Best free CD ripping software?

[PinkFloyd]

I am looking to copy CD's onto CDR and am wondering what the best free program is out there..... I had Nero 8 but uninstalled it as most of the CD's I copied "skipped" on playback and I wasn't prepared to find a workaround. I then tried EAC (exact audio copy) b ut didn't like the user interface, I am now using CD Burner XP (free) which works fine.... just wondering what the best free one is for simple CD to CD copies?

[insomniac]

Aug 9, 2009 20:25:27 GMT PinkFloyd said:

I am looking to copy CD's onto CDR and am wondering what the best free program is out there..... I had Nero 8 but uninstalled it as most of the CD's I copied "skipped" on playback and I wasn't prepared to find a workaround. I then tried EAC (exact audio copy) b ut didn't like the user interface, I am now using CD Burner XP (free) which works fine.... just wondering what the best free one is for simple CD to CD copies?

Mike, you could try InfraRecorder from infrarecorder.org/

It's a free Open Source CD/DVD burning program. This one allows copying via a buffer image to the hard drive, eliminating any skipping and providing the option of leaving the image on the HD if required, for ease of burning multiple copies.

Covers most of the features of Nero without the cost.

[Spirit]

Alternatively, I use Burrrn. Designed just for audio cd use, will accept most file audio file types (except wma). Simple interface, but with all the features you'd want.

www.burrrn.net/download/burrrn_package.exe

As for getting the data off your current cds, eac is the go for that. Pop the cd in, hit Alt+f7 (creates an uncompressed (wav) image of the cd, and a cue sheet). Browse to where it saved it to, and d-click the cue file - burrrn will start up with everything set to go.

EAC setup here:
www.hqshare.net/showthread.php?t=931
Hope you can access that without registering an account for the forum...

[PinkFloyd]

Thanks guys, I tried these earlier but still not what I was really looking for.... what I'm after is a SIMPLE program that will simply copy audio CD's onto a blank disc. The best I have found yet is Clone CD but you have to pay for it (expires after a 21 day trial) it is BLOODY simple, a couple of clicks and you've got a clone of your audio CD.... in fact, it's the most straightforward I have yet seen.

[PinkFloyd]

BTW guys, I have a key to Clone CD 5.3.1.4.... PM me if you need it

[rickcr42]

not free but i have always been partial to the Roxio products (CD Creator,Media Creator,etc..

Making a 1:1 CD copy is about as easy as it gets even for the neophyte (drop in a disc,hit "copy disc",remove the disc )........................though maybe not so simple for many experienced audiophiles who tend to over think and over analyze sh*t to the point where they screw up even the most simplistic solutions


www.roxio.com/enu/products/allproducts.html?rTrack=m_pro


has the Rickamundo seal of approval

[PinkFloyd]

Nov 8, 2009 14:23:29 GMT rickcr42 said:

not free but i have always been partial to the Roxio products (CD Creator,Media Creator,etc..

Making a 1:1 CD copy is about as easy as it gets even for the neophyte (drop in a disc,hit copy,remove the disc)........................though maybe not so simple for many experienced audiophiles who tend to over think and over analyze sh*t to the point where they screw up even the most simplistic solutions

Would you like to try clone CD Rick? I'll e-mail you the full program and the key

Mike

[rickcr42]

thanks for the offer man but had it and dismissed it back when I was more "crazy" about these things and had to try EVERYTHING just to make sure I was getting the ultimate which there truly being none I settled on what made me the most comfortable all else being equal and have used the Roxio products since CD Creator,that would be back in the days before global warming,you know,when the same scientists were saying we were headed for an ice age and the ice was going to build up so bad at the polar ends every coastal city would be underwater by now if we didn't DO something

[Deleted]

Roxio CD Creator, YES!

I had that free with a Samsung, I think, CDR drive many moons ago. As Rick says, simple and does the job.

Lost the ability, for a free copy, when I went XP. Too tight to pay for the upgrade!

[freddypipsqueek]

May I suggest Spesoft CD ripper. This free program will rip a Cd to Flac files which are perfect for computer playback. It will also fetch off the internet the CD info and thus name tracks etc. The only flaw is that it will not recognise Enhanced CD's (i.e. CD's with added video content). Do a google for "Spesoft".

[Deleted]

May I suggest Spesoft CD ripper. This free program will rip a Cd to Flac files which are perfect for computer playback. It will also fetch off the internet the CD info and thus name tracks etc. The only flaw is that it will not recognise Enhanced CD's (i.e. CD's with added video content). Do a google for "Spesoft".

freddypipsquuek
.flac is fine if you are prepared to accept a small performance hit in return for ease of use.
Many members here and elsewhere believe that the much slower EAC gives superior sounding .wav files, although it can also output .flac files by ticking the appropiate box. It is also capable of naming your files from an online data base.

SandyK

[freddypipsqueek]

Flac is a lossless Codec. There is no performance hit between it and a wav file provided the PC CPU's has sufficient time to decode it; most modern PC's can do this in their sleep even on the fly. I have found no performance consequences when burning flac files to a CD (using Nero) which can then be listened to on a conventional CD player. I am aware that many people use WAV files and with HD space being so cheap this makes sense especially if EAC etc is used. WAV files are likely to be the norm noting that SD WAV readers can now match any CD Transport for reading quality.

[Deleted]

freddypipsqueek
Yes, in a PC without noise or vibration from fans, PSU, HDDs , Optical Readers,(and I also mean internal vibration), .flac can sound virtually identical to the original .wav file. However, to get those results you need to have (preferably) a fanless PC, and a very quiet PSU (preferably linear PSU) as well as use a SSD or other memory storage such as a high quality , and fast USB pen. Quite a few members here can verify the SQ differences between rips using different Optical readers, especially after noise and vibration dampening. Dozens of comparison .wav files have been uploaded by myself and a couple of other members to demonstrate this.
Among the people to verify differences between .wav files with identical checksums , are a mastering engineer in Germany, and the lead designer of XXHE playback software, which plays .wav files back from system memory. There are literally hundreds of posts on this subject in the Computer section here in RG , where the remaining main dissenter is Faudrei. Prominent posters here with better than average computer playback gear can testify that the use of the 3M 2552 anti vibration aluminium tape on HDDs ,optical readers, PSUs etc. , in combination with rubber mounting of fans, or even disabling of fans in front of the HDDs during the ripping process, does make a substantial difference to SQ of ripped files. I get best results by using EAC with a 3M tape dampened internal LG BR writer, DIRECTLY into a 32GB Corsair Voyager GT USB 2.0 pen.
SandyK
P.S.
Playback SQ of ripped CDs from a suitably modified P.C. can greatly exceed that available from even the majority of the more expensive CD/DVD transports. Even the Marantz SA11 SACD player.

[freddypipsqueek]

This is where I struggle with a simple premis - having been using computers since the late 70's when they cost more than a house (I was lucky in that my father worked for GEC and they had VAX kit on hand).

A data CD/DVD contains basic error correction yet reads accurately on a £20 DVD drive in a PC. It cannot afford a single error. My understanding is that as the reading is not time critical the data (sent in packets with checksums) can be resent and verified. The same principle applies to network traffic.

The problems arise when the data becomes timing critical (such as conversion to audio).

My understanding is that the difference recognised with PC playback (or analysis of a WAV file) is not the reading but the fact that the CD reading influences the power/usage of the other components of the PC and thus the DAC process. I have no doubt that the CPU load/HD load will be different reading FLAC and WAV files and this would affect the analog output from the PC. I rarely listen to music on my PC but I do burn CD's off FLAC files so that the PC only uses the digial signal.

In other word if you are measuring the quality of a CD from an audio perspective the DAC process is subject to the variances of other components in the system. nothing new there as anyone with a good DAC will tell you.

When DAT came out I recall some people claiming that some DAT tapes sounded better than others. In fact is was that some DAT tapes read better (and thus did not need as much correction etc) and thus the transport did not affect the DAC process in the same way. the effect was to some degree subjective like the DAC's.

If all this has been discussed before please point me in the right direction. And by all means tell me shut up.

[Deleted]

Freddypipsqeek
I am a bit pressed for time at the moment, but as an example check out the attached link, especially reply 55 from Gavin
SandyK

rockgrotto.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=talk&action=display&thread=4233&page=4

[freddypipsqueek]

Did they do a bit (or byte) comparision between the files ?. With the same checksum they should have been the same file in terms of 0's & 1's. I have no problem that damping etc will improve the ability of HDD to read as it removes the variance in the mechical disk (this is one of the benifits of SDD drives and the reasons your USB unit works well) but its all at the analogue/timing end - SSD drives are more consistent on playback. If the file is the same then (all other things being equal) the playback will be the same unless something has changed.

[Will]

Yep, several of us did file comparisons. I used a program that used several types of comparison, with a resultant checksum. I can't remember what it was called at the moment.

Two different sounding .wav files checked out as being identical, 1's and 0's wise, with the same checksum.

These files were ripped on Alex's PC, and I listened to them after downloading them, half a world away. There shouldn't be a difference, but there is. Bizarre isn't it? ;D

[Deleted]

Jan 28, 2010 21:38:31 GMT freddypipsqueek said:

Did they do a bit (or byte) comparision between the files ?. With the same checksum they should have been the same file in terms of 0's & 1's. I have no problem that damping etc will improve the ability of HDD to read as it removes the variance in the mechical disk (this is one of the benifits of SDD drives and the reasons your USB unit works well) but its all at the analogue/timing end - SSD drives are more consistent on playback. If the file is the same then (all other things being equal) the playback will be the same unless something has changed.

Freddypipsqueek
You will now have seen a reply from Will verifying my claims. There are also supportive claims in Computer Audiophile forum from 'Silverlight, Claudius, Peter St. (XXHE) and John Kenny. (also an RG member)
Unfortunately,the additive effects of Jitter emerge at the DAC.
In fact, ripping in EAC at very low speeds in secure mode, where the speed may even drop as low as .1 x normal speed at times, often results in worse SQ than a steady rip at a fairly constant speed as high as 8 or 9 times in non secure mode.
It's all about the steady flow of data to the storage medium.
I would rather have the occasional track where the checksum doesn't match the data base, due to some very minor read error, than a supposedly perfect rip made at stop start speeds !
SandyK

[robertkd]

freddypipsqueek

Well that is if you consider EFM ( 8 to 14 modulation) CIRC (Cross-Interleaved Reed-Solomon Coding) and NRZI encoding of the bit stream simple!

I can understand how different combinations of hardware and software including CODECs could make a difference. Indeed spreadsheet or database or document data seems unaffected so too huge chunks of executable code, all binary data but audio data is apparently. As a skeptic the "mechanism" has not been adequately explained nor can I perceive a difference in binary identical files ??

[Deleted]

As a skeptic the "mechanism" has not been adequately explained nor can I perceive a difference in binary identical files ??

Robert
Perhaps you need to further improve your SC HA ?
Seriously though, the actual playback software used has a big influence in this area. You will have also noticed that Robin also used the 3M 2552 tape, until he had HDD overheating problems. I wonder if something like a suitable heatsink bolted to a drive could help with both cooling and vibration reduction ? Obviously the original suggestion of concrete would be hard to implement.
Alex

[freddypipsqueek]

I do struggle with the premise that if its the same file it can sound different. There must be another variable.

What I will try is ripping a track as a WAV and as a FLAC and then putting the 2 files on a CD and playing them back. All things being equal they should be the same as the data will never had got out of the digital domain. If the WAV is better then its back to my CD's which need ripping again !!!!!!

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2010 19:17:58 GMT freddypipsqueek said:

I do struggle with the premise that if its the same file it can sound different. There must be another variable.

What I will try is ripping a track as a WAV and as a FLAC and then putting the 2 files on a CD and playing them back. All things being equal they should be the same as the data will never had got out of the digital domain. If the WAV is better then its back to my CD's which need ripping again !!!!!!

freddypipsqueek
Unless the rest of your playback system is high resolution, including wideband and low noise amplification, you are unlikely to hear the differences.I will give you some thread links to check out when time permits.
Attached is for starters.
P.S. Peter St. is ther lead designer of XXHE playback software, which plays .wav filesd from system memory www.phasure.com
www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Windows-7-anyone-using-it-yet


Sat, 10/24/2009 - 05:39 — PeterSt Memory
Hi Sandy - All played from memory (and gapless hehe) :

.wav, .flac, .aif, .aiff, .mp3

16/22050*^
24/22050*
16/44100*^
24/44100*
16/48000*^
24/48000*
16/88200
24/88200+
16/96000
24/96000+
24/176400
24/192000
24/352800 (natively, or downsampled to 24/176400 incl. anti aliasing when the DAC can't cope)

All is output in 32 bits for DACs > 16 bits, unless the DAC accepts 24 bits only (rare but exists).

*) Also one channel, turned into two channel mono.

+) Can also output 16 bits. Thus, file is 24 bits, but playable on 16 bit DACs. I'm not sure whether 176400 and 192000 can do this too, so I left those out for safety.

^) Can output upsampled to double or quadrupule the input rate, in 24 (32) bits by means of Linear Interpolation (bad), sincx filtering (soso) or Arc Predition (good).

HTH !
Peter

PS: And since we're in touch here : Yes, your files sound different, and they are played from memory. I'm still recovering from this finding, but will setup the measuring environment now (at last). We were with two, and listening through "normal" loud speakers. Both heard the same differences. "Track04" is the more delicate one.
Heading for a job outside of IT now. ;-)

SandyK

P.P.S.
In a later post, Peter stated that with one of the tracks only, the subwoofer rattled the floorboards.

Also, see from the attached page link onwards.
rockgrotto.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=talk&action=display&thread=4261&page=3

[robertkd]

freddypipsqueek

Nigel posted this in another thread, whilst we should keep an open mind we also need to be aware of the mechanism of hearing and perception of sound.

rockgrotto.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=4921&page=1#60221

[Deleted]

Here we go again. A self pronounced sceptic, suggesting that because he personally can't hear any differences, that the rest of us that do are being fooled by typical human failings.
Let's face it, people that have strongly in grained beliefs due to their previous technical training ,are the people less likely to hear differences, because they have already conditioned themselves to believe that it is impossible !
They are like the people at a lecture, or in a class room sitting there with their arms crossed ! ;D

Robert with an open mind ? Yeah, right !
Well, perhaps in some other areas that aren't so closely aligned with his professional qualifications.
Speaking of closed minds, here is a reply from a DIY Audio moderator in a current thread in a similar area.
This guy would have to be one of the most arrogant,obnoxious , closed minded academics that I have seen posting. He is far worse than fellow moderator "Netlist, and the closed minded "Mooley"
Robert, you are an absolute gentleman compared to these guys .

www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-source/159992-ultimate-sound-improving-compact-discs-through-patent-pend-cd-sound-improver-6.html

Yesterday, 12:01 PM #77
SY
Tetsujin
diyAudio Moderator




Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by planet10
I don't know how much weight you want to give to anything IAR has to say, but it is an interesting read: Page Title

That article? Zero. A mix of misinterpretation, unsupported assertion, self-serving promotion, and a total lack of evidence. Par for the course in audio magazines, sadly. And irrelevant to the whole demagnetization issue, which is total horsepuckey. Repeat slowly after me: "Polycarbonate is not magnetizable. Aluminum is not magnetizable." Say it again.

Here's a list of all the controlled listening tests that show a difference when these pataphysical nostrums are used:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hmmm.
__________________
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." — George Orwell

[robertkd]

Jan 30, 2010 2:03:14 GMT @sandyk said:

Here we go again. A self pronounced sceptic, suggesting that because he personally can't hear any differences, that the rest of us that do are being fooled by typical human failings.
Let's face it, people that have strongly in grained beliefs due to their previous technical training ,are the people less likely to hear differences, because they have already conditioned themselves to believe that it is impossible !
They are like the people at a lecture, or in a class room sitting there with their arms crossed ! ;D

Robert with an open mind ? Yeah, right !
Well, perhaps in some other areas that aren't so closely aligned with his professional qualifications.
Speaking of closed minds, here is a reply from a DIY Audio moderator in a current thread in a similar area.
This guy would have to be one of the most arrogant,obnoxious , closed minded academics that I have seen posting. He is far worse than fellow moderator "Netlist, and the closed minded "Mooley"
Robert, you are an absolute gentleman compared to these guys .

www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-source/159992-ultimate-sound-improving-compact-discs-through-patent-pend-cd-sound-improver-6.html

Yesterday, 12:01 PM #77
SY
Tetsujin
diyAudio Moderator




Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by planet10
I don't know how much weight you want to give to anything IAR has to say, but it is an interesting read: Page Title

That article? Zero. A mix of misinterpretation, unsupported assertion, self-serving promotion, and a total lack of evidence. Par for the course in audio magazines, sadly. And irrelevant to the whole demagnetization issue, which is total horsepuckey. Repeat slowly after me: "Polycarbonate is not magnetizable. Aluminum is not magnetizable." Say it again.

Here's a list of all the controlled listening tests that show a difference when these pataphysical nostrums are used:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hmmm.
__________________
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." — George Orwell

That guy deserves it, it shows zero understanding of how the CD optical system works and how the raw bit stream is read from a CD.

Remember the raw data read from a CD is not the data feed into a DAC or stored as a data file on a computer.

Yes I am open minded but I don't accept an illogical premise, if each and every byte contains the same binary data and the files are identical at the binary level then they can not be different. 0xc5c5 is 0xc5c5 no matter what.