EAC Burning engine vs. Feurio

Hello All,

I have a few questions about duplicating Audio CDs, to maintain the highest audio quality.

Currently I am using A liteon LTR-52327s, read offset CORRECTION +6, write sample offset -6.

A. I seem to come across the view that While EAC is the
best performer for extraction, this this is NOT the case
for burning.

I would very much like to know why so?

Which would be the better engine to burn with?
Nero or Feurio, again - why so?

Is the burn of a physically higher quality, or is it just the additional features?

Are there any links anywhere which would be of additional help.

(p.s I Understand that i would need the combined offset = 0 if i were to use Feurio to burn - these small missing samples are not of much concern to me if i were to use it). I use “Copy Image with cue sheet” by the way to make the cd image. Thanks!!! :cool:

Hi Amarz,

some time ago, I came across this view as well when it comes to EACs burning capabilities. :wink:
But at least the user has now the choice between its internal engine and the external provided by CDRDAO which seems to be better while maintaining the write offset correction feature.
To get an answer to the question why this was implemented instead of tweaking the native engine, you have to ask Andre Wiethoff, the author of this per se fine program.

I tend to be very carefully with general statements in regard to which program is better. It depends on the personal taste and the combination of program and device. One program could work with one recorder while another fails and vice versa.
The application used for writing doesn’t affect the write quality - less than ever the audio quality. This is because all programs have to use predefined commands to address the recorder. And it’s up to it to apply the write strageties, timings, etc. The only exception which just comes to my mind would be the feature “power calibration” which the recording software has to enable. If it doesn’t has the feature, the write quality could be lower because of that step being skipped, but nowadays most software supports this.

At last a few words about offset correction:

In opposite to a not corrected read offset, leaving the write offset correction at 0, won’t result in any loss of data. This is because the data is just written at the “wrong place”. Thus, this can be easily corrected on re-reading the burned disc. In your case, you would have to set the read offset correction to 0 if you want to copy your copy again one day. Especially when the used recorder isn’t able to “logically” record into the pregap of Track 01 or the lead-out respectively, it is better to leave the write offset correction at 0. Otherwise, the shifted amount of samples affected by the offset, will be set to null at the end, which effectively results in lost information. Not much of course, but for perfectionists not very satisfying. When I realised this issue at that time, I quarreled with the thought that the copied disc isn’t recorded correctly per se - leaving the offset. But one can take comfort in thinking “hey, no audio-cd player will start playing my disc that exactly and besides that I can still fix it later on and avoid any generation loss”.

I hope this helps.

Hi little-endian,
Thanks for the reply. Your information seems to make a lot of sense to me.

I have been looking further into this, many forum members (e.g. hydrogen audio and some guides such as the radified guide) claim that feurio or nero are better programs to burn tracks/images…

I don’t understand why this would be?

I took a look at feurio - and it seems to provide a large numbers of options and hence control - but as for the quality of the actual write - i wonder what y’all out there have to say?

Once again cheers little-endian!


Hi again,

since the claims are made pretty generally, it isn’t clear what is said to be better in detail. In regard to the mentioned ‘radified guide’, I’ve found one statement for example that sounds to me like one you could have meant:

“Feurio rips good, but excels at burning audio CDs. Conversely, EAC burns good, but excels at ripping.”

Like said before, EAC’s writing capabilities are limited when compared to other programs of course. Those may offer to specify the buffer size for writing, en- or disabling the power calibration, the usage of the old track-at-once (TAO) mode (which shouldn’t be used in general), greater device compatibility, etc.

Maybe you could refer to other postings so I can comment them.

Not found the program able to match Feurio! in creating audio CDs the way you want them. Certainly, nothing else gives you the ability to control gaps as precisely as Feurio!

FREEWARE Burnatonce allows you to control gaps precisely, though it lacks the offset correction capability of Feurio and EAC. regards, gamma1