IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

EAC C2 error correction, Use it or not?
RiskyP
post May 29 2003, 22:56
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 97
Joined: 14-April 02
Member No.: 1781



My drive supports C2 error correction and I have been using it always since it gives the fastest rips for me, while still no errors are reported and all track qualities are above 99.5%. Using this option, I get rip speeds of 18x and I was wondering whether C2 error correction is really that reliable? I mean, I never get error messages, the track quality is always reported to be over 99.5% and I cannot hear any audible difference. Is there any incentive NOT to rip at 18x under these conditions?! Btw, my drive is a LiteOn 48x CDRW (I can't remember the model name off the top of my head)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
atici
post May 31 2003, 23:03
Post #2





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1180
Joined: 21-February 02
From: Chicago
Member No.: 1367



@liekloo : I think you're too much of a stickler for * ripping guide tongue.gif Sometimes you sound like that guide could not include some information that is not completely valid. However, I think those rules should be reviewed in the light of reasoning. Sorry, maybe I interpreted incorrectly. But the kind of approach I see too often these days, i.e. regarding * guide as some kind of bible and any other rips other than * ones as inferior, is pissing me off. Maybe I started to project that to everyone whose signature involves * biggrin.gif

@Pio2001 : Thanks. That was one of the most fruitful EAC discussions I had.

I trust "No C2" because (implicitly assuming "an error, in most of the cases, do not occur the same way, and is random by nature") my CRCs are reproducable. Wheras on the tracks I have a mismatch with the CRC of "C2 on" and "C2 off", the "C2 on" could not produce the same CRC repeatedly. And considering in 99.9% of the tracks the CRCs of "C2 on" and "C2 off" coincide and "C2 on" mode produced the same CRC with "C2 off" in the problematic tracks in some of the rips makes me think that the most accurate rip is attained with "No C2". However, it might have been the case that "a byte altered state permanently" which leaves me no option but to read that byte in the altered state.

However I wonder what kind of errors C2 report. Or what exactly C2 system is. How does a drive realize it made a mistake if there's no error detection mechanism in audio CDs? I think in the mass production phase some CDs are produced with flaws. I have a couple of them: very rarely used, no scratches but I get many C2 errors (no copy protection). In the same manner I'm sure there're other errors in some of my CDs, which C2 system could not realize because there's no indication that the byte has a flaw and the byte in question returns the same value consistently (but possibly with a glitch in the waveform). For those, I have no option but to have an inaccurate rip.

But if there were a real time deglitch system built in EAC, maybe we could correct those errors. Was the experimental switch related to "C2 error correction" that is removed from newest prebetas coded for that purpose?


MOD:* No links to or names of ripping groups please.

This post has been edited by Jan S.: Apr 18 2004, 15:22


--------------------
The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- RiskyP   EAC C2 error correction   May 29 2003, 22:56
- - atici   Compare the CRCs of your reads with and without C2...   May 29 2003, 23:01
- - Pio2001   This CRC method only works for tracks with errors ...   May 30 2003, 00:26
- - RiskyP   I could not find info on cdrinfo.com but thanks fo...   May 30 2003, 16:17
- - RiskyP   This is a bit off topic, but how much do you think...   May 30 2003, 17:13
- - liekloo   QUOTE (Pio2001 @ May 30 2003 - 12:26 AM)This ...   May 30 2003, 18:21
- - atici   You may want to check this thread about the setti...   May 30 2003, 18:24
- - Pio2001   I meant that if you turn C2 on, then test and copy...   May 30 2003, 19:35
- - atici   Yes, you're right! I knew that. But that...   May 30 2003, 19:52
- - Pio2001   I don't know, I still must verify Tigre's ...   May 30 2003, 19:56
- - atici   But wasn't it you who said when you unset ...   May 30 2003, 20:49
- - Pio2001   When C2 is unset, the drive doesn't take C2 in...   May 31 2003, 01:09
- - liekloo   QUOTE (Pio2001 @ May 30 2003 - 07:35 PM)I mea...   May 31 2003, 21:36
- - atici   @liekloo : I think you're too much of a stickl...   May 31 2003, 23:03
- - Pio2001   QUOTE (atici @ Jun 1 2003 - 01:03 AM)I trust ...   Jun 1 2003, 01:25
- - atici   QUOTE a) 990 not repeatable and detected by C2. b...   Jun 1 2003, 06:22
- - westgroveg   If someone was to test the C2 info of their CD-ROM...   Jun 1 2003, 06:48
- - liekloo   QUOTE (atici @ May 31 2003 - 11:03 PM)the kin...   Jun 1 2003, 16:32
- - Pio2001   QUOTE (atici @ Jun 1 2003 - 08:22 AM)I think ...   Jun 1 2003, 18:41
- - moikboy   If i rip with c2, i rip the data twice, and compar...   Feb 6 2008, 21:52
- - greynol   Whoa, resurrection of a 4.5 year old thread! ...   Feb 6 2008, 22:08
- - Shamray   Hello! "CD ROMs are like audio CD with ...   Mar 30 2011, 07:36
|- - pdq   QUOTE (Shamray @ Mar 30 2011, 02:36) Hell...   Mar 30 2011, 13:53
- - JunkieXL   Sheesh... what's with the random resurrection ...   Mar 30 2011, 21:13
|- - mjb2006   The first revival of the thread was on topic and m...   Mar 30 2011, 22:35
- - greynol   My last post was a bit difficult to follow if take...   Mar 30 2011, 22:55


Closed 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: 21st April 2014 - 08:11