Your opinion, EAC Image Option

Been re-ripping my cds to Flac using EAC but some I will also be making a 1:1 backups of so the original doesn’t get damage and was just pondering something and now I’m wondering what your opinion is on what I was pondering.

Ok EAC has an Image option where it creates a cue and wav file, do you guys reckon there’s any difference between using this option and using Imgburn to create a 1:1?

I use the secure mode with accurate stream so EAC only seems to rip at between x2 and x3. Using accurate stream feature EAC checks online to see if the rip match’s other accurate stream results to say its a match and there’s no errors.

Imgburn would read faster and doesn’t use the accurate stream thing.

For audio disks, Imgburn makes cue/bin files, so there is no adavantage unless accurate stream is important to you. Just my .02 cents.

I vote for the EAC+CUE format, never had any problems with eac, and you can always have another cue file that points to the flac files.

I’m guessing secure/accurate ripping [I]is[/I] important to you, else you would not be using EAC…Another good one is dbpoweramp…
FWIW, if the ripping/encoding to FLAC (lossless), goes smoothly, then you’ve got your 1:1 backup…Decode your flac file back to wav, and you have an identical file as the original…

I personally prefer seperate wav files for each song plus a cue file
it allows me to make compressed versions of each wav from a single rip operation.

If OTOH you make the single large “image” wave file that covers the whole CD the file can ONLY be used to make a duplicate CD
and that large file is more subject to being corrupted or having “pieces” of it lost because it’s such a large single file.

If you have seperate wavs and one gets corrupted or dammaged you need only re-rip that ONE file.

AD

[QUOTE=AllanDeGroot;2234224]I personally prefer seperate wav files for each song plus a cue file
it allows me to make compressed versions of each wav from a single rip operation.[/QUOTE]

I do rip each song separate unless its a mixed album. Basically there will be a flac version of my music on my pc and a 1:1 copy for use in my stereo or in the car

[QUOTE=t0nee1;2234210]I’m guessing secure/accurate ripping [I]is[/I] important to you, else you would not be using EAC…Another good one is dbpoweramp…
FWIW, if the ripping/encoding to FLAC (lossless), goes smoothly, then you’ve got your 1:1 backup…Decode your flac file back to wav, and you have an identical file as the original…[/QUOTE]

Used dbpoweramp in the past when I was ripping to MP3 but then they change it to so you needed to pay for the license so I un-installed the program and started using EAC, now I’m re-ripping but to Flac instead.

Not to sound rude to anyone who has answered but I know what I doing with ripping the audio cds and I know Flac back to wav is identical, I think my question kinda got over looked, all I was really after was knowing whether you guys thought using the image+cue option (wav one) produced the same as creating an iso image with imgburn and then burning.

EAC’s “Copy image & Generate cue sheet” makes one BIG wav file

“Copy Selected tracks” (select them all) and generating a cue sheet
as a SEPERATE operation will make seperate wavs for each track.

However the cue sheet generated will normally have to be edited,
because the file adress for each track will have the wrong drive
letter, Typically the drive letter for the optical drive.

you will need to change that letter for EACH track to the drive letter
of whatever drive you actually have the files on at the time you wish
to burn a disc.

People typically discover this when they get a “file does not exsist in line xx” error
when attempting to burn a CD using EAC.

AD