Jump to content
IGNORED

What's the best way to rip CDs to a Mac?


Recommended Posts

The last time I actually ripped a CD was probably 8 yrs ago... I used iTunes ..

 

Is there a better option today? 

 

BTW.... I'm ripping CDs because I just purchased 100 CDs at a good deal. I will be selling 75% off them, as they are Classical music.

I'll list a few in the for sale area to see if you guys are interested...

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

XLD.

+1

NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono 

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo

Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono

Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul

system pics

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

+1

 

Either dBpoweramp (paid) or XLD (free) - either ensures an accurate rip by comparing with the AccurateRip database and if the CD is not found (e.g., too new or too rare), will allow you to select some sort of secure rip; i.e., re-rip until you get an exact match at least twice in a row.

John Walker - IT Executive

Headphone - SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable Ethernet > mRendu Roon endpoint > Topping D90 > Topping A90d > Dan Clark Expanse / HiFiMan H6SE v2 / HiFiman Arya Stealth

Home Theater / Music -SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable HDMI > Denon X3700h > Anthem Amp for front channels > Revel F208-based 5.2.4 Atmos speaker system

Link to comment

What is criteria of "the best ripping" estimation?

 

I suppose, it is error number comparing original record (in WAV of other file format).

The record available for music producer only. He send the record to CD-disk plant.

 

Checksum database filled by secondary results (not original record) with unknown error probability. So it can't be used for checking of ripping quality.

 

So we can estimate quality of ripping via test desk kit with exactly known binary content only.

 

Also CD ripping may be considered for full system only [CD drive + CD ripper software].

 

Here my method for CD-ripping quality estimation https://samplerateconverter.com/content/what-best-cd-ripper-software-how-compare-audio-cd-rippers

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Sure it can. If the checksum database has an entry that is incorrect, it become obvious fairly quickly. If a variety of systems and a variety of drives consistently generate the same checksum from a large number of pressings of the same source CD, you can be confident that the checksum is correct.

 

If error detected/undetected there is no 100% probability, that error detected/undetected correctly.

 

1. Do you sure that metadata don't included to checksum?

2. What about series of CDs with undetected errors?
3. What about case 3 checksums vs. 2 checksums?

4. What about rare CDs?

 

In CD ripping no 100% sureness that there is not errors without comparison with original file, that was used to producing of the CD.

 

42 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

Suggesting anything else is fear mongering or an attempt to sell something.

 

I sell CD-ripper as one of functionality of my conversion software.

And it is reason to get information from first hands for reflection.

 

P.S. Also AuI ConverteR's CD ripping functionality available for free without batch ripping of several tracks. Anybody can compare my CD-ripper with other ones by binary content of original test file as suggested in link above.

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
Just now, Speed Racer said:

AccurateRip with dBpoweramp works very well. It's not perfect but then nothing is. All I see is someone trying to undermine a solution that competes with their own product. It doesn't look good.....

 

The topic title is "What's the best way to rip CDs to a Mac?"

 

Therefore we discuss here not "what is work very well" how it is felt.

We can compare ripping error detection in numbers more exactly.

 

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

Your "method" is not better than what AccurateRip offers. Sorry.

 

Method of checking CD ripping systems?

It is different things.

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

I don't even know what you are talking about now.

 

I meant, you compare one of [methods of CD ripping] and [method of checking of method of CD ripping].

 

13 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

All I know is that dBpoweramp with AccurateRip works perfect for me.

 

Ok.

 

13 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

I am confident that all the CDs I have ripped using dBpoweramp with AccurateRip are bit perfect.

 

Does you mean "bit perfect" as 100% binary identity with the original files, that used for checked

CD production?

 

If it is so:

1. What is probability of error detection via checksum database?

2. What is probaility of error detection for different CD rippers in stand-alone mode?

 

 

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

You know, with every post you make, it becomes more and more certain that I will never buy any of your products...

 

I am confident that my rips are bit perfect rips of the CDs in consumers hands. Since I can't possibly get access to the original tracks, that is all I can ask for from my ripping solution.

 

I see that you like the CD-ripper and consider it as the best choise for you. Don't think about my software.
 

General purpose of my participation in the discussions is mind stymulation for new ideas and better understanding of the subject. May be for my articles. And I'm appreciated people who discuss with me different questions.

 

Let's return back.

Without serious independent researches we don't know the probabilities.

 

As example, CD ripper detect error.

1. Where into track the error is located?

2. How to fix the error?

Especially for rare CD.

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment

@audiventory, I appreciate the info you are providing at your linked page, and I understand the point you are making.

 

However, I believe it is you who are missing the point here. The OP did not ask about how to ensure theoretical or statistically certain 100% accurate rips all the time. He asked about the "best way" to rip CDs to a Mac. He asked about a method, a workflow, not about scientific or statistical experiments.

 

The fact is that secure CD ripping like that done by XLD and DBPoweramp, combined with AccurateRip database checking, provides a result that is not statistically 100% guaranteed, but is sufficiently close to 100% that it is not worth worrying about for anyone who - like the OP - is looking for a method that also is easy and convenient.

 

As you know, the secure rippers do multiple passes on the disc and they don't move on until they get identical results on more than one pass. Because the vast majority of ripping errors do not repeat themselves in an identical manner, getting multiple consecutive identical ripping results is, already by itself, a strong indicator that the rip is accurate. 

 

Of course that method is not foolproof by itself. But then, the secure rippers check with the AccurateRip database. If the rip exactly matches the database, that provides an added level of confidence that the rip is accurate. Even if it is a rare CD with only 1 entry in the database, if it matches the likelihood is extremely high that the rip is accurate - because the chances that the rip in the database, using different hardware and probably different software, made with a different individual disc, had the exact same errors, down to the bit level, are astronomically small. (And the fact that I cannot assign an exact number to that very small probability does not change the fact that it's still a very small probability.)

 

To put it more simply, based on all we know, let's say you have a collection of 5,000 CDs, and for this hypothetical let's say that all of them are undamaged and can be accurately ripped. Let's say you rip them all two ways:

  1. With XLD or DBPoweramp + AccurateRip database, or
  2. Whatever way you feel is better

My argument is that when you compare the two rips of all these CDs, the result will be that at least 4,999, and probably all 5,000, will match. I am sufficiently confident in this argument that I have zero interest in actually testing it. If you want to test it, the by all means go ahead - but how about not raising your objections until you've actually carried out the experiment?

 

So, with respect, your questions here are interesting and worth exploring, but when it comes to actually answering the OP's question, the issues you raise are pointless.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Perhaps this was my fault, but in my configuration dBpoweramp nearly always found the correct metadata for the CDs, while XLD often couldn't pick one from multiple matches, and sometimes picked the wrong one. Also, the HDCD rip to 24 bit lossless format was important to me. XLD does not decode HDCD encoding.

I use XLD. Accurate metadata finding is useful for sure. I generally do a bit of curation of the metadata myself - eg album artist.

 

As for HDCD decoding, you can do this post-rip with dbPoweramp. I actually have a dbP license for Windows and used dbP to decode HDCD on rips I already had. FYI I am a mac person and run dbP with Crossover which worked just fine. 

NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono 

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo

Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono

Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul

system pics

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

He asked about the "best way" to rip CDs to a Mac. He asked about a method, a workflow, not about scientific or statistical experiments.

 

What is "the best way"?

 

It is maximal probability of binary identity with the original audio file (not checksum with the database) among rippers.

To found the probaility need method, that I suggested.

 

I can make experiments (and make it), but I can't publish results, because I produce own CD ripper.

 

I can't understand: why there is need database? CD ripper and CD-drive have powerful error detection system. Why there need additional element, like database? It made system more sophisticated.

More sophisticated system may have higher bug probability.

 

What about restoration of audio data of damaged CD?

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
1 hour ago, audiventory said:

 

What is "the best way"?

 

It is maximal probability of binary identity with the original audio file (not checksum with the database) among rippers.

To found the probaility need method, that I suggested.

 

I can make experiments (and make it), but I can't publish results, because I produce own CD ripper.

 

I can't understand: why there is need database? CD ripper and CD-drive have powerful error detection system. Why there need additional element, like database? It made system more sophisticated.

More sophisticated system may have higher bug probability.

 

What about restoration of audio data of damaged CD?

 

My previous post explained that "best way" is not automatically or simply what you think it's about.

 

If you can't publish your results, then your experiments are of no use.

 

Personally I have no problem with relying on rippers' and drives' error detection systems. But this is a perfect example of why your posts generate disagreement from others. First you say that normal CD-ripping software and methods are not robust enough because we don't know for sure if they're really accurate. But now you say that normal CD-ripping software and methods are overly redundant and have extra safeguards that are not needed.

 

"More sophisticated system may have higher bug probability" is the perfect example of a general principle that has no particular relevance here. Adding a single step - checking the accuraterip database - does not result in any appreciable complexity, and it's not even clear what a "bug" would be in such a scenario. In addition, anyone is free to simply ignore the AccurateRip aspect of a secure ripper's results - the ripping programs also list how many retries and errors were found when ripping each track. So if you get a rip with 0 errors and 0 retries that does not match the AccurateRip database - and this has happened to me occasionally - then you can just ignore the AccurateRip non-match and assume an accurate rip. Problem solved.

 

The page of yours you linked to above is a sketchy outline of a possible comparison protocol of ripping numerous CDs with numerous combinations of rippers and CD drives. As I said before, have fun with that if you want to - but it's totally unnecessary and massive overkill since it's very easy to use any secure ripping app in combination with almost any properly functioning optical drive manufactured in the last 15 years to get good rips 99+% of the time. If for some reason you have a drive that's throwing up a lot of errors, then sure, get a new drive - problem solved. There's no need to do extensive research to get a drive that studies have shown has a 99.91% accurate-rip rate instead of a drive that has shown a 99.86% rate. There's no way to know if those small differences will manifest themselves in anyone's particular situation - if their drive will be manufactured to the exact same physical spec, if it will have the same firmware, if the ripping environment will have the same humidity, if the "better" drive's laser will still perform as well as it ages, whatever. The difference between these two hypothetical drives is a single CD rip in a collection of 2,000. Not worth worrying about - especially when you get retry and error stats from each rip - and you have the AccurateRip database as an extra level of security.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...