I have searched through the forums and I have found some posts related with gaps (and I think I have read that EAC is not accurate at gap detection), but I would like someone to confirm this.
I tried myself to get the same gap lenghts with two different drives with no luck (a Plextor 40/12/40 with "Detection Method A (secure)" and an old Philips CDROM with "Detection Method B (accurate)".
I think I have read that the "method A" as something to do with the subchannel data, so for this reason my crappy old Philips CDROM is unable to use it. And if I use the secure option with the Philips cdrom EAC hangs forever.
My problem is that I don't know if the problem resides on my system, or if it is not possible to get the gap lengths exactly at all.
I know that gaps are not necesary for exact audio rip, but in some cds the gap are comments about the next song, and it is nice to only hear them if you come from the previous track.
PS: It wouldn't be nice if AccurateRip also provides gap lengths?
Full Version: Exact gap detection is not possible?
Taken from http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/:
Hope that helps.
I don't know what to tell you there. I've tried multiple drives with EAC, and all of them are able to detect track gaps with one of the three detection methods.
QUOTE
In the new versions of EAC it is possible to detect pre-track gaps. These are the pauses between two tracks. Usually they are two seconds long and a CD player will display a negative time during this pause. By enabling the option 'Detect Pre-Track Gaps' it will be possible to detect all gap-lengths by reading the sub-channel information. Because this information is not stored on the CD directly retrievable, EAC has to search for the position a track ends. This search is quite fast, but it still takes on average a second per track. That's why I made it possible to disable it in the options. Besides that option you can choose to add the gaps to the previous track nevertheless. Otherwise you can choose either to append the gap to the correct track or to leave it out . A benefit of performing the detection and getting the gap times is the selection of a range to copy. There the correct times will be displayed. One last word on this topic: Because these pre-track gaps are found by testing positions, it is possible that it will not be 100% exact. But in most cases it will be correct.
Hope that helps.
QUOTE
My problem is that I don't know if the problem resides on my system, or if it is not possible to get the gap lengths exactly at all.
I don't know what to tell you there. I've tried multiple drives with EAC, and all of them are able to detect track gaps with one of the three detection methods.
Thanks for your information 
I can detect the gaps with both drives (using different methods), the problem is that the gap lengths are different.
I can detect the gaps with both drives (using different methods), the problem is that the gap lengths are different.
Have you tried all gap detection methods with your Philips drive?
QUOTE(IrYoKu @ Mar 27 2004, 02:31 PM)
I think I have read that the "method A" as something to do with the subchannel data, so for this reason my crappy old Philips CDROM is unable to use it.
I'm pretty sure you're right, the A method probably reads directly into the Q-subchannel to check the index number / frame counter.
Concluding --- stick with your Plextor's secure A method. I believe it is exact.
QUOTE(menders @ Mar 27 2004, 11:19 PM)
Have you tried all gap detection methods with your Philips drive?
Yes, and the only method that work is B (accurate or inaccurate).
QUOTE(criZZb @ Mar 27 2004, 11:39 PM)
Concluding --- stick with your Plextor's secure A method. I believe it is exact.
Ok, I will take that into account.
QUOTE
Because these pre-track gaps are found by testing positions, it is possible that it will not be 100% exact. But in most cases it will be correct.
Just curiosity, why this cannot be 100% exact? If someone has a good explanation I would like to hear it.
And thanks for your replies
That explain it perfectly, thanks pio
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.