Ripping CDs In Style: GD3 Review

t0mb0 · December 18, 2009

Hi, your two articles on CD ripping are interesting but they both seem to skip what is likely to be the main issue for picky audiophiles ripping CDs, i.e. have you got a bit perfect rip? Accuraterip (in e.g. EAC or dbPoweramp) is the only real way of verifying this that I've found by having online databases of album hashes. Does GD3 do this also? i.e. is it more accurate aswell as being more convenient?

The Computer Audiophile · December 18, 2009

HI t0mb0 - Perhaps I buried the following information too deep in the previous ripping article.

"The green letters and numbers below the column CRC indicate the track has been ripped and the checksum matches that of others in the database. The number in parenthesis in the Rip Status column next to AccurateRip indicates, "The rip had no detectable errors and agrees with [X number of] other people (they have ripped the same track and had the exact same result), an agreement from AccurateRip ensures an error free rip" according to the dBpoweamp website. The second graphic displays what dBpoweramp considers a perfect rip with ten Accurate tracks out of ten possible."

GD3 uses the EAC ripping engine and allows one to configure how thorough it should rip a damaged album. I'm not sure the, "main issue for picky audiophiles" is the bit perfect rip of a disc. It is among a few very important issues. Without proper metadata there is no finding a specific track among 100,000 songs. In addition getting a "perfect" rip can take 5 to 10 to 24 and more hours per disc if one uses very secure ripping modes via EAC or dBp. This is unreasonable for many "picky" audiophiles, myself included. There comes a time when a new disc needs to be purchased. The notification of ripping errors can help identify these issues.

Like everything else in life an appropriate balance must be struck for each person. Some will wait 24 hours for a disc to complete ripping while others won't wait over four minutes. Some people demand the CRC check against an online database while other use iTunes with absolutely no feedback. GD3 may rest somewhere in the middle with its jitter error notification.

Thanks for the post. You've raised a very valid point.

ldolse · December 19, 2009

I agree with T0mb0 that AccurateRip/bit-perfect verification is the most critical feature for me. Metadata is important, but it's pretty much a given that any ripping program will have it (granted with varying quality). Quick ripping is important too, but that can generally be configured by the user to get the desired affect.

I'm still not clear on the answer to T0mb0's question though - does GD3 use AccurateRip? The reply above refers to the Dbpoweramp article. Are you saying that because GD3 is using the EAC engine that it's also using EAC's Accurate Rip feature? Are logs also written to each folder so you have a record of how the rip executed?

ldolse · December 19, 2009

For those not looking to spend several grand on a ripping station this may be of interest:

http://www.primerastore.com/bravorental

The Computer Audiophile · December 19, 2009

Hi idolse - As far as I know GD3 does not use AccurateRip™.

t0mb0 · December 19, 2009

I guess that GD3 with a robot may be a good option then for ripping hundreds of CDs where you don't want much user interaction and aren't too bothered about verifying the correctness of the results.

wing · December 22, 2009

Thank you very much for an excellent review. I first came across MF Digital ripper when I purchased a Sooloos system and the Sooloos' modified MF Digital 7604 a few months ago. I have found the robotic system very practical and cost effective for ripping large CD library like mine. However, I have always found the Sooloos ripping software in the MF Digital ripper very limiting. Your introduction of GD3 system has offered an excellent alternative. I have already emailed GD3 and I look forward to trying out the GD3 after vacation. Thank you.

Encore · December 22, 2009

Is it possible to buy and use the GD3 Tagger and the database for CD's that one has already ripped?

My situation--and I bet I'm not the only one--is that I have ripped my collection before I really knew what I was doing. My CD collection contains 2/3 classical music, and of course this is where I have the biggest problems with the tagging.

The Computer Audiophile · December 22, 2009

Hi Encore - I tried to use GD3 Tagger with CDs that I'd already ripped using another application. I couldn't get it to work at all. I received some errors about unreadable Table of Contents.

It would be a great enhancement.

dougstrach · December 22, 2009

The answer to this is Yes and No. Probably No. In order for a CD database to be highly accurate, it must use an identifier within the CD which is also highly accurate. GD3, and nearly every other identification database uses the Table of Contents or TOC from an original CD. If you used Ripfactory software or dBpoweramp to originally rip your CDs, you may have the original TOC stored in the ID3v2 tag (in dBpoweramp there is a setting to store RAW TOC in the ID3 tag).

If the GD3 Tagger can access the original TOC of the CD, then you can do a lookup against GD3 to see if we have better metadata or the correct cover art. Many of our commercial customers who like dBpoweramp are able to use it to rip their CDs, yet use the GD3 Tagger program to edit and store metadata with the embedded TOC.

FINGERPRINTS

There are some databases which have started using track fingerprints to identify specific songs, but this solution falls short in a few areas. First, we have not yet been able to test an algorithm which has a high probability of matching back to the original fingerprint created by the CD. Believe me, we have tested them all! Second, once you know a track from the fingerprint, it becomes very difficult to figure out which album that track belongs to since specific tracks can be on hundreds of albums.

I agree with you that this would be a cool feature to implement and that it could help solve a lot of issues for those users who ripped CDs using poor metadata sources. This is essentially why we have stressed the accuracy and consistency of GD3 for years, but unfortunately, most ripping programs and software managers simply glance over metadata. Most feel that if they have Gracenote or FreeDB it is good enough. We don't agree and this is where you'll see that GD3 stands above any other commercial database available today.

Doug Strachota

GD3 Data, LLC

Encore · December 22, 2009

Thanks for a thorough answer, Doug. I have used dBPoweramp, but I haven't actively selected having the TOC stored. But as I understand you, if I were to do a rerip in dBPoweramp and make sure that the TOC is saved in the ID3v2 tag (which I haven't heard of before now, BTW ;-), I could use the GD3 database?

I might look into renting an automated solution like the one described in this article, but I'm not sure if there's one available in my country (Denmark).

Best

Jens

t0mb0 · December 22, 2009

I think that at least one of the paid-for flavours of dbpoweramp includes GD3 metadata lookup (along with two or three others) anyway so there's probably no need for a two pass solution.

dougstrach · December 22, 2009

I did see that Primera does rent the robotic loaders for $299.00/week here in the US. You may check with Primera to see if this program is available in Denmark.

http://www.primera.com/bravorental.html

Doug Strachota

GD3 Data, LLC

Encore · December 22, 2009

Thanks, Doug. I'll check that out before I set out.

Jens

MusicTrax · January 8, 2010

Note that the dBPowerAmp people now have low-cost robot CD changers and an automated version of their ripping software available. This will rip to WAVs, FLACs, MP3s, AACs, Apple Lossless, you name it -- and can be configured to batch converts two sets of files, like one lossless and the other as MP3s. I think this is a far more economical solution.

My own experience is that you can't rely on any of these programs ripping CDs accurately because of the flaws in the metadata. You still need to do a lot of manual intervention in order to "groom" the data (as some of the ripping services call it). I would rather do this than pay 5 cents a CD for the information.

wing · January 8, 2010

Very interesting. May I ask where can it be found?

MusicTrax · January 8, 2010

Sure. dBPowerAmp's batch-ripping solution is described here:

http://dbpoweramp.com/batch-ripper.htm

Again, I'm not convinced that unattended robotic CD ripping will work, because of the increased possibility of bad rips, wrong CD identification, bad metadata, and computer hiccups. I think a human being has to keep an eye on things in order for it to work.

When XM Radio ripped about 25,000 CDs for their library about ten years ago, they used humans on shifts, working 24/7. I think that's extreme for most people, but I think it's reasonable for one person to use three rippers at once (and three simultaneous copies of the program on one computer) and check everything manually. This will be much faster than a robotic ripper, but the trade-off is the manual labor. Still, I've been able to do at least 25 CDs an hour this way, more if I fire up multiple computers.

dougstrach · January 11, 2010

MusicTrax,

I can understand your skepticism on automated ripping, as there hasn't been well designed software that actually pays attention to the issues you mention. Double picks, CD miss-handling, damaged discs, metadata, etc., all run pretty nasty interference to an unattended process. As Chris describes very well in this article, it's not only the use of an automated ripper, but the reconciling process of the GD3 Tagger software which combine to deliver a process that is quite unique in the market and does pay quite a bit of attention to alleviating most of the issues of unattended ripping.

When we ripped tens of thousands of CDs for Lala about 5 years ago, we did it all with 2 people with a few autoloaders and didn't have to work in 24 hour shifts. The only way that this was possible was because of our unique reconciliation process. As you very well state in your comments, the real bottleneck is not really the actual ripping of the CDs which can be done using several machines or even manually. The real bottleneck is the reconciling of the collection on the hard drive versus the CDs you just ripped.

If you look closer at the GD3 Tagger software that we provided Chris for this review, you'll see that you are able to view a collection of CDs in a variety of different ways. Most importantly, you can view them in the exact same order as the autoloader ripped them. This view allows you to list them in descending order just as they are on the output stack of the ripper (say from disc 100 on top, to disc 1 on the bottom). Any other tagging software will list everything just as it is on the hard drive, then the reconciliation process is impossible or extremely time consuming.

I don't think I could agree more with your comments that auto ripping without reconciling is a pipe dream and that most software available does not include or provide any mechanism for reconciling. I encourage you to take a look at GD3 Tagger to truly understand the entire process which Chris does a very good job at explaining in detail in this article.

Doug Strachota

GD3 Data

MusicTrax · January 11, 2010

Doug commented: "Any other tagging software will list everything just as it is on the hard drive, then the reconciliation process is impossible or extremely time consuming."

Naaa, it's doable. A program like dBPowerAmp can be easily configured to just automatically put every album (CD) in its own folder. Load the newest-ripped folders into an MP3 Tag-reading program (like iTunes or something more sophisticated), using the "created by" dates, and just check them by eye. It takes less than a minute per CD to verify that everything is OK.

Bear in mind that as two CDs are ripping, I'm checking the tags on a third right before it's ripped. The only thing that slows me down in manual mode is if lots of changes have to be made, which happens on rare occasions. Having access to four different sources of CD metadata (which dBPowerAmp provides) helps quite a bit.

The reality for me is that three standalone Firewire CD rippers and one copy of dBPowerAmp cost less than a couple of hundred bucks. Any other solution -- particularly one using a robotic ripper -- doesn't make economic sense for me. Especially with a 5 cents charge per disc for metadata. And I'm confident that the quality of my Plextor drives and the AccurateRip software is giving me zero compromises in terms of the data. I can also get more done simply by running multiple drives at one time. One single-drive robotic system can only do -- at best -- a dozen CDs an hour. I can do at least double that using three drives.

I readily admit that for people who don't have budget concerns, your solution (or any of the commercial ripping companies) work fine. I also know database management fairly well, and I've often worked with keeping track of vast amounts -- petabytes -- of film data files in post-production here in LA. My methods only work if you have the time, the expertise, and the equipment to do it right. But I can do this in a fraction of the cost for any standalone system.

BTW: every major motion picture ever made, even those shot digitally (like the recent "Avatar," use human beings to input all the data. It's a necessary part of the system. Once you get good at it, you can manipulate, move, rename, and adjust the metadata very quickly. Granted, it helps if you're an inveterate nerd, but that goes with the territory.

dougstrach · January 11, 2010

MusicTrax,

Again, your comments on right on target. If you have all the time in the world, and understand all the nuances of CD ripping software and ID3 tagging, manual ripping will save you a lot of money in exchange for the time required. There's a great article which Chris does that covers the manual ripping process and how to configure dBpoweramp for the best outcome. I think it was one of his most popular topics to date.

For those that want an automated process, GD3 Tagger was designed to be the tool that can handle the "petabytes" of data so that a user can maximize their time and output CDs at a much faster rate with the same quality as a manually operated process or workflow. It's not a free solution, but there is certainly a need for tools that make work a bit easier as well as maximize time.

Thanks again for your comments.

Doug

Encore · January 11, 2010

How many CD's with classical music do you have? For me, that's where the metadata become problematic. My pop/rock rips are pretty ok in terms of metadata, but my classical albums are somewhat of a mess. I find my way through them with my Sq.box controller by using the folder structure ...

dougstrach · January 11, 2010

MusicTrax,

We probably have over 500,000 classical music CDs in our database, but this is a very bad way of quantifying the results that you may see. As an example, we may have 5 million entries, but if we don't have any of your CDs in our database, the size of our database doesn't really matter.

I prefer to quantify the database size in a percentage of hits for an average CD collection. This number is a much better measure of the database coverage and how it matters to you. For a typical classical CD collection in the US, we'll probably get about 96-98% coverage with some sort of metadata, and about 85% will have very good metadata with high-res cover images and extended classical fields. In our database we provide tag info for fields that most players do not support, but is very helpful for the classical music listener. These extended fields include: Composer, Orchestra, Chorus, Soloist(s), Period, Style & Instrument. These fields will be populated by dBpoweramp as well if you have an active GD3 license for that ripper.

Ideally, many of the hi-fi systems will also extend these fields to their U/I so that you can properly navigate to the piece you'd like to listen to---say all Beethoven piano pieces by Ashkenazy. I had discussions with several of these manufacturers at CES this last weekend and I'm hopeful there will be some devices in the future to further assist us classical music listeners.

maplejohn · January 11, 2010

Hi Chris,

I just wanted to verify how well the GD3 Tagger worked with WAV metadata.

As you pointed out in your CD Ripping Strategy and Methodology Article, and everyone knows, WAV has limited metada capabilities.

If I rip my collection to WAV using the GD3 system, am I eventually going to have my all my songs sitting in an "unknown artist" or "unknown album" folder?

dougstrach · January 11, 2010

I can reply since the answer is somewhat technical, but I did explain this to Chris as well, so he could comment as well.

You are correct about WAV metadata, and most players only support showing the folder hierarchy as navigational information for WAV files so if your folders aren't named right, you'll likely never be able to see any information. Even if your folders are named right, you'll only get Artist, Album, Track & Cover info for a WAV file.

GD3 Tagger does something fairly unique, but also supported by some older players such as MusicMatch (remember that one?). We actually tag WAV files with an ID3v2 tag that can carry ALL the metadata for a CD, however, rather than pre-pending the tag to the WAV files like MP3 does, we post-pend the tag to the WAV file so that it can still be read by any device that can play WAV files.

So while the answer is YES, GD3 Tagger does manage metadata for WAV files, the problem is that there really isn't a lot of players out there that can read this data and organize it within a user interface so that you can manage the files for playback. What it is very good for is if you choose to archive your collection in WAV (along with the metadata), then be able to output a variety of different formats which are better at carrying metadata such as FLAC, Apple Lossless, WMA Lossless, MP3, etc.

Regards,

Doug Strachota

GD3 Data, LLC

MusicTrax · January 12, 2010

maplejohn asked: "If I rip my collection to WAV using the GD3 system, am I eventually going to have my all my songs sitting in an "unknown artist" or "unknown album" folder?"

I think this is a very bad idea, for reasons Chris has explained before. To me, in 2010, there's zero advantage of WAV files over lossless files. I can't hear or measure a difference between a WAV file and an Apple Lossless file, after spending two solid days testing, using everything from test signals to wide-range music. I think the key is: fast computers, fast servers, and great D/A converters, plus ripping the CDs with no compromises (good DVD-ROM hardware and good software). That, plus the willingness to groom the data manually -- which can be done quickly once you get the hang of it.

The huge advantages of built-in metadata with Apple Lossless (or FLAC), along with embedded image files, make it 100% preferable over WAVs. I can speak with some expertise, because I spent a year or two in the early 2000s ripping a lot of CDs to WAVs. Luckily, I only got a few hundred CDs into the project before realizing the problem. One can make an argument pro or con different lossless formats, but -- as the extremists frequently argue over on the Hydrogen Audio Forum -- "lossless is lossless." The only advantage of one lossless format over another is playability on different systems.

Apple Lossless worked best for me because it had to work on Macs, PCs, and iPods. That was a much better solution than WAVs. Granted, there's always the risk Apple will go under (though with a stock price of $210+ and a net worth of $40B, I think they'll survive). But I have enough open-source tools that I can always batch convert the collection to FLAC or anything else.

BTW, there is the Broadcast WAV format, which does support many dozens of headers, but it's not widely used in consumer players. I use it all the time in my work because it can store scene & take info for film production, along with embedded timecode, but it's pretty much a pro-only format.

Ripping CDs In Style: GD3 Review

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites