1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

CDEX v1.51 Vs EAC v0.95

Discussion in 'Audio' started by aeneas1, Apr 8, 2005.

  1. aeneas1

    aeneas1 Member

    Apr 8, 2005
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    given that i am rather new to the world of ripping, i am hoping that someone might help me understand why eac takes over 10 times the amount of time to rip than cdex; and that's using a bitrate of 256 with cdex and a bitrate of 192 with eac - at least those are my results.


    here are my settings:

    rip method: standard
    encoder: lame mp3 v 1.30 engine 3.92 mmx
    version: mpeg l
    bitrate: 256
    quality: normal (5)
    vbr method: disabled
    vbr quality: vbr0
    output sr: 44100
    other: on the fly mp3 encoding

    extraction priority: normal
    extraction method: accurate stream
    read command: auto detect
    actual speed selection: auto detect
    reduction during extraction
    gap method: b
    detection accuracy: inaccurate
    external compression: lame 3.96.1
    parameter passing scheme: user defined
    bitrate: 192
    quality: high
    max vbr: 320
    vbr quality: normal (5)
    write xing vbr heading vbr encoding


    i have never used eac before and was anxious to give it a spin based on the many great reviews here. i have used cdex in the past and found it to be absolutely great but, like most everyone i know, i am always interested in the best solution available!

    anyway, i believe that i must be doing something drastically wrong - not only am i able to rip at a higher bit rate with cdex in less than 1/10th the time it takes with eac, but i also feel that the sound is better (have only tested mp3s - no wavs yet). i think it is also important to mention that i am only ripping cds that are in excellent condition so jitter has not been a problem with cdex - this may not be the case with lesser cds and that is where the error correction that eac offers probably excels. but could this error correction be solely responsible for the entire difference in ripping speed?

    for example, it just now took me 6.5 minutes to rip a brand new 787mb cd (about 75 minutes of music) with cdex - this works out to about 2.0mb/sec...

    with eac, i averaged just 0.15mb/sec which would have worked out to over an hour for the same cd had i let it the process to continue...

    i noticed that cdex rips mp3s "on the fly" while it looks as if eac rips them to wav and then employs an external compressor to get the rips to mp3. that, combined with error correction, probably makes up the time difference.

    anyway, is it possible to rip any faster with eac?

    Last edited: Apr 8, 2005
  2. diabolos

    diabolos Guest

    I myself have just begun to use EAC but there are a couple of things I can tell you.

    1) To encode at higher bit rates with EAC you must know how to manipulate the LAME.exe command-line settings. At the compression options menu and in the command line arguments text box type the word [bold]extreme[/bold] in for "standard" (so, [bold]--alt-preset extreme[/bold]). This will allow you to encoded at higher bit-rates using a VBR scheme.

    Learn about (LAME's alt presets settings):

    2) Yes EAC is very slow. It is very conservative, even with CDs that are in greeat condition, and will always make sure that its WAVs are the same as the PCMs on the CD. Thats why it rips waves. Small errors can occurr when CD to Mp3 is done instead of WAV.

    Learn about (EAC):

    3) Yes the LAME.exe is employed by EAC to do all the encoding to Mp3. As stated above you must know how to use the LAME encoder app to get the best possible Mp3s!

    Learn about (LAME):

    EAC is the best! Thats right I said it (finally):)
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 8, 2005
  3. aeneas1

    aeneas1 Member

    Apr 8, 2005
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:

    very nice, informative reply - and very much appreciated...

    it is interesting that you mentioned command line arguments in that i was very surprised to see eac kick open a command (dos) window and go to work after processing a track!

    if i were an audiophile that had the type of audio gear and listening environment that would allow me to appreciate the difference in quality between my cdex settings and my eac settings, then i would probably opt for the eac approach. but as i mentioned, my cdex rips at 256 sounded every bit as good to me as the eac rips at 192. i also find cdex's user interface much more easier to use; of course that should be the case in that cdex is apparently not as sophisticated a program as eac.

    now if i could only find a dvd ripper that offered the same combination of speed/quality that cdex does! alas...

    thanks again,


  4. djscoop

    djscoop Active member

    Feb 6, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    LOL I would love to reply to this thread, however my friend diabolos has done a great job already so ditto to what he has said. Plus I am too tired from a friday night of drinking and playing pool, so I will leave it at this:

    I used to use CDex, and yes, it is a good ripper. But EAC provides much more extenive options, and is the only ripper that provides a 100% accurate rip of CDs...more to come tomorrow....

Share This Page