Recommended External CD Drive For Ripping?

[Audio_ELF]

Yes I did:) but you should read the detailed results.

I did ... if you read what I wrote ...

if you use dbPowerAmp and utilise SecureRip then once the CD is ripped and matches to the database, you are assured you have a "perfect" copy.

 

Everything else is irrelevant.

It is not at odds at all with either dbPowerAmp's summary nor the detailed results!

 

I know there are some people who disagree and think how the perfect result was obtained matters; I disagree with them but I was hoping not to get into an argument.

 

I was simply offering another opinion. One which is not in disagreement with the link you posted.

 

Certain drives may be quicker, or read difficult to read or badly maintained CDs; but (IMO) the end result is always identical if the checksums match.

 

Eloise

[kumakuma]

Certain drives may be quicker, or read difficult to read or badly maintained CDs; but (IMO) the end result is always identical if the checksums match.

 

+1

 

You can cut a tree down with an axe or a chain saw. One may be slower than the other but the end result will be the same.

[alfe]

I did ... if you read what I wrote ...

 

It is not at odds at all with either dbPowerAmp's summary nor the detailed results!

 

I know there are some people who disagree and think how the perfect result was obtained matters; I disagree with them but I was hoping not to get into an argument.

 

I was simply offering another opinion. One which is not in disagreement with the link you posted.

 

Certain drives may be quicker, or read difficult to read or badly maintained CDs; but (IMO) the end result is always identical if the checksums match.

 

Eloise

 

C2 pointers avoid non reported errors, now read this:

 

https://dbpoweramp.com/spoons-audio-guide-cd-ripping.htm

 

PS:If the errors are not reported you can forget about accurate rip

[Audio_ELF]

C2 pointers avoid non reported errors, now read this:

 

https://dbpoweramp.com/spoons-audio-guide-cd-ripping.htm

 

PS:If the errors are not reported you can forget about accurate rip

You mean I should read another link which agrees with me that in the most part any modern CD reader is perfectly adequate and nothing special is needed?

 

Or is there a particular part I've missed where it says "always use a CD only drive for best results"?

[alfe]

You mean I should read another link which agrees with me that in the most part any modern CD reader is perfectly adequate and nothing special is needed?

 

Or is there a particular part I've missed where it says "always use a CD only drive for best results"?

 

You know better Eloise sorry for advising on things I don't understand.

[Audio_ELF]

You know better Eloise sorry for advising on things I don't understand.

Sorry I just have no idea what you are posting these articles in support of. The way I read them they support the position that (with a few exceptions) any modern drive will read a CD well, and once compared with AccurateRip you have close to 100% confidence that the drive has read it well. Given that Spoon is promoting how good and how easy his software is to use I would think that is the impression he is trying to portray! His articles say there have been problems ripping in the past, but with EAC and now dbPowerAmp they have been overcome.

 

Obviously your interpretation is very different.

 

If there is a particular paragraph or two in this (or another article) which supports your view point that DVD readers are bad, perhaps you would paste it here (along with a link to the original article) rather than linking to articles generally which (to my reading) support the position that there is no need to worry in the most part.

 

Eloise

[Skeptic]

Re-ripping discs which I originally ripped on a CD drive more than a decade ago, on DVD, HD-DVD, Blu-ray, and BD-XL drives all produce identical CRCs.

 

As long as you're using secure ripping, and verifying that with C2 pointers (if properly supported) and the accurate-rip database, it doesn't matter what drive you're using.

 

Certain drives do a better job with damaged discs than others, but there does not seem to be any specific pattern to it. Sometimes the newest BD-XL drive does a better job and other times it's an old DVD drive.

If there are errors reported I just check that there aren't any marks on the disc and swap it over to another drive. Normally that's enough to get an accurate rip.

 

And certain drives are faster than others when ripping CDs, but there does not seem to be any pattern to that either. Sometimes one drive is very fast, and other times that will be the slowest drive for a specific disc.

 

None of that matters if you're using a secure ripper like dBpoweramp.

 

 

You're better off buying two or three inexpensive drives (different models/brands) than a single expensive one in my opinion.

Or maybe look into bulk ripping devices if you have a lot of ripping to do. Back when I did the majority of my ripping, I don't recall them being available at such low prices.

[elcorso]

C2 pointers avoid non reported errors, now read this:

 

https://dbpoweramp.com/spoons-audio-guide-cd-ripping.htm

 

PS:If the errors are not reported you can forget about accurate rip

 

+1

 

Once upon a time I used EAC, but for RBCD duplicating in a better CDR media and get a better SQ. I wasn't on HD stored music yet. I still own some nice Plextor CD only, from that time. I don't use EAC anymore because I don't like to work on Windows OS. I rip now with iTunes and on Mac external CD / DVD drive under 4X speed and no complaints. I tried DBpowerAmp but many times it was stalled on a never ending rip. The same CD on iTunes showed no problems under ripping or playing.

 

Some times I more got clicks, pop, interrupted music, etc., from certain downloads than from a rip. I guess the reported errors from accurate rip could be also the contrary from accurate and not only non reported.

 

Eloise, alfe is an R&D Engineer specialized on this kind of drives (if memory serves me, from another thread).

 

Best,

 

Roch

 

PS/ Mentioned "better SQ" and "Windows OS" not for a debate, please.

[Audio_ELF]

Eloise, alfe is an R&D Engineer specialized on this kind of drives (if memory serves me, from another thread).

Then I don't understand why he repeatedly posts links to articles by Spoon which to my understanding are saying that (and I am paraphrasing) while there are better and worse drives, but if your rip matches AccurateRip database then you are close to 100% assured a perfect rip, and if it matches 3 then it's almost impossible (statistically) that your rip is not perfect!

 

For example in the link you "quoted" -- https://dbpoweramp.com/spoons-audio-guide-cd-ripping.htm -- the Secure Ripping section says (again my paraphrasing): in the past you had to rely on C2 Error Pointers - which let 3% or so of errors though; and re-reading - which lets through errors when you repeatedly read the same error. So yes, take these two "issues" and different CD readers produce different results. But the section concludes by saying: with AccurateRip checksums these errors are caught as you are comparing to other people's rips and your CD is unlikely to have identical scratches, etc. as someone else's.

 

Eloise

[esldude]

Then I don't understand why he repeatedly posts links to articles by Spoon which to my understanding are saying that (and I am paraphrasing) while there are better and worse drives, but if your rip matches AccurateRip database then you are close to 100% assured a perfect rip, and if it matches 3 then it's almost impossible (statistically) that your rip is not perfect!

 

For example in the link you "quoted" -- https://dbpoweramp.com/spoons-audio-guide-cd-ripping.htm -- the Secure Ripping section says (again my paraphrasing): in the past you had to rely on C2 Error Pointers - which let 3% or so of errors though; and re-reading - which lets through errors when you repeatedly read the same error. So yes, take these two "issues" and different CD readers produce different results. But the section concludes by saying: with AccurateRip checksums these errors are caught as you are comparing to other people's rips and your CD is unlikely to have identical scratches, etc. as someone else's.

 

Eloise

 

Come on Eloise. It is very simple. It isn't high end if you can't turn it into an expensive, arcane, complicated fetish of some sort. Simply buying the current really cheap drives, ripping CDs by the hundreds, with completely accurate results if what you are after is accurate results is besides the point. If you are after accurate results, no matter the result, it can only really be high end good and audiophile approved if you had to find the arcane special equipment and follow the special procedure. Only then are your bits, high end audiophile bits.

 

Has something to do with one of two things. Either the metaphysical effect of intentionality can transform other wise seemingly identical items or as my 2nd grade teacher used to tell us, "it didn't work because you weren't holding your mouth right", with a big smirk on her face.

[alfe]

Then I don't understand why he repeatedly posts links to articles by Spoon which to my understanding are saying that (and I am paraphrasing) there are better and worse drives, but if your rip matches AccurateRip database then you are close to 100% assured a perfect rip, and if it matches 3 then it's almost impossible (statistically) that your rip is not perfect!

 

For example in the link you "quoted" -- https://dbpoweramp.com/spoons-audio-guide-cd-ripping.htm -- the Secure Ripping section says (again my paraphrasing): in the past you had to rely on C2 Error Pointers - which let 3% or so of errors though; and re-reading - which lets through errors when you repeatedly read the same error. So yes, take these two "issues" and different CD readers produce different results. But the section concludes by saying: with AccurateRip checksums these errors are caught as you are comparing to other people's rips and your CD is unlikely to have identical scratches, etc. as someone else's.

 

Eloise

 

Did it on purpose to show their own contradiction, if you read carefully the article from one side they explain that C2 pointers are necessary to avoid non reported errors and on the other side they say that the best implementation gives a least 3% error margin.

And if you read the detailed report you will see that accurate rip on a matshita drive accept happily 99,3% quality.

I tested so many drives that I can't count them, for many reasons (numerical aperture , diffraction filters ,aberrations, etc) to avoid to be to technical I will advise to use CD only drives for ripping for the rest YMMV.

[Audio_ELF]

I tested so many drives that I can't count them, for many reasons (numerical aperture , diffraction filters ,aberrations, etc) to avoid to be to technical I will advise to use CD only drives for ripping for the rest YMMV.

Lets get to the heart of this comment if I may...

 

Are you saying you have "tested so many drives that I can't count them" and the rips resulting from them are passed by dbPowerAmp but still have different checksums and therefore not passed as "AccurateRip? Or do they have identical checksums and therefore pass as AccurateRip yet the rips SOUND different at playback?

 

Eloise

[Skeptic]

I rip now with iTunes and on Mac external CD / DVD drive under 4X speed and no complaints. I tried DBpowerAmp but many times it was stalled on a never ending rip. The same CD on iTunes showed no problems under ripping or playing.

iTunes does not support secure ripping. It will happily report a "good rip" even when there are errors.

 

If dBpoweramp just sits there never-ending, it suggests that there was either a bug in the version that you used, or it was configured incorrectly. (it should abort a bad rip after a certain period of time)

 

Did it on purpose to show their own contradiction, if you read carefully the article from one side they explain that C2 pointers are necessary to avoid non reported errors and on the other side they say that the best implementation gives a least 3% error margin.

And if you read the detailed report you will see that accurate rip on a matshita drive accept happily 99,3% quality.

That's why dBpoweramp performs multiple rips at different speeds and includes C2 error checking, and the AccurateRip database.

 

It is important not to simply let it finish the rip once it gets a single good pass on the disc. Sure, it's probably fine, and certainly more reliable than using a non-secure ripper (like iTunes) but if you want verifiable results, you should do multiple passes on the disc at different speeds.

 

Some drives do not report C2 errors properly and will actually "pass" bad discs with the option enabled - though those rips should fail when checked against the AccurateRip database, and usually fail when doing multi-pass ripping at varying speeds.

That's why part of the dBpoweramp setup includes testing with discs that are known to have a high confidence in the AccurateRip database, and testing with intentionally damaged discs.

[alfe]

Lets get to the heart of this comment if I may...

 

Are you saying you have "tested so many drives that I can't count them" and the rips resulting from them are passed by dbPowerAmp but still have different checksums and therefore not passed as "AccurateRip? Or do they have identical checksums and therefore pass as AccurateRip yet the rips SOUND different at playback?

 

Eloise

 

With all my respect and for personal reason I'm out of this discussion.

 

edit: have look to the accuracy of CRC

[esldude]

Did it on purpose to show their own contradiction, if you read carefully the article from one side they explain that C2 pointers are necessary to avoid non reported errors and on the other side they say that the best implementation gives a least 3% error margin.

And if you read the detailed report you will see that accurate rip on a matshita drive accept happily 99,3% quality.

I tested so many drives that I can't count them, for many reasons (numerical aperture , diffraction filters ,aberrations, etc) to avoid to be to technical I will advise to use CD only drives for ripping for the rest YMMV.

 

Just after the part about 3% errors:

 

As mentioned AccurateRip helps enormously with secure ripping, a CD rip is compared to an independently ripped disc (different drive, different CD - no 2 discs would have the same scratch).

 

So that would seem the way to overcome the small possible errors. C2 errors are possible, and a given disc returning identical errors on multiple reads is slightly possible. After the discussion on that AccuraterRip is mentioned. So again, not sure what the hullabaloo is about.

[sandyk]

Deleted as requested.

[Audio_ELF]

[...deleted at Alfe's request...]

[alfe]

..

[alfe]

Alex

 

Thank you

[alfe]

[...deleted at Alfe's request...]

 

Thank you Eloise

[jhwalker]

So the answer is still, "If the end results match the AccurateRip database, no matter *how* you got there, the rip is perfect."

 

Some drives will get there quicker, or will require fewer passes, but if the final result matches the database, you're there - there's no "better" or "worse" rip. C2 issues, error rates, etc., are completely irrelevant to the final result.

 

Personally, I use whatever drive is handy (internal to my MacBook Pro, external Blu-Ray, whatever) and rip with either XLD or dBpoweramp with AccurateRip checking turned on. 99.9% of the time, I get a perfect rip the first time. If I need to re-rip any particular track, I stick the CD in the other drive and try again - 99.9% of the time, that fixes it.

 

I think I recall one CD from which I could not get an accurate rip, and it was badly damaged (I bought a replacement for $0.01 on Amazon).

[sandyk]

So the answer is still, "If the end results match the AccurateRip database, no matter *how* you got there, the rip is perfect."

 

Some drives will get there quicker, or will require fewer passes, but if the final result matches the database, you're there - there's no "better" or "worse" rip. C2 issues, error rates, etc., are completely irrelevant to the final result.

 

Personally, I use whatever drive is handy (internal to my MacBook Pro, external Blu-Ray, whatever) and rip with either XLD or dBpoweramp with AccurateRip checking turned on. 99.9% of the time, I get a perfect rip the first time. If I need to re-rip any particular track, I stick the CD in the other drive and try again - 99.9% of the time, that fixes it.

 

I think I recall one CD from which I could not get an accurate rip, and it was badly damaged (I bought a replacement for $0.01 on Amazon).

 

Did you read the thread where both Alfe and Tony Lauck participated, and then all went quiet in this area for days ?

Their conclusions were NOT the same as yours. IIRC, Tony Lauck even preferred internal music storage over networked music storage for SQ reasons.

[esldude]

Did you read the thread where both Alfe and Tony Lauck participated, and then all went quiet in this area for days ?

Their conclusions were NOT the same as yours. IIRC, Tony Lauck even preferred internal music storage over networked music storage for SQ reasons.

 

Did you read jhwalker's post? None of what either of them wrote disputes what he wrote.

[sandyk]

Deleted

[sandyk]

Did you read jhwalker's post? None of what either of them wrote disputes what he wrote.

 

That's your interpretation. The combination of what they both wrote was enough to see the thread draw to a close rather nicely.

 

"If the end results match the AccurateRip database, no matter *how* you got there, the rip is perfect."

 

 

 

Perfect in what respect ? The binary contents are identical, or they all sound the same ? Even ripping using different OS's results in a slightly different sound, which is something you refuse to acknowledge,and will doubtless continue to do so until your last breath.(smile)