? for Mac Users

[AAR.oner]

curious as to the general consensus of TTD's mac users re: CD extraction...

some people swear by iTunes [w/ error correction enabled], others say xACT is preferable...i've used both and never noticed a glitch with either, but tend to use xACT mostly...

any comments/opinions...lynne? other OSXers?

[Washac]

Hi Ya

I have somebody in my family who does it all the time with iTunes, and they never moan to me that is does not work.

If I want tracks from a CD I just mount the CD, open the CD on Desktop and just drag the tracks that I want into a waiting folder, Never had any problems with that method either.


Washac

[U2Lynne]

I've never taken a CDR and ripped it to be seeded here, I've always just seeded shows I already had in SHN/flac format.

However, I did do a couple of tests by using xACT to extract (actually, CDParanoia I think it's called) and iTunes with error correction on. I extracted a CDR using both methods and made md5s of both and they were exactly the same.

Washac, if you just drag/drop the files from your CD, they are .cda files and not .wav (or .aiff). When you did that, what did you do with the files afterwards?

[AAR.oner]

thanks lynne and wash for yer imput...

lynne--i too rarely have to extract [now that most folks are trading in lossless data format ]...but i just got set of shows and they arrived in cdr format...so i'm stuck with extracting and then archiving in flac [i've of course made checksums for both the flac filles and the wavs...hopefully i can find someone with the same shows and compare the wav checksums] so far, no issues with either program though...

i'm just curious which program we should dub the "EAC of MAC", to set the benchmark for trading purposes...any other Mac traders with an opinion?

[ffooky]

I'd say xACT because the error correction is superior (in my experience) to iTunes and you get an output log which informs you of any audible errors.

[Washac]

Originally Posted by U2Lynne

I've never taken a CDR and ripped it to be seeded here, I've always just seeded shows I already had in SHN/flac format.

However, I did do a couple of tests by using xACT to extract (actually, CDParanoia I think it's called) and iTunes with error correction on. I extracted a CDR using both methods and made md5s of both and they were exactly the same.

Washac, if you just drag/drop the files from your CD, they are .cda files and not .wav (or .aiff). When you did that, what did you do with the files afterwards?

Nothing, I just tried it again.

Insert an official release CD.
Close iTunes.
Click on mounted CD in Desktop.
Then just the track/tracks out to Desktop or where you want them, they are just .aiff files.

I have only ever seen .cda files on a PC never on a Mac


Washac

[AAR.oner]

Originally Posted by ffooky

I'd say xACT because the error correction is superior (in my experience) to iTunes and you get an output log which informs you of any audible errors.

ffooky's correct on this one...

just got a show in the mail that was in audio format...i noticed a scratch that ran with the disc's rotation...knowing it would cause some sort of "issue", i tried to extract with both programs...

xACT slowed down to a ridicuously low read rate, so i finally canceled extraction [ran for over an hour on just the first track]...

iTunes w/ error-correction extracted "without a problem"...

so i popped it into the PC and extracted with EAC...the log said there were issues with such and such sectors (a few seconds of music) on track 1...the rest of the tracks extracted fine

i went back & listened closely to the "problem section" in the iTunes extract, and there was a bit of mild distortion/warble...

so...i'd say this rules out iTunes in regard to accurate extraction [atleast for trading purposes]...guess i'll stick with xACT.

[AAR.oner]

Lynne...

i wonder if this http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/...ing#faq_itunes shouldn't be updated to xACT, due to iTunes "unreliablility" as posted above^^^

just a thought...

[PaulHarald]

I have read so many places that it's virtually impossible to make a 100% perfect audio CD copy on a Mac, and actually not on a PC either even when using EAC.

But how about this: Copy the files (on a Mac) by dragging them from the CD to the desktop. The copied files are .aiff

Then either make .md5 checksum files and compare with the tracks on the CD or use the built-in binary "compare" mode in Toast which essentially does the same thing.

I have found this method of copying as well as using iTunes and xAct to be exactly the same - MANY times - EVERY time in fact.

When I burn a CD in DAO afterwards - I can compare the files again to be 100% the same.

What am I missing?

[AAR.oner]

Originally Posted by PaulHarald

I have read so many places that it's virtually impossible to make a 100% perfect audio CD copy on a Mac, and actually not on a PC either even when using EAC.

But how about this: Copy the files (on a Mac) by dragging them from the CD to the desktop. The copied files are .aiff

Then either make .md5 checksum files and compare with the tracks on the CD or use the built-in binary "compare" mode in Toast which essentially does the same thing.

I have found this method of copying as well as using iTunes and xAct to be exactly the same - MANY times - EVERY time in fact.

When I burn a CD in DAO afterwards - I can compare the files again to be 100% the same.

What am I missing?

there's no extraction log that way...but other than that it's perfectly fine...even when encoding the aiff files to flac and back, yer aiff md5s will still check out

as far as iTunes goes, it seems to "decode thru the errors" whereas xACT does not...this rules iTunes out in my mind, atleast for trading/archiving purposes

[U2Lynne]

Originally Posted by AAR.oner

as far as iTunes goes, it seems to "decode thru the errors" whereas xACT does not...this rules iTunes out in my mind, atleast for trading/archiving purposes

Yep, and I sent myself a note to change the FAQ. I just haven't had time yet.

[AAR.oner]

Originally Posted by U2Lynne

Yep, and I sent myself a note to change the FAQ. I just haven't had time yet.

[PaulHarald]

Why do you need a log if the files are exactly the same? And I mean EXACTLY the same.

On a Mac, the files appear as .aiff on the CD so you can verify them against the copies on the hard drive. It's like copying a data disc really. Is it not that way on a PC and is that why there's so much fuss about CDs being copied perfectly and not?

Compare it to this: When we discuss copying DVDs, it's all about copying data and verifying with md5 checksum files for 100% perfection. No report, no EAC. What's the difference here?

Appreciate the input,

Wender

[ffooky]

Originally Posted by PaulHarald

Why do you need a log if the files are exactly the same? And I mean EXACTLY the same.

On a Mac, the files appear as .aiff on the CD so you can verify them against the copies on the hard drive. It's like copying a data disc really. Is it not that way on a PC and is that why there's so much fuss about CDs being copied perfectly and not?

Compare it to this: When we discuss copying DVDs, it's all about copying data and verifying with md5 checksum files for 100% perfection. No report, no EAC. What's the difference here?

Appreciate the input,

Wender

I'm in the middle of a mammoth test of Finder/xACT/EAC and the results are pretty interesting so far.

Here's an example of why you need a log:

From an xACT log:

100% track 5 'Lithium' recorded with minor problems

100% 0 rderr, 0 skip, 12 atom, 0 edge, 0 drop, 0 dup, 0 drift

100% 324 overlap(0.5 .. 0.5)

The same track extracted by dragging from the Finder (OS X 10.3.9) produced an identical file but in EAC produced "suspicious positions". Without the log there would be no indicator of any problems...even things that are nigh on inextractable with EAC and produce what xACT describes as audible errors/major problems will copy across from Finder as quickly as normal. Unless you listen to everything you extract you would be unaware and could pass on unlistenably flawed tracks.

I'll have the results of my tests later today.

[AAR.oner]

Originally Posted by ffooky

I'm in the middle of a mammoth test of Finder/xACT/EAC and the results are pretty interesting so far.

Here's an example of why you need a log:

From an xACT log:

100% track 5 'Lithium' recorded with minor problems

100% 0 rderr, 0 skip, 12 atom, 0 edge, 0 drop, 0 dup, 0 drift

100% 324 overlap(0.5 .. 0.5)

The same track extracted by dragging from the Finder (OS X 10.3.9) produced an identical file but in EAC produced "suspicious positions". Without the log there would be no indicator of any problems...even things that are nigh on inextractable with EAC and produce what xACT describes as audible errors/major problems will copy across from Finder as quickly as normal. Unless you listen to everything you extract you would be unaware and could pass on unlistenably flawed tracks.

I'll have the results of my tests later today.

this was what i had wanted to do but hadn't gotten around to...thanks for taking the time...

quick questions ffook--the results above show a "minor problem" [the "12 atom"]...i got some very similar results the other day using xACT...my ? is, what does the "atom" refer to? also the "324 overlap"? is this like a SBE, or something else??? also, would these "minor problems" be similar to an EAC log that reports a 99% Copy Quaity [generally viewed as an "acceptable" extraction], or should re-extraction be performed on the tracks with "minor problems"?

looking forward to yer findings...cheers!