
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 63



If only EAC would go opensourced...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rizban76
post Oct 28 2002, 19:13
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 24-October 02
From: San Diego, CA
Member No.: 3612



The biggest advantage of CDex for me is speed. When I am extracting tracks from my CDs that I know do not have significant scratches, CDex in normal (not paranoid) mode seems the best choice. Besides, if I do find an error that slips through I will hear it when I listen to the file and can re-extract using EAC.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
B
post Oct 28 2002, 19:22
Post #11





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 175
Joined: 6-May 02
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 1985



QUOTE
If only EAC would go opensourced...


Why ? I think everyone should be gratefull that such a fine program only costs a simple postcard. If Andre doesn't want to open the source, so be it ..


--------------------
http://digitalx.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Oct 28 2002, 19:33
Post #12


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Benny.X @ Oct 28 2002 - 11:22 AM)
QUOTE
If only EAC would go opensourced...


Why ?

Well for one thing, it'd provide an alternative to cdparanoia on other platforms. That alone would be very useful. Not that cdparanoia is bad, but as has been shown, in some cases it may not work as well as EAC for a particular user.

One of the things I don't really understand is that if someone is already willing to give their software away for free, and they've said nothing about charging for it in the future, then why not Open Source it? If they're giving the software away already for the purpose of helping other users, it'd only help even more if they made it Open Source.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jospoortvliet
post Oct 28 2002, 19:48
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 20-November 01
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 508



QUOTE (Dibrom @ Oct 28 2002 - 06:33 PM)
QUOTE (Benny.X @ Oct 28 2002 - 11:22 AM)
QUOTE
If only EAC would go opensourced...


Why ?


One of the things I don't really understand is that if someone is already willing to give their software away for free, and they've said nothing about charging for it in the future, then why not Open Source it? If they're giving the software away already for the purpose of helping other users, it'd only help even more if they made it Open Source.

I do agree on that one, althoug - hey, its andre's software. and, if u whould read the faq, (if its still there or has even ever been - im a bit bad on memory, u know, living in holland means sometimes sucking on a joint, which is bad for your memory wink.gif )
whell, in that faq one might read the reason for not making it opensourced. if my memory doesnt fale me (it will rolleyes.gif ) there where 2 mayor reasons: the code is written in a language almost no-one knows, and its a complete mess...

and i think he doesnt want to, for whatever reason - maybe he wants to keep it, or wants to sell it one day, or hates open-sourced, or thinks he can do better than the open-sourced community... whatever...

hmmm, sorry for the messy message, and maybe for my english, and for my bad memory... hehe... tongue.gif

and - which might surprise u - me=not stoned now...

Josti


--------------------
Life Sucks Deeply
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pio2001
post Oct 28 2002, 21:46
Post #14


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3936
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



The FAQ is online at http://www.exactaudiocopy.de, and is even installed in the "documentation" subfolder of the EAC folder on your hard disc.
However I don't think it speaks about open source (a quick search about "open" or "source" didn't return any relevant result).

EAC is written in Modula II. The other reason for which Andre doesn't want to make it open source is that he wants to charge for including EAC routines in commercial software.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jospoortvliet
post Oct 28 2002, 21:55
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 20-November 01
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 508



Now, that clears things up wink.gif


--------------------
Life Sucks Deeply
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
B
post Oct 28 2002, 22:43
Post #16





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 175
Joined: 6-May 02
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 1985



QUOTE
Well for one thing, it'd provide an alternative to cdparanoia on other platforms.  That alone would be very useful.  Not that cdparanoia is bad, but as has been shown, in some cases it may not work as well as EAC for a particular user.


Valid point.

QUOTE
One of the things I don't really understand is that if someone is already willing to give their software away for free, and they've said nothing about charging for it in the future, then why not Open Source it?  If they're giving the software away already for the purpose of helping other users, it'd only help even more if they made it Open Source.


Agreed. But that's Andre decission, and his full rigth to keep the source closed if he wants too. I guess you know the story too that it's a project born out of frustration and he is working on it in his spare time. If he would open up the source and release it under some license, he would have to work on it on a much more regular basis, i guess he just not wants to do that.

It's like that the 'open-source' thought is getting overboard sometimes. Some people won't use EAC or MPC or any other piece of software because the source is closed. I personally think that's just plain silly ..

Boy, i'm probably starting a long thread with this message with the pro's and con's of open-sourced software, but it's just the way i look at it. unsure.gif


--------------------
http://digitalx.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
B
post Oct 28 2002, 22:49
Post #17





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 175
Joined: 6-May 02
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 1985



QUOTE (Jospoortvliet @ Oct 28 2002 - 10:55 PM)
Now, that clears things up wink.gif


Raam opengezet zodat de rook eruit kon ? biggrin.gif

In English: Did you open the window to let out the smoke ? biggrin.gif


--------------------
http://digitalx.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tangent
post Oct 29 2002, 04:57
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 674
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 63



QUOTE (Pio2001 @ Oct 29 2002 - 04:46 AM)
EAC is written in Modula II. The other reason for which Andre doesn't want to make it open source is that he wants to charge for including EAC routines in commercial software.

Modula II isn't a problem. After opensourced, I'm sure people will do the conversion for him smile.gif
I think there are opensourced licenses available (not GPL or BSD) that allows you to make code opensourced yet allow you to charge for commercial usages.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
William
post Oct 29 2002, 05:24
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 8-January 02
Member No.: 959



I think one of the advantage of CDex is compatibility.
I have several CDs that is using Cactus Data Shield CD protection.
EAC hangs up completely while trying to extract, but CDex ripped successfully.
I don't know if there are any problems with the ripped MP3, but it sounds fine to my ears, and EAC just can't rip it at all...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
salt28
post Oct 29 2002, 05:43
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 20-January 02
Member No.: 1096



QUOTE
I think there are opensourced licenses available (not GPL or BSD) that allows you to make code opensourced yet allow you to charge for commercial usages.


Problem is if your source is open it can easily be stolen.
And since this program is so great I am sure somebody would steal it before it's been fully uploaded unsure.gif

If you'd follow the news at slashdot.org you'd be surprised how many Free stuff is stolen (I heard that even microsoft stole some stuff, though I'm not sure, since the comments posted at the /. forums are very often untrue.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Ingram
post Oct 29 2002, 09:34
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 315
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 53



QUOTE (tangent @ Oct 29 2002 - 03:57 AM)
I think there are opensourced licenses available (not GPL or BSD) that allows you to make code opensourced yet allow you to charge for commercial usages.

The GPL can be used in the way you want. Consider the business model of Trolltech, the makers of Qt, which is the best cross-platform widget toolkit. They dual licence their UNIX version under the GPL, which cannot be used to make closed software, and a less/more restricted (depending on your point of view ;) ) version which costs about $2000 per developer.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
PatchWorKs
post Oct 29 2002, 10:27
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 498
Joined: 2-October 01
Member No.: 168



Point 1: GPL is not good if you want to make business with your application.
BSD is better (so true that Vorbis uses it) for commercial integration
(MicroSoft uses TCP/IP released under BSD...)

Point 2: nobody should be interested to be a thief if you are reasonable.
What i mean is that if you respect other peoples' work they should respect yours (check out JCA)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
robUx4
post Dec 5 2002, 13:08
Post #23


Matroska Developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 410
Joined: 14-March 02
From: Paris
Member No.: 1519



QUOTE (Benny.X @ Oct 28 2002 - 09:43 PM)
Agreed. But that's Andre decission, and his full rigth to keep the source closed if he wants too. I guess you know the story too that it's a project born out of frustration and he is working on it in his spare time. If he would open up the source and release it under some license, he would have to work on it on a much more regular basis, i guess he just not wants to do that.

Well, I think it's exactly the opposite. Because it's not open source, if someday he decides that he doesn't want to spend time on it anymore, what do we do ? We can't improve/correct the software !

  • Being written in a rare language is no excuse (noone will read the code period).
  • Being a mess in the code is no excuse, a coder that wants to make something in the code will always find his way
  • Using the routines in proprietary softwares ? He can use GPL or LGPL and charge if a company want his code (unless that company also do open source softwares)

The only problem I can see is having a dozen of forks with different additions/changes.


--------------------
http://www.matroska.org/ : the best vapourware / http://robux4.blogspot.com/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
budgie
post Dec 5 2002, 14:55
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 27-November 02
Member No.: 3901



QUOTE
Though the C2 error detection is currently very criticized, it is still, at least for this drive, infinitely more accurate (9462 times more accurate, according to Feurio) than CDex full paranoia mode, and as accurate as the reading twice method in EAC, while much faster.


Great! I've always said Feurio! is great software tongue.gif

Nice to watch anyway, how the debate steers away to open source... maybe I got it wrong, but I don't think it was the original idea in this topic laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GodsMadClown
post Mar 27 2003, 19:52
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 2-August 02
Member No.: 2895



QUOTE (robUx4 @ Dec 5 2002 - 12:08 PM)
Well, I think it's exactly the opposite. Because it's not open source, if someday he decides that he doesn't want to spend time on it anymore, what do we do ? We can't improve/correct the software !

Dude, take a look at Sourceforge and see how many open source projects have started as one-person projects that have been abandoned and opened AFTER that person has stoppped working on it. Coolplayer comes to mind. There is nothing to keep that dude from opeing the software. It's his work, and he can do what he damn well pleases with it. If he wants to print out the code and use it to wipe his ass, then it's his perogative. He's made the proggy availible for free. Stop whining and enjoy the guy's hard work.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st August 2014 - 15:49