Sorry guys - again a stoopid question about the quality of a rip done with EAC.

I really was sure that everything went okay for me, but than I read some threads here on this board concerning the quality of EAC-Rips and this brought me some sleepless nights

I treat my original CDs like "raw eggs", so there are no scratches or something like that so far. I did the EAC settings like the tutorial on the german page AudioHQ (secure mode, no c2, flac) and I installed AccurateRip.

With one exception every Rip was accurately ripped (if the disc was in the database) and the quality shown by EAC was at least 99,9% for every track.

Now I´m wondering (after reading a lot of threads about it) what would you do? Doing a second rip of every disc with another drive to compare the results? The result I described above, is it an 1:1 copy of the disc or maybe I´ll have to rip all the discs in a few years again because of a new technology?

I also have still a Plextor PX-116A. Should I buy a Plextor 716-A to get better results even if for my understanding the results should be without mistakes... but I can't get it: could there be two rips made with different drives/settings, both are without mistakes (registered by EAC) but one rip has a better quality than the other?

greetz

gReat jAy

Don't worry, the recent threads were specific to a problem observed with NEC drives + C2 error correction.

It seems the tutorial you followed is pretty good, because it mentions accuraterip, and probably offsets, etc. If you configured your EAC with the correct offsets there should be no room for mistakes, and if the results are identical with the ones on the accuraterip database, you can be positive the rip is good - it makes no sense comparing the results by re-ripping with another drive. Even if your rip is not identical you shouldn't worry: different pressings, slighty different rips. If you want added peace of mind, use the "Test and Copy" feature, wich will compare test crc vs. copy crc. If you treat your CDs so carefully, you can probably even use Burst Mode instead of Secure Mode. Just make sure you "Test and Copy".

About the 1:1 copy... The procedure you described is incomplete. To achieve a perfect copy of the original you must take into account the gaps between tracks, and store them in a cuesheet. EAC can do this for you, by pressing F4, and then save the .cue file. This is the only way to assure the original timings between tracks is stored. You could also rip you CD to a single large file and use cuesheets to differentiate the tracks, but personally I find this method less flexible.

Great Jay wrote:
>With one exception every Rip was accurately ripped (if the disc was in the
>database) and the quality shown by EAC was at least 99,9% for every track.

If AccurateRip says "accurately ripped", EAC's percentages are irrelevant.

>Now I?m wondering (after reading a lot of threads about it) what would you do?

I would stop wondering, given such perfect results.

>Should I buy a Plextor 716-A to get better results

The 716 doesn't have a great reputation. Find a Plextor Premium, or wait for
Premium 2. That of course will do nothing for the already perfect results you
get on most of your rips; but should you run into a troublesome disc later,
you'll have some extra DAE power.

>could there be two rips made with different drives/settings, both are without
>mistakes (registered by EAC) but one rip has a better quality than the other?

No.

Please elaborate. Perhaps you might choose to substantiate this with some facts.

Follow http://www.high-quality.ch.vu

Ripping with no c2 usage and test & copy in eacs secure mode gives you a very high warranty (if the checksums of the test & copy runs are the same) that you got a perfect extraction, even if your pressing of a CD is not in accurate rips database to check.

I contend that matching T&C CRCs using Burst mode give you even higher warranty (assuming warranty means confidence).

It is easier to get matching CRCs for a bad rip in Secure than it is in Burst:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....post&pid=397734

I can rip this track 50 times in Burst mode and not get the same CRC twice.

thanks guys... I calmed down a little bit

So it seems the tutorial I followed is really good, because it contains the procedure of getting a cue-sheet with the original gaps und the test&copy mode. So I followed these instructions I guess my rips are okay.

So I´ll continue ripping my whole collection...

thx

gReat jAy

I agree with this philosophy; for another reason too. I just don't think the extra stress on the drive of secure mode is worth it, I save this for the extremely rare cases. It's not often I have to resort to secure mode (infact I can't even remember the last time) since slowing down the extraction and cleaning the disc a little seems to work for me for the majority cases.

After using AccurateRip for a couple of months now I'm really liking the extra confidence it gives and I don't think it's gets much better with regards to confidence of a secure rip. If the AccurateRip results were saved to the log file I'd just rip once (no test and copy) in burst mode.

I use T&C burst too, except for tracks that are really problematic where I can't get a matching CRC.

greynol sez:
Never_Again sez:
>>The 716 doesn't have a great reputation.
>Please elaborate. Perhaps you might choose to substantiate this with some facts.

See CDRFreaks' Plextor forum for the facts. There have been many complaints about the drive here as well. The general consensus seems to be that it is the worst Plextor ever. JeanLuc may have one that's good, but an exception proves the rule, donnit?

Read the review at cdrinfo.com and you'll see that the PX-716 out-performs your beloved PX-712.

Forums are full of opinions. Let's see some hard facts, friend. Otherwise this is all hot air.

You made the claim, it's time you back it up.

Edit: Since your claim was about the PX-716's "reputation" perhaps a poll would be in order.

Oh, you read cdrinfo.com? What a nice surprise. For a moment there I really took you for someone else.
Well, of course you cannot argue with hard facts. So I rest my case.

And it seems like you aren't are able to provide any.

Please enlighten me, how is it that the PX-716A is one of the worst Plextors ever made?

Then you can rest your case.

Nonsense. Whether secure mode makes things better or worse depends on how
reproducible the wrong values are, which itself depends on the type of defect.
Don't ask "hard facts" to others when yourself you draw wild conclusions like
this one from a test on a single track.

...as if I've only seen this with one single track. HAHAHAHHAHHAHA!

Quit the hand waving spath!

Answer me this: Have you ever seen a bad rip in Burst mode give a pair of matching CRCs. If so, have you seen this as often as you have in Secure mode?

And if that is too pedestrian for you, perhaps you can enlighten me as to what types of defects would cause matching CRCs in Burst mode occur that wouldn't occur in Secure mode or would even cause the same rate of occurance.

IOW, please explain how what I posted is so uncharacteristic that I should not be making this claim: Matching CRCs for a bad rip when using Burst are less likely than when using Secure.

spath, of all the tracks I have ripped using test and copy and AccurateRip, I have *never* seen a rip with matching CRCs that represented something that was an error. I cannot say this for tracks ripped using Secure mode. There may be no certainly, but I'd say that I have some statistical support.

I'm glad I got your attention since it seems as though you of all people should be able to help those less intelligent than you understand. It would certainly be better for your soul than all this putting down that I see you doing.

Well I tried T&C Burst mode and it was a lot faster than Secure mode.

Both T&C CRCs match and AccurateRip says it was an accurate rip at confidence level 2.

So is it safe to say I got a perfect extraction?

I believe that it is, yes; even if the confidence level had only been 1.

The mode used and whether or not T&C CRCs matched no longer concerns me when AccurateRip says it was good.

"Less knowledgeable in this particular field" may be more apt...

...and perhaps in communicating clearly.
Thanks Synthetic Soul.

Edit: Naughty kids deserve no candy

The 716A is not the most submitted drive in Accuraterip database for nothing.
Sure, some have problems with it, but there is a great number of users, who are
totally satisfied with it.

>716A is not the most submitted drive in Accuraterip database for nothing.

and a Ford focus might be the worlds most popular (by numbers) car, it does not automatically == quality

If someone had the time (I unfortunately do not) someone could write a program to look though accuraterips database - find users their drive and wether the result was accurate, that would build a list of the most accurate drives (it is not as simple as just written, it requires some coding skill), that would put an end to the speculation.

The 716A may not be Plextor's best drive, but for my purposes, it works very well. I find it interesting that this debate of Test & Copy with burst mode vs secure continues to go on. I've yet to see any information that proves either side. I use a combination of both. I make sure the CRCs match, and that AccurateRip verifies. Past that it isn't worth getting an ulcer over.

Where's the control in this test?
Until you can eliminate the fact that different people will be ripping from different discs this test will prove nothing.

From everything I've read about it recently, most people are suggesting the same thing: use a combination of both. At least this is what I've been telling people.

There does not need to be a control, unless you are saying that people with drive XXXX look after their cds better than drive YYYYY (which is silly), the scratched cds will be uniformly spread amongst drives.

It isn't silly at all. How can your test end speculation when you yourself are speculating that scratched cds will be uniformly spread amongst drives?

I have a hunch that the best drive wouldn't be a Plextor, that in itself would end speculation (because those with Plextors are more likely to know about ripping / looking after CDs). Anyhow, who knows until the numbers are run and a list is created.

From the latest 'ct article about reliable ripping and burning of audio CD's, the best reader was indeed a Plextor ... but to my surprise, the low-budget PX-230 came out as the best ripper ...

SPOON is techniquely correct. If the population (number of results) is high enough (power to acheive statistically significant results) then the types of scratches should be RANDOMIZED between the drives. This is a retrospective study, but is certainly still valid. Ofcourse if a prospective study is developed with proper controls, then that conclusion should trump the before mentioned study.

(My profession is medicine, so any statistics guru out there is free to correct me if i'm wrong. If so, sorry for any black pearls ahead of time)

*WARNING no "hard facts" to back this up*, but this conclusion appears reasonable. B/C basically speaking (T&C) == (secure mode with only 1 re-read). However secure mode is configured to make numerous rereads, therefore it is more likely to find a match that may actually be incorrect (the consistent/repeatable error).

Which leads to my agreement to SPATH 's conclusion that the only 100% way to ensure that an audiorip is the same as the original is with accuraterip, or flawless C2 error detection (if such a drive exists). To avoid getting flammed, i do agree that EAC is the best ripper available. In most cases it does produce an accurate DAE, the only flaw is if repeatable/consistent errors are present. I'm very excited to see the new dbpoweramp ripper, but i digress.

That's just my 2 cents, no offense intended, as this thread appears to be getting a little heated.

It all depends on the probabilities of the correct and bad values. To see this, you can either find
out the probability formula describing EAC secure mode (not easy), or write a C/whatever model
of it (trivial) and feed it with various combinations of bad/good values probabilities. In the end
you will see that EAC's secure mode is accentuating the probability biases, which can go either
way depending on the disc you have.

Yes, otherwise there is room for speculation which was my point to begin with.

I basically agree with this also, I have even said this myself.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....post&pid=401527

Why do I favour Test & Copy with matching (=same) checksums in secure mode over the same in burst ?

Because:
If you have (light/medium/heavy) scratches on your disc,
the probability to get matching checksums becomes lower in burst, so more work (rerip trials), if you wanna get the best possible result.
Secure mode offers error detection and correction by rereads (with or without c2).

So the higher probability to get matching checksums automatically by EACs secure mode compared to burst mode, is seen as advantage by me.
If the scratch was really bad, then EACs log will warn you about suspicious positions.
In many cases even then eac extracted these positions click-free.
Of course, if the rip wasn't able to get matching checksums in secure modes, or contained even suspicious positions, the CD 's condition is too bad --> try cleaning before ripping, toothpaste, Brasso or polishing with mildest sandpaper 1200-2xxx.

I rip those bad CDs tracks in burst mode, when EACs secure mode hang, or gave clicks, then a burst rip at low speeds can improve the result sometimes, or it is the only way to extract something, if eac hangs in secure on a track.

But for normal CDs, from the practical point of view by my experience, test & copy in secure, saves time in the end and results to more satisfying results.
(remind: burst has no error detection and correction mechanisms, so a good extraction is less probable than with secure mode)


Something about repeatable and non-repeatables errors on CDs/on 1 scratched example position:

EACs secure mode with c2 for error detection will find repeatable errors (edit: erased 'and non-repeatable') ,
(if c2 works for the drive, but this is very likely, as the old assumption, that c2 is often faulty implemented to drives, was based on a faulty developent tool of EACs author Andre Wiethoff, iirc, Pio or Jean-Luc, one of the eac Gurus mentioned it somewhere some time ago, here or at digital-inn eac forum, so today c2 should be assumed as good method for most drives),
whereas EACs no c2 secure mode will find mostly only non-repeatable=varying errors.
But this should not be a problem,
because by real-world scratches, you have by random, by statistics, with high probability both types of errors, so that EAC will find the suspicious position, and EACs rereads kick in.

So, summarizing, I'd like an EAC test & copy mode, where no c2 and c2 error detection is done during the independent 2 runs ( a possibility to configure each mode for each run separately/customized)
But no problem, even old EAC 0.9beta4 (0.9b4) or 0.95pb3 (prebeta3) is satisfying my practical needs completely

So, does that mean it is possibly better than a Premium2?

My point of view about ripping comes from the other side.

I like to know when EAC rips a track in error rather than being blissfully ignorant in trusting that it ripped a disc correctly because it said there were no suspicious positions and/or checksums matched.

I have seen some rips (not a whole lot) where matching CRCs in secure mode have turned out to be bad.

I have seen even more rips where C2 reporting gave a bad result that were done with v0.95b3.

I have seen a bad rip that gave matching checksums and 100% quality with C2 checked (again with v0.95b3) and unchecking C2 resulted a good rip.

These are real world rips with real world discs subjected to real world conditions. I appreciate analysis done assuming *one* scratch but you can't possibly talk about the real world and yet limit testing to something done with only *one* scratch.

Maybe my experience is one in a billion, but it is more than enough to make me skeptical about statements that C2 reporting giving problems fell entirely on EAC and not on hardware.

>Why do I favour Test & Copy with matching (=same) checksums in secure mode over the same in burst ?

Did I miss something here? I still haven't seen anything that suggests that matching checksums in Secure mode is better than matching checksums in Burst mode. Only that the chances of getting them in Burst is less which hopefully isn't something that comes as a surprise to anyone. Perhaps the heading should have been stated as:
Why do I favour Test & Copy with matching checksums in secure mode over not being able to get them in burst ?

I realize that the possibility of getting matching CRCs in Burst mode for a bad rip (that doesn't occur through CRC collision ) exists but my limited experience has shown me that this is likely to happen than it is in Secure mode.

Anyway, I do agree with much of the post that I've been picking apart and I appreciate doing test and copy independently and configuring modes to best suit the situation. I also appreciate mildly abrasive toothpaste and Turtle Wax.

And, FWIW, the preferred EAC configuration of my PX-716A is -usefua and Secure mode with C2 checked and caching unchecked. I keep PlexTools handy as well as other drives with different chipsets in case I encounter a track that gives me problems. I am suspicious of any track that requires re-reads (except at the very end and is limited to one row of lights).

Call me a skeptic, but EAC can mislead you.

It seems that some people here like to discuss probabilites
based just on intuition instead of actually doing the maths,
so here´s a simple testcase for you. Consider a defect, which
after CIRC will randomly give for a specific byte 30% of times
the correct value and 14% of the times any one of 5 possible
wrong values. What are the probabilities to get a wrong value
go through EAC in 1) burst mode 2) secure mode ?

If you can answer this then you will be able to really calculate
what secure mode does instead of just guessing.


No it won´t, because C2 pointers are not retrieved during re-reads.