EAC T&C without C2. Overkill? Options

[liekloo]

If you rely on C2 info when using EAC, using 'test&copy' is better than just 'copy'.

What if you don't use C2? EAC reads each sector twice and, as a result, has the oportunity to calculate CRC twice, and compare them.


Is that correct? and is the opportunity actually used? (that would mean test&copy is overkill if you disable C2)

[user]

For all these reasons and uncertainty, checking in eac capabilty of c2 is not recommended, if your drive should be able to.
Let's see your test results !


hmm, Halcyons test, was carried out with a special test-CD, with black stripes on it ?

Is this very realistic, or was that Sony drive so bad ?

Anyways, many thanks for reminding these test of halcyon, I remember having read it.


I have never denied the addition of safety, if you do t&c, but the question is, how much worth is this extra safety (hmm, you are just reading 2 times again by t&c, but eac has had the chance to read it 82 times in the first (or only) run..) ?
(btw, I am always talking of settings NO c2 in secure mode, c2 is not matter of interest for 'users', until there would be new results... (and they would be dependent to brand of drive etc.))

The question is:

How big is the probability, that eac reads twice (no c2, secure) and thinks: no error, all is well, but it has read twice the same wrong value for that damaged sector.

This probabilty depends on size of sector.

Is there an answer ?

(I know, the theoretical safety of c2 error detection is in theory higher than that reading twice method....)