Ripping to FLAC with EAC - Performance Help Required

[Nik]

Actually I did.

If you rip to a NAS over a wireless link, the ripper will be waiting for the wav to get written to the NAS. Then it fires up FLAC and gets the data back from the NAS, converts it to FLAC, and writes it back to the NAS.

So three trips across the wireless network and three storage operations on a slow NAS drive.

Well, as I said, I rip to a NAS (the same brand, as it happens), and I don't get anything like those times. I'm using iTunes but the principle is the same.

Seriously, EAC rips to WAV first, then copies back, then converts to FLAC, then copies back out once more? It doesn't convert to FLAC as it rips, or at least use a temporary WAV file on the local drive? Really?

 

[Patrick Dixon]

EAC rips to WAV and then calls a script to convert to FLAC. If you're ripping with iTunes, then you're not ripping to FLAC anyway, so your setup is completely different.

I rip using EAC to a local drive and I don't get anything like those times either. So it's a setup/system issue.

 

[Nik]

EAC rips to WAV and then calls a script to convert to FLAC. If you're ripping with iTunes, then you're not ripping to FLAC anyway, so your setup is completely different.

I rip using EAC to a local drive and I don't get anything like those times either. So it's a setup/system issue.

Of course I realise that iTunes doesn't do FLAC; I use ALAC which is the iTunes equivalent so the "process" has no need to be different at all. I'm just amazed that EAC doesn't convert in-flight, and even more amazed that it doesn't keep the WAV file local until the job's done. This is appalling, wasteful, design.

 

[Alexes]

EAC rips in a couple of minutes.
I ripped all my CDs (700) in 14 days - I work from home.
My routine was to rip several CDs first and then start compression while I do smth else.
For instance, you rip 20+ CDs in about two-thrre hours, and start compression before you go to bed.
Much faster.

dbPoweramp is multi-threaded so it starts converting the first track whilst reading the 2nd. Total time to convert a CD is the reading time plus the conversion time for the final track. This is quicker than creating the wavs in one go then converting later.

 

[Paul R]

If you rip to a NAS over a wireless link...

OP stated it was wired Ethernet.

Paul

 

[Nik]

OP stated it was wired Ethernet.

Paul

You are correct. I don't think it would make much difference anyway because the problem seems to be elsewhere.

 

[Cheese]

Yes, I rip a lot of WAVs first - 100 to 150 and then I compress the whole lot.

I tried this and ripping to WAV takes me just as much time as ripping directly to FLAC (long...), and my Dell is brand new. What I did was this:

I must be doing something wrong ?

 

[Patrick Dixon]

Of course I realise that iTunes doesn't do FLAC; I use ALAC which is the iTunes equivalent so the "process" has no need to be different at all. I'm just amazed that EAC doesn't convert in-flight, and even more amazed that it doesn't keep the WAV file local until the job's done. This is appalling, wasteful, design.

Not really. It's doing exactly what it was design to do, which is to get the best possible rip to WAV. The rest is a bolt-on.

I tried this and ripping to WAV takes me just as much time as ripping directly to FLAC (long...)

The disadvantage of ripping to WAV and then separately converting, is that you can't pass the tags on to FLAC, you have to use the directory/filenaming structure to retain the info and then get FLAC to pick that up.

 

[Cheese]

And if I use, say, FreeRip for making flacs directly (and a little faster), will I hear a difference ? That's what it is about, I thought ?

 

[Nik]

And if I use, say, FreeRip for making flacs directly (and a little faster), will I hear a difference ? That's what it is about, I thought ?

We've seen claims that Ripper X is so much better than the others and is the only one that is bit perfect but no real evidence to support those claims. I'd rip a few tracks using each and compare the resulting files. If you see any difference other than any gaps (silence) at the beginning and end I'd be very interested.

There might be a difference with a damaged CD, where one ripper does a better job of working around the damage, but that should be all.