CDex, EAC, or MusicMatch?

[yez]

Hi,

I'm planning on buying the 30gb Ipod and am now ripping my collection. I want to find out from you guys what is the best ripper for the Ipod. I plan on hauling all 500-600 of my CD's onto the Ipod. I'm hearing all of these horrible things about MusicMatch, so I'm scratching that as my primary ripper.

I have downloaded both CDex and EAC (Exact Audio Copy). I'm learning how to set these programs to rip my CD's to MP3 192 VBR (alt-preset-standard). This setting comes highly recommended, they say. Also, this LAME Encoder feature, which MusicMatch does not have, is also a plus, they say. And, from what I've ripped so far, the tracks sound good on CDex. The programs lack the clear instructions of the commercial software (WMP or RealOne) and run more on manual than automatic, but I find them less annoying.

Anyway, do you believe that one ripper is better for the Ipod than another? Will I have any particular problems or difficulties using CDex or EAC for my Ipod mp3's? Is the 192 VBR setting a good match with the Ipod? At some point, will I have to use MusicMatch even if I've ripped the songs with CDex or EAC? Or can I just go straight to Epphod or X-Player?

So, what do you say? CDex? EAC? MusicMatch? I'm still open to MusicMatch if someone can make the case that it's better than those shareware titles I've mentioned.

[ashawley]

Definitely stay away from MMJB. It's a horrible encoder IMO.

CDex/EAC/LAME they all are going to give you the quality you want.

I never like the "kludg-iness" of those shareware tools, I much prefer an all-in-one option. With that said, I use MC9 as my ripper set to Digital Secure which gives you the same quality as EAC.

For encoding, it uses the LAME encoder, by default it uses the -alt preset fast standard which I like, but you can simply change it to -alt preset standard.

The beauty (IMO) of this option is that when I rip I automatically get my songs analyzed for BPM and Intensity and the tunes are added to my library and my Smartlists so they are automatically on my iPod the next time I sync in MC9.

Saves a lot of time overall.

Adam

[yez]

Adam - THanks for your reply. A few questions:

1. MC9's alt-preset-fast-standard corresponds to what? I understand that alt preset standard is 192 KB VBR. Is the "fast standard" preset that you prefer of greater or lesser quality than regular "standard"?

2. What are MC9's BPM and Intensity monitoring features? Do those refer to volume control?

3. Is MC9 a more user-friendly interface than EAC or CDex? (I find EAC or CDex to be a kind of 'bring your own beer' experience -- you have to be way on top of your encoder, your drivers, and everything else. It's got the quality that I want, but it doesn't have the nice interface of the low quality Microsoft Windows Media Player. Is MC9 more tested and straightforward? In other words, I want to know very clearly that I'm getting my 192 KB VBR? Also, I want something that simplifies or advises me on issues I don't understand (like J-stereo vs. stereo?).

4. I'm not getting my Ipod immediately. I first want to begin the ripping process. Should I use Mc9 in a certain way so as to prepare for the purchase of my Ipod?

5. MC9, as I understand, costs $40. Do I download it from a site? Is there a free version? Does the $40 get me a nicer program than the shareware?

[esb9588]

I'm in a similar position, but I can answer one of your questions:

5. There is a free 30-day trial for MC9 which has all of it's features. I'm using EAC/LAME right now and plan to use Ephpod for transfering files. I might try MC9 at some point, but I'm not going to pay $40 just to rip and transfer files when I can do the same thing with freeware.

[dmt1]

MMJB is not as good as CDex or EAC/LAME. EAC/LAME is slightly better than CDex, although CDex is easier to use. While Adam mentioned MMJB's encoder ain't so hot, the difference between EAC/LAME and CDex is in the ripper--EAC's ripper is better than CDex's (I think it 's SIGNIFICANTLY better, but some disagree here...). You can use ephpod without bothering with mmjb, but what Adam described with MC9 is a better way to go IMHO..

OK, in order:

--alt-preset fast standard is almost identical to --alt-preset standard, except the faster setting is significantly faster. File size will be almost identical. The price you pay is an increased chance of an error during encoding. I personally use the --alt-preset standard setting, but the --alt-preset fast standard is a good setting too--I just don't want to risk a bad encode, as I'm usually not in a hurry when I rip and encode...

BPM=Beats per minute (hopefully that's self-explanatory). Intensity is, well, the "intensity" of the piece--it's not really definable, and Jriver is still tinkering with it--it's a work in progress. What BPM and intensity allows you to do is to create "mood" music--ie pick a relatively low BPM combined with a low intensity as smartlist paramters, and MC9 will give you a smartlist that has relatively slower songs in it--it's pretty cool, but I haven't had much time to play with it--every time I'm about to try and refine it, something else comes along that grabs my attention .

With regard to ease of use, MC9 has a learning curve, but once you get past that, it's much easier to use than EAC or CDex. And there is tons of support here at the lounge and at Jriver (As of November, I knew absolutely nothing about any of this--or even exactly what an mp3 was, and I am by no means all that computer saavy (Adam can attest to that). Through Adam and Kurt's patience with my idiotic questions, and gentle prodding here and there, although I am by know means an expert, I have a decent working knowledge how this stuff works...)

As for how you should use MC9, I would go ahead and download it and get familar with it. I would recommend you rip/encode as Adam suggested--Digital Secure mode for the ripper, --alt-preset fast standard or --alt-preset standard for the encoder...If you choose --alt-preset standard though, make sure to post it here, so I can rag on Adam--if you choose --alt-preset fast standard, don't bother posting back....


You can trial MC9 for thirty days for free. I'd recommend you trial it, then decide on wether it's for you or not, before buying it outright. You can download it from one of the links up top...

[Crumage]

I would just like to point out that 500-600 cd's will not fit on a thirty gigger at the bitrate you wish to use

[dmt1]

That is a good point (now if he's only ripping some of the songs of the CD, it might not apply, but if ripping the entire CD, then that's going to be a problem), and also brings up an additional benefit of MC9--if you have more tunes on your computer's HD than will fit on your ipod, there are some very slick ways to use random smartlists to periodically change your music, and to prevent what you don't want going from your 'puter to your ipod (Adam is an expert on this; it's not a problem for me--at least yet--as my mp3's don't fill my ipod....).

[pank2002]

EAC !!!! (with LAME)

I first used CDex, but it screwed up my mp3 (I dont know why). EAC is also much more userfrindly IMO, it also rip faster then CDex (proberly because I didnt configure it right)

[kashmir_singh]

I find the ripping on EAC very good if you want a perfect copy.
I've not used the encoding function yet but that's just dependant on the encoder you have installed.

Question - Have you considered using the AAC encoder avaiable for windows? (BTW - not sure if this has been released but I saw it on Rareware.)

[yez]

On EAC, I installed a 3.93 Lame encoder, but now I'm hearing that's not the way to go. A bit buggy, they say. I'm supposed to stick with 3.92, they say.

Can someone please give me a link to the best available Lame encoder for EAC?

Also, how do I make sure to properly supplant my 3.93 encoder with the 3.92?

ANother question: I've been talking with some on this board about the quality of rips on MC9 vs. EAC or CDex. I'm scrapping the idea of MusicMatch. I like the idea of using mC9 because of the interface, but I can't get it to do as nice 192 vbr rips as I do on CDex or EAC. Comments?

[ironchef9000]

I've used EAC/LAME, CDex, Easy CD-Creator, andMusicmatch, and i've never noticed a quality difference at 192CBR between any of them.

However, the speed of ripping on musicmatch is unbelievably great....full CD in 2,3 minuteds, versus what takes 12,15 minuted on CDex, and longerusing EAC Lame.

I'd suggest downloading the trials, ripping the same song through each of them, and see if you can hear the difference....Maybe some people can, maybe high-end equipment really can.....But what are you doing listening to Mp3 on high-end equipment?

[dmt1]

Originally posted by yez
On EAC, I installed a 3.93 Lame encoder, but now I'm hearing that's not the way to go. A bit buggy, they say. I'm supposed to stick with 3.92, they say.

Can someone please give me a link to the best available Lame encoder for EAC?

Also, how do I make sure to properly supplant my 3.93 encoder with the 3.92?

ANother question: I've been talking with some on this board about the quality of rips on MC9 vs. EAC or CDex. I'm scrapping the idea of MusicMatch. I like the idea of using mC9 because of the interface, but I can't get it to do as nice 192 vbr rips as I do on CDex or EAC. Comments?

Here is where you can get the best configuration of EAC/LAME, with the best version of the LAME encoder (3.90.2):

http://www.chrismyden.com/nuke/modul...&file=painless

You have to follow the directions TO THE LETTER though to get it working properly.

[ToddW]

Originally posted by ashawley
Definitely stay away from MMJB. It's a horrible encoder IMO.

CDex/EAC/LAME they all are going to give you the quality you want.

I never like the "kludg-iness" of those shareware tools, I much prefer an all-in-one option. With that said, I use MC9 as my ripper set to Digital Secure which gives you the same quality as EAC.

For encoding, it uses the LAME encoder, by default it uses the -alt preset fast standard which I like, but you can simply change it to -alt preset standard.

The beauty (IMO) of this option is that when I rip I automatically get my songs analyzed for BPM and Intensity and the tunes are added to my library and my Smartlists so they are automatically on my iPod the next time I sync in MC9.

Saves a lot of time overall.

Adam

Adam,

Dude you should do side work for marketing at J.River I think I am one of many others who have bought MC9 due to you alone. The new beta ROCKS hard BTW!

[yez]

I have a question about EAC. I've been experimenting with it. Today, I followed the directions posted by Chris (thanks!) at the http://www.chrismyden.com/nuke/modu...E&file=painless . . website. They worked very well.

But, for some reason, EAC did not rip the CD's into albums, but rather spilled the individual songs of the albums into the root director of C:/My Music. What happened? How can I ensure that EAC rips CD's into the artist/album/song structure in my My Music folder? Right now, all settings that I see point toward the artist/album structure, but somehow EAC circumvents that. Is that because MC9 has now colonized My Music (which is fine), so EAC doesn't have the "space" to create new folders within My Music? Somehow that doesn't make sense.

When I do use EAC, especially for those scratched up CD's, I want to be able to have it rip into folders. How do I remedy this problem?

[dmt1]

Go into EAC>EAC Options and click on the filename tab; configure it any way you'd like.

My setup, for example, is:

%I\%A \%C \%N - %T

Gives me folders by genre, with subfolder for artist, subfolder with CD title, with track number and title....

Disclaimer: this is what I used to use; I use MC9 at this point...