IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
EAC Rip Advice - repair with CueTools, EAC CUETools
trl_path
post Apr 1 2012, 18:26
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 22-November 06
Member No.: 37903



I've just started ripping my audio CDs to FLAC with EAC, and I'm still sorting out best practice, process etc.

One of my CDs has produced the following results (edited for length):

QUOTE
Track 8

Filename E:\EACrips\08. The Declining Winter - Red Kite.wav

Peak level 81.6 %
Extraction speed 3.7 X
Track quality 100.0 %
Test CRC 19AB6DF6
Copy CRC 19AB6DF6
Cannot be verified as accurate (confidence 3) [3794ECF4], AccurateRip returned [1FA5E99D] (AR v2)
Copy OK

Track 10

Filename E:\EACrips\10. Darren Hayman - Summer Visitors.wav

Peak level 97.2 %
Extraction speed 4.0 X
Track quality 100.0 %
Test CRC 7FBFDE0E
Copy CRC 7FBFDE0E
Cannot be verified as accurate (confidence 2) [F97616EF], AccurateRip returned [554C2A29] (AR v2)
Copy OK


18 track(s) accurately ripped
2 track(s) could not be verified as accurate
1 track(s) not present in the AccurateRip database

Some tracks could not be verified as accurate

No errors occurred

End of status report

---- CUETools DB Plugin V2.1.3

[CTDB TOCID: UicV8Kmyaxw9pNZeLmwlYEZpN10-] found, Submit result: UicV8Kmyaxw9pNZeLmwlYEZpN10- has been submitted
[e8d3ca1b] (2/2) Differs in 9 samples @26:46:46,33:24:56,57:08:07
You can use CUETools to repair this rip.


==== Log checksum 36E503263BCC98A0C330435C81DA114458968F3C364D6A28D639441EA5081504 ====


I reripped with a different drive and got the same results (CRCs match previous rips). Given that should I accept the rip as okay - or should I use CUEtools to repair as suggested? (And if so how do I set up CUETools?)

Any advice much appreciated!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wombat
post Apr 1 2012, 20:16
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 950
Joined: 7-October 01
Member No.: 235



A confidense of 2 isnīt exactly a hard fact your rip is bad. Can be 2 idiots burned and ripped a cd from a broken rip so it reached the database.
Since your drive has ripped this cd with "Track quality 100.0 %" yours shouldnīt be wrong.
You may listen these 2 songs for audible errors if you are worried. If you are bored you can indeed use CUEtools to repair these 2 tracks and then compare these to the unrepaired ones. You can try to locate these different 9 samples and listen if there is any difference.
I think you should simply trust your own rip because you already used Test & Copy with high confidense.

Edit: i use the strong word idiot because i really hate how these rip databases are fed with garbage from bad copies

This post has been edited by Wombat: Apr 1 2012, 20:18
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gregory S. Chudo...
post Apr 1 2012, 20:25
Post #3





Group: Developer
Posts: 683
Joined: 2-October 08
From: Ottawa
Member No.: 59035



I've seen things like this on some very popular CDs, including some classic Pink Floyd - with high confidence levels of both variants, and differences in thousands of samples.

My guess is that the CD masters slightly differ, one could have been used e.g. for European releases, one for US. It's hard to determine in such cases which one is correct.

So my advice - don't repair it.


--------------------
CUETools 2.1.4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trl_path
post Apr 1 2012, 20:43
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 22-November 06
Member No.: 37903



Wombat and Gregory - many thanks for the advice, very useful. I was thinking along similar lines, and it's nice to have that confirmed.

Right, back to ripping!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mjb2006
post Apr 1 2012, 23:51
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 713
Joined: 12-May 06
From: Colorado, USA
Member No.: 30694



QUOTE (Wombat @ Apr 1 2012, 13:16) *
Since your drive has ripped this cd with "Track quality 100.0 %" yours shouldnīt be wrong.

"100.0%" just means fewer than 0.05% (1 in 2000)* of that track's sectors required re-reads to get matching data. What matters is the "Copy OK" message; the rip could still be OK even if the quality is reported as less than 100.0%. Since we got "Copy OK" in the log, we know that if there were any re-reads, they resulted in matching data, as did the test & copy passes, so it's pretty likely that the reads were accurate.

I suppose matching data could be a result of the drive caching. If you are particularly paranoid, you could rip with different drive settings (tell EAC that the drive does cache, and doesn't use C2 pointers); this will be very slow though, and IMHO there's no point in wearing out your drive unless you are finding this test&copy-match + AccurateRip-mismatch situation happens with a lot of clean discs.

* I say this based on testing and finding that other EAC features which report percentages are actually rounding to the nearest tenth of a percent.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fandango
post Apr 2 2012, 13:44
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 1546
Joined: 13-August 03
Member No.: 8353



I've encountered several reissued discs of an artists' discography to be defective before pressing. The masters were obviously identical to an earlier pressing but several tracks had audible pops, and thus the whole CDs had non-matching AR results. So sometimes the audio data goes bad not on our side but on theirs, too. Another reason for me besides better mastering of old issues to rather hunt down used CDs instead of buying new ones.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 13:33