Quick observation:

While ripping my CDs with EAC, I'm detecting gaps and creating a CUE sheet. After the ripping finishes, I load up CloneCD and create a CUE sheet and compare pre-gaps. Up until this point, I have had 100% success.

However, I just noticed that EAC detected a pre-gap of 0:00:00.01 on one of my tracks, while CloneCD didn't. I went ahead and installed Cdrwin and did a full subcode analysis and sure enough, no pre-gap.

Is EAC trustworthy when it comes to detecting pre-gaps? Why the 100% success rate except for this one CD? And who do I believe: CloneCD/Cdrwin or EAC?

Thanks!

Which gap detection method do you use? Does the CD contain any data tracks, copy protection or other gremlins?

I'd be inclined to trust CloneCD in this case, but (as always) I will not say anything for definite as - you never know - someone may actually want to include such a pointless gap on their produced CD!

Why? Is there something about the way CloneCD reads subcode that makes it somehow better than one of EAC's three methods? From the previous post regarding the subject, I wanted to ask whether it was known if CloneCD's method wasn't the same as one of EAC's methods. I'm thinking this has been answered here.

In yet another thread on this subject, I stated that you might want to use a real CD player to determine whether a track has a gap or not. When we're only talking about 1 frame of audio data, I'm having a hard time understanding how this constitutes any meaningful significance other than being a placebo.

Well, who presses a "0:00:00.01" gap into a CD? Calm down; it's not like I'm insulting EAC or glorifying CloneCD.

<takes a deep breath>

Ok, I'm clam now.

dv1989 - I've confirmed that Method A / Secure works very well for my drive (by hand comparing CUE sheets). The CD is Dave Matthews Band - Under the Table and Dreaming (from 1994), and I'm quite sure it doesn't have copy protection, nor does it have a data track.

greynol - As you read from my other post, I use CloneCD to verify my pregap settings on each drive. I don't think it's the same method as EAC, because CloneCD will always spit out the same information, yet EAC's values will change if you don't have the right method for the right drive.

What's interesting to note - pop in the CD on another drive, and still the same result in EAC. I wonder what's going on?

On my new drive none of the EAC methods produce accurate (consistent) pre-gap measurements so count yourself as slightly more lucky.

Let me guess, a Lite-On?

You're making me really paranoid now; I have a Lite-On!

The Toshiba I hab before had the same problems like your Lite-On..

If you're asking me then yes.

I am seriously going to have to do some checking about this now! Be Positive, did you arrive at the conclusion that Method A was probably the most accurate? That's what I currently use - but, as I've said, I will have to run some test before my paranoia gets the best of me.