Talk:Exact Audio Copy

Are special features important?

Dear friends - At the recommendation of a friend, I've been using EAC for a few months now. I rip in the most secure modes. I came here to find out more about WHY. In particular, how often does it really make a difference, especially on new CDs? I understand the value of EAC on scratched CDs, and clearly hear the difference. But are there really a lot of errors on new CDs? Does iTunes really not detect most of them, even when one checks its "correct errors" box?

I had been happily ripping my new mint condition CDs with iTunes for years, until my friend told me he uses EAC exclusively and why. I am a technically trained CS graduate and understand all the bits and the mp3 internal formats and all the tech talk. But I'm not an audiophile, and I never actually *heard* any problems with my iTunes rips. My friend says that if I listen really carefully I will hear plenty of little glitches, even on mint condition CDs. I must admit that even on new CDs, I often see EAC go into its "line of 8" error correction(often just one set of 8 re-tries, very rarely more). But when I listen to the iTunes-ripped version of the CD vs the EAC I don't really hear any differences. Admittedly, that's not a side-by-side A/B comparison, just a good listen to each version of the same track.

So can you add any content here, a paragraph or two, on this topic. How often does it make a difference? An essay to convince me I aught to switch to EAC when iTunes ripping is about 20x faster and I don't actually hear any problems with it?

I have gone to a few other websites on EAC, esp. those recommended in this article (a number of which are 404's btw), and find no essay on this topic. How about helping me out? Thanks! SB.

It sounds like you don't have a Golden Ear. Like most of us! There are two ways to go at this: 1) If you can't tell the difference, it does not matter. By this standard, you should be happy with iTunes or whatever. 2) You want the best. Even if you can't tell the difference. If anyone anywhere claims to be able to hear a difference, you want what they say is the best. If any tech test can tell the difference, it must be real... By this standard, seems like EAC would be the One! -69.87.203.95 01:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A bit of (unverified) history may shed some light on the value of EAC. Prior to its inception, competing rippers (with the exception of then Linux-only cdparanoia) had only primitive error detection and correcting methods. Even with a perfect disc, many/most 1990s-era CD drives didn't have a prayer of extracting 80 minutes of audio without some audible errors, and manually verifying that much audio was frustrating to say the least, not to mention time lost in re-ripping and re-encoding. EAC provided means, albeit in a hardware dependent fashion, to securely extract audio; for the first time (on Windows), listening to every extracted track was unnecessary.

Over time, however, both hardware and competing software have improved. Rips from Media Player and iTunes generally sound without audible defects to my ears, and the aforementioned even have competitive feature sets. However EAC:

• remains arguably the most secure audio extraction option on Windows
• exports via user-defined encoding to far more formats than WMP or iTunes
• has comprehensive guides dedicated to highest quality ripping
• supports advanced gap and offset detection/correction, the former being important for "album as a song", e.g. Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, and the latter making "bit exact" copies possible (though still difficult)
• collects song info from freedb and tags to any format (via user defined encoding)

Most people should be satisfied with the output quality of iTunes and WMP, but, for me, a single error in an extracted song overrules any other advantages. I just don't want to dig out the CD again and rip all over. iTunes and WMP also lock you into their codec sets; don't want AAC, WMA, or so-so MP3? Then you're out of luck. Finally, since I've used EAC for years, it's easier for me to stick with it instead of learning the quirks of other software. A potential plus for EAC is it's barely changed over the years, so there's little relearning with new releases. Whelkman 21:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Slow

EAC can be slow, needs quite a bit of computer power. On a PII-266 Win98SE laptop, the overall speed of extraction to MP3 is about 0.5X -- it takes over twice as long to rip, comparing to playing the CD normally. Most of the delay is converting to MP3 -- it seems to read the WAV file at about 4X. -69.87.203.95 01:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The speed of the conversion from WAV to MP3 is dependent on the speed of the computer processor. Likewise, if the processor is a Pentium-II, it can take a very long time for the file to convert. If the processor used is one of the mainstream/hi-end types, then the conversion is a lot faster than the older-generation processors. The speed of ripping a CD in EAC is dependant on the drive used to rip the CD, the extraction mode, and how scratched the CD is. --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, EAC doesn't not compress tracks. It simply calls another, seperately program to do that, such as LAME. Any compressor that can be called from the command line may be used with EAC. As such, compression time is not really a valid criticism of an audio extractor. 67.175.166.240 17:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you should probably get an encoder optimized for your processor, see http://www.rarewares.org/. In fact, that should be added to the article if its not already here... Uselesswarrior 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Digital audio extraction is heavy on I/O, which DMA alleviates. Unfortunately, older DMA functionality is often buggy and/or disabled completely in the absence of updated drivers/firmware, so bad chipsets are a common issue. Note that in the absence of functioning DMA, the CPU is interrupted, and it would appear EAC (or whatever) is hogging the CPU when, in fact, the CPU stalls while starving for data. That said, 4x is within normal range, considering age of hardware and that EAC reads every sector at least twice. What the others say is true regarding MP3 conversion; the LAME presets are especially hungry, even on modern hardware. Whelkman 23:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

but EAC is for audiophiles who will doubtlessly wait patienly to get the best quality music —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.28.200 (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

malware?

When trying to download it, we get a malware warning. 22:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.182.131 (talk) --87.178.104.202 (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I had no such difficulty and neither Malwarebytes nor Spybot have complained about it. Jopower (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Any proof/sources for this?

"It works with a new technology, reading audio CDs almost perfectly. EAC reads even some damaged or scratched CDs almost perfectly."--87.178.104.202 (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Update badly needed: June 2013

This has been a stub for such a long time now, I've noticed. If anyone can possibly update the info, lay it out better, possibly add cites, then please contribute. It certainly needs info on OS operability c.2013 (eg. possible usage in VM's, as the only way for non-Win usage?), formats update (interoperability with other software), a history section, current status (inc. current development status), and much clearer info on how to use.
This is REALLY important to do sooner rather than later, as I get the impression the software has ceased future development ('the perpetual beta'), and may or may not be superseded now or in the future, and WP will lose the info forever! So if there are any fans or regular users of this, PLEASE do contribute. Thanks. Jimthing (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't have answers to those questions, but I added a mention of the latest release (1.03b, Sep 2011). NeoAdamite (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Install Now Requires dotNET 2

I note on the most recent EAC version 1.1 that Microsoft Windows dotNET Version 2 is required. I didn't recall this for 0.95 (or it was already installed and I didn't get any notice about it). Some are adverse to dotNET operations and should be warned in advance. If you go in into the proceedure uninformed, Exact Audio Copy is helpful in that it asks if you wish to install dotNET 2. If you select YES it automatically proceeds to do this and completes it's own install without comment. If you select NO, EAC installation stops and backs out. Jopower (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we consider deletion?

We have three primary sources, and some sketchy techradar articles. One is the best Rippers of 2026, last edited in 2024. The author? A certified barrista who covers vacuums, hair care, and kitchen gadgets.[1] This reeks of content farming, not reliability. ~2026-27266-15 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that renaming the article is a bit silly, but it's unlikely the best CD rippers have changed much in the last two years. The best CD rippers in 2026 are probably the same as in 2024: there was probably nothing to update but the title. Regarding your claims of content farming, it's obviously not the highest-effort article, but it does not come across as content farming to me. It limits itself to only two options, and goes into decent depth for both (not just an short list of pros and cons). I think your characterisation of the authors expertise is a bit misleading, She's been a tech journalist for 15 years (she's not just a barista). The article also received contributions from a game journalist, Vic Hood, who may have brought the technical expertise.

As for reliability, TechRadar seems to be considered generally reliable by the Wikipedia community ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). If you want to start an discussion/RFC on the reliability of TechRadar (or whatever process it is, I'm not particularly familiar) please feel free. CommonsKiwi (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding WP:BLOG, which you cited in this edit: please scroll down a bit and you will find WP:ABOUTSELF:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The source was cited to support this text:

The program was created by Andre Wiethoff in 1998, while he was a student at the University of Dortmund in Germany. Wiethoff said that he became fed up with other audio grabbers that only do jitter correction while scratched CDs often produce distortions, and decided to develop his own.

This text is about something he said (information about himself), regarding the program he made (his own activities). There are no exceptional claims here. What is it that bothers you so much about this source? Do you have other information that provides "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity"? If you have a different interpretation of the policy, please share it.

Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Some guys blog doesn't become a reliable platform for about self topics because he emailed someone. This is extremely low quality content. Trivia backed by spammy articles and blogs. The topic isn't notable. Your assertion that this nothing has changed in audio technology in years is only your opinion. Techradar didn't bother to check. They also sell advetorials. It's spam. Find some reliable independent sources, not blogs and not ads. Definitely not articles that have been released 6 years in a row with different titles pretending to be recent. Something actually written by a human. You won't find that sort of stuff for this topic, its non notable freeware. ~2026-27341-39 (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a bunch of stuff I didn't say:

Some guys blog doesn't become a reliable platform for about self topics because he emailed someone

Your assertion that this nothing has changed in audio technology in years is only your opinion

• I never said anything about an email, I cited policy about the valid uses of self-published sources (that you ignored).
• I was talking about CD ripping software, not 'audio technology'. That is a ridiculous thing to say.

A bunch of stuff which you are just claiming without justification or proof:

spammy articles and blogs.

Techradar didn't bother to check

They also sell advetorials

Something actually written by a human

• What makes them spammy in your view?
• How would you know this? If you know something I don't, you need to tell me. I won't find out otherwise.
• This is possible, but please provide at least one example. It doesn't change that editors generally seem to consider the outlet reliable.
• Is there any reason to believe this was not written by a human? (Answer: no, see later)

Irrelevant stuff:

They also sell advetorials

• 'also', so, assuming this is true, you mean they have also sold advertorials separately from the articles I cited? This is meaningless.

And a straight up contradiction:

Something actually written by a human

Articles that have been released 6 years in a row

As you accurately point out, the Wayback Machine has snapshots of the article as far back as 2019, well before LLMs were capable of such writing.

Please actually address some of the points I have made, or at least explain why you disagree with them, thanks CommonsKiwi (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You don't understand why it is bad for a source to sell promos it pretends are articles? Ouch. ~2026-31542-17 (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

If you believe that TechRadar publishes undisclosed advertorials, and you have proof, please provide it. It would also be good to start a discussion in WP:RSN with your concerns. I have already provided you 6 different past discussions where editors discuss TechRadar as being generally reliable, and yet you keep making these unsubstantiated claims.

Please also consider creating an account, it is difficult to keep track of participants in a discussion if their username keeps changing. CommonsKiwi (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

This software has been around since 1998, back when LAME was released. I'm starting to wonder if a recent editor has ties with a CD ripper competitor, and purposely trying hard to destroy or delete this article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Please, @Sbmeirow:, no personal attacks. Wikis and change logs just aren't the types of sources used on Wikipedia, at least not in 2026. If it really is important, I'm sure there are more than trivial references to it existing. It is notable right, not just a thing that exists? ~2026-31927-67 (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Most of the above is mute, because of random IP address abuse and possibly sockpuppet abuse too. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Since you seem to be engaged with this topic, I was wondering if you could provide a third opinion on these two points:

• Is this a valid source for the article?
• Is this a valid source, and can/should it be included to justify the following passage:

The program was created by Andre Wiethoff in 1998, while he was a student at the University of Dortmund in Germany. Wiethoff said that he became fed up with other audio grabbers that only do jitter correction while scratched CDs often produce distortions, and decided to develop his own.

You can see the arguments for/against these sources in the above discussion. Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

How is an article last edited in 2024 by a professional barrista named "Best audio rippers of 2026" possibly valid? Do you think she was able to look two years into the future? You are listing spam. ~2026-32167-64 (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

You can see the arguments for/against these sources in the above discussion.

CommonsKiwi (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the TA. Spam isn't a valid source. It's weird to get your cd ripping expertise from a barrista who wrote an article about 2026 in 2024. She isn't even smart enough to know what year it is. You trust this commonswiki? Johnny Joeson (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:SPA?

Please confirm whether you are the same person behind any of the temporary accounts. You have a similar writing style, and you are simply regurgitating their points.

I have already explained why I disagree with them, see above, you have not engaged with this at all. CommonsKiwi (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The "Johnny Joeson" account was created on May 31, 2026. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite follow. Is this an observation, a rebuttal, or? Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a fact, search for "Account created on" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Johnny_Joeson ::: • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

"Exact Audio Copy" source material

https://www.google.com/search?q=exact+audio+copy&tbm=bks&hl=en&gl=us

https://archive.nyu.edu/bitstream/2451/43877/2/Schweikert_OpticalMediaPreservationNYU_2018.pdf

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Are any of these in depth? The linked pdf has a one line recommendation. That is not significant or in depth coverage, its just an item in a list, including other similar software.

The Google search shows pc mag articles that just mention it in lists of free software. Nothing in depth.

We know this freeware existed. That isn't in doubt. Did anyone have anything in depth to say about it? This article would be declined at WP:AFC today as not meeting WP:GNG. This is the type of low quality article that was passable 20 years ago. ~2026-31927-67 (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't take this comment seriously, because of random IP address abuse and possible sockpuppet abuse too. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

A violation of WP:NPA, yet again. Please focus on content and stop your childish attacks against people. ~2026-32167-64 (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

A reminder that calling someone childish is a personal attack. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

It can't be a personal attack, because it's impossible for me to know how many actual people there are editing Exact Audio Copy and it's talk section. I don't know if there are numerous anonymous IPs are multiple people or one person, but if it's one person then I have the right to call out possible sockpuppetry!! This is the perfect example of why IP editors should be banned, instead everyone should be required to log into an account before editing to prevent this type of mess. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

How in the world does your confusion mean you can't personally attack? Johnny Joeson (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)