Opinions on iTunes ripper ??

[divad6719]

One of the reasons I bought the iPod was to make use of the integrated iTunes/ iPod package. I was hoping to do away with all the variety of programs I had been using so that I could take advantage of the "all in one" features.

Up until now I've still been using EAC to rip and then importing the WAV's to iTunes.
I've just ripped a couple of CD's with iTunes though and they sound fine to me, (I used the error correction mode).

Anybody got any views on this or encountered problems when using iTunes to rip (error corrected or not as the case may be).

Any insight appreciated, but please no recommendations for other software. If I'm not going to use iTunes then I'll just continue with EAC. :)

Thanks in advance.

[M81388]

I love iTunes - I encode in 128 AAC, and it's perfect quality, I love it, it saves so much space

It's like 128 AAC = 320 MP3

And it's perfect for me, especially since it automatically adds them to iTunes

[divad6719]

Thanks, but its the quality of the rips I'm interested in. Not the quality of the AAC codec.

I already think AAC is quite good, maybe not as good as what you mention but not too bad. :)

[mid_gen]

Well, I've given the new lossless encoder a try which is probably the best test :)

I only ever used EAC for mp3 ripping, and not since iTunes for windows appeared and I started ripping to 192kb/48khz AAC. Can't really compare iTunes hq AAC/lossess to mp3 in any case.

Quality is exceptional, indistinguishable from my Arcam CD player. I gave it a good hard listen on a good set of Grado 'phones, and, well, there's nothing to criticise.

[divad6719]

I only ever used EAC for mp3 ripping, and not since iTunes for windows appeared and I started ripping to 192kb/48khz AAC

Thanks for that, do you use iTunes with Error correction or without. ??

[Alias]

Originally posted by divad6719
Thanks, but its the quality of the rips I'm interested in. Not the quality of the AAC codec.

I already think AAC is quite good, maybe not as good as what you mention but not too bad. :)

A rip is a rip - its just a string on 1's and 0's
The only variable is what you use to compress the resulting data

S

[divad6719]

A rip is a rip - its just a string on 1's and 0's

Yes, but what if the strings broken ?? How good is iTunes error correction ?

The only variable is what you use to compress the resulting data

Sorry can't agree with that. What about scratched or worn CD's, interruptions from overworked processors or the ripping engine used ??

Thats what I'm trying to find out, if anybody has had trouble with rips using iTunes ripping engine ?? :)

[Suasexed]

I don't use error correction as most of my CDs are perfect. I just make sure there arn't any marks and try to get the dust off before ripping.

If the CD is clean/perfect there shouldn't be any errors...should there?

[RocDaMicRite]

iTunes is so cool. Its like I can find any song in the iMusic Store and I can rip all my copied and bootleg cds if I have them. Now I jus borrow cds from my friends and copy it onto ipods and to my ipod...Its the best..

[divad6719]

If the CD is clean/perfect there shouldn't be any errors...should there?

No, this is true. I just wondered about older slightly "scuffed" CD's.

Don't get me wrong I want to use iTunes because I'm fed up with having lots of little programs that each do a different job.
I've been doing some test rips myself and haven't come across any problems so far, so it looks like I'll just go with iTunes and see how it goes.
Nobody's posted with any major problems so that's encouraging.

Thanks for everybody's input.

:)

[jerrodh]

Don't worry... iTunes has been nothing but superb for me quality-wise.

It's a little *slower* than some of the software packages I had been using before, but the convinience of a 1-program solution HUGELY outweighs the extra minute or two per CD, for me.

[rmoody]

I have had much success with iTunes in both error correcting and non-error correcting. I have however come across two CDs that have given iTunes trouble. The first was Black Eyed Peas Elephunk. The ripping slowed down to a crawl in iTunes so I stopped it and checked the sound. It was skipping and really messed up (this was with error correcting on). I took the CD back and the next one did the same thing. I researched and they use copy protection on it. Out comes EAC. I have a Plextor UltraPlex drive for ripping and EAC got sync errors nearly immediately. I slowed the drive speed down to 8x and got a clean rip. The other problem CD was Pink Floyd The Division Bell (I think). It gave the same problems in iTunes as Elephunk, this time with error correction off. EAC had similar problems but was able to get a clean rip at 8x again. The Elephunk CD was brand new, the Pink Floyd a few years old with mild wear. I would not trust iTunes with scratched CDs and I always monitor the ripping progress to see if it slows down considerably; if it does, I cancel iTunes and call out EAC.

My goal is to be able to use EAC with Nero's encoder at the transparent VBR setting. However, this is more difficult than it seems as iTunes/iPod does not like the M4P wrapper that Nero uses and must be unwrapped to AAC then rewrapped with mp4creator and this makes for an extremely time consuming method. However, I would feel better knowing that I am using something that would yeild transparent results the first time. That said 160 kbps seems to be very good so far and is currently what I am using. The above comment about 128 is boasting a tad. It sounds moderatly good, but certainly not good enough if you are used to using LAME --aps and having transparent results. You start to be able to hear the artifacts after a while and I certainly can at 128. Especially that Foo Fighters track that was given away last week. The cymbles sounds really smeared to me at 128. I bought the CD and I can really tell the difference. Anyway, getting off subject. . .

To me, iTunes does a good job and on new CD's I would trust it. Always monitor it's progress and use EAC if in doubt.

[Alias]

Originally posted by divad6719

Sorry can't agree with that. What about scratched or worn CD's, interruptions from overworked processors or the ripping engine used ??

I see what you mean, but that comes down to the quality and onboard CRC checking of your your CD ROM more than your software.

But if it helps, I am a DJ and i have some VERY battered old CD's that have been used in the heat of battle so to speak. iTunes rips them just fine and I haven't had to turn on error correction yet.

Beside, if a track is unreadable, you OS is pretty quick to moan about it .

S

[divad6719]

Thank's all.

I've been tempted by EAC and Nero myself but it would kind of defeat the purpose of my "all in one" goal. Add to that the difficulties that you mention and I just can't be bothered with stuff like that anymore.

I'm finding that AAC @ 192 is quite suitable for my needs and is a good subsitute for LAME aps, with a slight space saving.

Well I'm happy enough now to go with iTunes but EAC will be staying on the PC just in case. ;)