I read from many places that most cd drives don't do very good C2 error correction. When it is enabled on my CD drive, EAC rips my cds much faster, and the error correction bars don't light up nearly as much. I also read that enabling c2 error correction gives lower quality rips .

Heres my drive info:

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Sp...?ArticleId=8765

Should I enable or disable for my drive?

The DAEquality kit, on the EAC website is the only way to know.

EDIT : well, there may be a faster way, but it is more difficult. You must find a CD damaged enough to get many errors, but all corrected by EAC. It must not be a protected CD.
Then test and copy it with C2 on. You must get no errors for the test to work, but with a low quality percentage (something like between 80 and 95 %). If the CRC are OK, your drive properly reports C2.

I created a test disc, tried to extract in EAC via burst mode for two of my drives, a Sony DRU-530A drive, and my BTC DRW1008IM drive. I couldnt get any good results with my sony drive, as it kept getting synch errors and timing problems.

With my BTC, EAC did not report any errors. The quality test showed the BTC scoring 81%. I assume that it would be safe to turn on C2 error correction in EAC? And, again, would the quality be less than if i kept it disabled?

Edit: Spelling.

Just a thought, but have you tried it when using AccurateRip? If the CRC's match, then they match and that's pretty much that.

I have tried it while using accuraterip, but I find it to be very "iffy". Of the cds that accuraterip can identify, many of them come out inaccurate on all tracks ("different pressing?") a few are accurate on some tracks, and others are completely accurate. I've tested the cds on a different drive, and it returns the same results.

Are you talking about the DAEquality test CD ? Then you need to proceed with the rest of the analysis : reading the CD with the C2extract program, and check the C2 quality with analyse.exe
In you test you didn't use C2, so you can't tell anything about its behaviour.



It could. No one tested how much less. You may miss out error out of two, in the worst case.

The analyse program said my drive got 81.4 points, and the graph:



It doesn't seem like my drive is a very good contender here.

Edit: Will try to extract at low speed to see if theres an improvement.

Don't extract with EAC, use the c2extract command line given in the DAEquality package. It allows the analyse program to test the C2 accuracy.

Well i tried using that, but when i would plug the file into the analyse program, id get an Unhandled exception error.

Whoops !
Use this one. Andre sent it to me for testing purposes in december 2002, then forgot to publish it. It works flawlessly.

hmm, it still doesnt work for me. I get an access violation error this time. Note that the analyse program works fine with an EAC-ripped file.

That's bad. Try this one, it's older, and the error count may be slightly inaccurate because of a bug. But I vaguely remember that it worked for someone who had problems with the 1.4 versions.

Yep, that one works. Ill post the results soon.

The Analyse program said the C2 accuracy is 95%.



suggestions?

Since there is nothing on the blue graph, I suggest enabling C2

I think that was me. I kept getting access violations and GPFs with the latest version.

Pio, do you think it would be wise to create a topic containing only DAE Quality test results (including C2 check results)?

Edit: Did anyone manage to get C2Extract working with Plextor PX-712A? It fails finding a matching C2 mode here.

I was quite surprized to see that my LITE-ON drive only received 53.1% for the C2 accuracy, while my old LG DVD-ROM 100%.

LITE-ON LTR-52246S

Error graph
C2 graph


LG GDR-8162B.

Error graph
C2 graph

Would it be safe to enable the C2 error correction feature for the LG drive?

I might be safe to use with both drives. The blue curve hits the roof with Lite-On drive on scratched parts. The scratches likely caused the drive to skip or repeat parts of the audio. The analyse program not detecting the temporary offset, all seems wrong to it, but since it is not the case, only a few C2 errors are reported. It then show nearly all the data as missed by the C2 detector.
To check this hypothesis, load the dat file into Excel, and find, in the fourth column, the lines where the graph hits the roof. In the first column, the time in second is showed.
Then load the reference and the extracted wav files in a wav editor and check what happened at the time that you got in Excel. Are there really read errors ? Skips ? Mutings ?
Nota : I usually do it in Excel because I can zoom into the graphs or produce other ones, like C2 accuracy vs error rate, but you can actually read the file in Wordpad.

I think also that you should both widen your black mark. Unfortunateson, yours nearly caused no read error at all, and, Sebastian, yours only reached about 300 errors per second during one minute. You'd get a better C2 analysis with several thousand errors to work with.

Andre Wiethoff solved the problem with Analyse.exe.
Version 1.42 is online at http://www.exactaudiocopy.de

I widened the black mark, and used the analyse 1.42.

Heres the graphs:



It also said the c2 error correction was 99.6% this time.



The c2 error correction seems decent...

Yes, it is quite impressive.
You can use it without problems.

I'm glad my drive passed the test

I am haviing trouble trying to analyse my other drive, a SONY DRU-530A. EAC and the C2extract program cannot find a matching c2 mode.

Same here for Plextor PX-712A.