I'm looking to establish a system of using EAC to rip my Audio CDs---a kind of methodology that I can apply to every disc I own, and get the most precise extraction possible.

Several CDs in my collection have 'hidden tracks' in the pregap of Track 1. Therefore, from what I understand, my only two options to extract this audio are either rip as an 'Image + CUE Sheet', or do a track based rip with gaps appended to the next track. Given that the track based rip would allowed me to 'Test & Copy Tracks', this would seem to be the better choice to get that extra confidence that the rip was accurate from a CRC comparison--something that the Image based rip doesn't have as of yet.

So my question: Now suppose I were to rip my discs via 'Test & Copy Tracks', with gaps appended to next track. If I have EAC generate a CUE sheet with correct gaps, could I take that and the WAVs into a program like CUE Tools, output the audio to a single file + CUE Sheet, and would I wind up with a rip of equal confidence to what I would get when EAC implements the 'Test & Copy Image & Create CUE Sheet' function?

What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea? Or should I just go see someone about my OCD? Is anyone else using this method to archive their CDs? Thanks.

You can use REACT and set it to rip to image and subsequently rip the image to tracks, since REACT uses ACDIR internally, which is HTOA-aware and will extract your track 00s. I believe. Perform a forum-search on ACDIR. You could also perform a separate T&C Rip just to examine the results. Not a guarantee that the image rip was perfect, but a good guess.

-brendan

EDIT: A complete re-write.

It should, yes. I say "should" only because I haven't used CUE Tools.

I think you'd save yourself some time by creating an image and a CUE sheet using EAC directly. I recommend using EAC in secure mode without C2 and if the quality is less than 100%, then rip the image a second time and compare the CRCs. The easiest way to do this is to have EAC automatically generate a status report after extraction. If your drive has good C2 performance then go ahead and use it but rip the image twice regardless of the quality percentage. But like brendan already said, matching CRCs (or 100% quality for that matter) does not guarantee an accurate rip.

I like the idea of having a single WAV and CUE for archiving. I'm in Secure Mode and running a Plextor Premium, I'm not sure how that drives fares with C2, but I've turned it off after reading a few places that said it was best to disable it for DAE.

The main reason I am shying away from ripping to an image is the ability to do a CRC check with the track method. Maybe I am confused by what CRC actually is. Does 'Test & Copy Tracks' compare the 'footprint' of the WAV file extracted to the 'footprint' of what the drive reads into the buffer or no?

I've seen a few posts that claim the next EAC release will offer the ability to 'Test & Copy Image & Create CUE Sheet', but nothing official by Andre and company. Can anyone confirm this? Maybe I'll just wait for it to come out...

Edit: Diction

I'm not so sure that this philosophy of always disabling C2 is correct.

The way I understand it. turning off C2 is something you can resort to when using C2 doesn't bring you consistency or a complete rip in EAC. Or if indeed your drive doesn't support it, turn it off. If your drive does indeed support C2, use it.

My understanding is that, while this is technically true, the probability of getting matching CRCs without an accurate rip is infinitesimal (thus, if you get matching CRCs, you can be 99.9...% confindent of an accurate rip). Is this not the rationale behind the oft-discussed "burst mode + test & copy" method for ripping? Please correct me if I'm wrong.


I've heard the same thing, but it's been a while. Let's hope it happens soon!

Test & Copy simply does this: rips a track, computes a CRC. rips the track again, computes CRC again. Saves the second ripped copy of the track and displays both CRCs for you to examine.



-brendan

I agree!
You can't always rely on EAC when it tells you that a rip has no errors. Using C2 can make this even worse with drives that pass bad data with C2 information which EAC interprets as being good. Test and Copy can usually expose bad rips with C2, but depending on the drive and the types of errors on the disc, not always.

You aren't correct. Consistent errors have been discussed on this forum many times. The likelihood that matching CRCs gives you a bad rip is dependent on the disc and the drive ripping it. I have already provided log files to this forum that show matching CRCs for bad rips using burst mode, secure mode with and secure mode without C2.

Could you provide links to the thread(s) please?
me -> <- IPB Search

The fact that consistent errors have been discussed and that they're known to happen doesn't speak to the liklihood of them occurring. That it happened with disc X on drive Y is one exhibit. Perhaps if we were to test 1000 different discs on 1000 different drives (for a sample set of 1 million), we'd get a better idea as to the overall probability of this phenomenon occuring.

IMO statements like "matching CRCs do not guarantee an accurate rip," while technically true, just add another layer of paranoia to something that people are already paranoid about. Matching CRCs are enough to keep me and many others dumb and happy.

Here's a start:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=446079
In this thread, spath mentions that he is considering putting an article on the subject up on cdfreaks.

As for paranoia and being dumb and happy, I'd prefer to have all the facts rather than simply ignore the ones that don't sit well with me.

On the bright side, at least we have AccurateRip and the knowledge that rippers can be developed which have immunity to consistent errors.

Thanks for all the info guys...



My C2 cautions mainly stemmed from The Coast Factory Guide, which stated that some drives falsely report they support C2 when drive features are detected in EAC, even though they do not support C2. Going back and reading that, it doesn't sound so bad leaving C2 on, since I confirmed that it is supported by my drive from a few places. C2 it is.

It isn't that they falsely report supporting C2, it's that depending on the drive a certain amount of errors can go undetected by EAC. Take an NEC 3500 for instance; errors easily get by when C2 is enabled. Compare this with a Plextor Premium where much fewer errors get by.

The likelyhood for matching CRCs occuring on a bad rip is relatively high on ligthly dammaged discs. The likelyhood decreases the more severe the damage gets...

This again says absolutely nothing about the liklihood of consistent errors occurring; unless you can define "relatively high" as a probability arrived at through testing a significant sample size. Feel free to do such a test across a wide range of discs and drives and get back to us with how often these consistent errors actually occur.

Case 1: We test & copy a CD. CRCs match. Matches the AccurateRip database. We're all happy that we have an accurate rip, right?

Case 2: We test & copy a CD. CRCs match. However it's from an obscure artist not in the AccurateRip database. We listen to the ripped audio, no audible pops, gliches, whatever. But we can't be confident that we have perfect rip, because there might be "consistent errors" obscured by the matching CRCs, right? The agony! How can we sleep at night? Then we find a friend who has the same CD, rip his CD, the CRCs match, & they match our CD also. But wait! Both of our discs were pressed at the Timbuktu plant and not the usual one, so it's possible that we could both have exactly the same consistent error due to a glitch in the manufacturing process! At this point we decide to break into the artist's studio, steal the HD with the master recording, send it, our computer, and the CD to NASA so they can count every 1 and 0. Finally, peace of mind!

No, I'm ignoring it because (a) *I* believe these errors are far less likely to happen than you think (though your viewpoint is just as plausible, neither of us have any tests results to back this up) and (b) if a "consistent error" happens, and I don't notice it, it doesn't matter (to me). If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Yes. I'm happy if I have an accuraterip match without the T&C.


It's all about priorities. Personally, I'm happy with a burst mode T&C CRC match if the CD doesn't exist in the accuraterip database.
But, we should be aware and make others aware that consistent errors do happen. The best way to avoid them is to use a drive and software with good C2 implementation. No need to make such a song and dance about this.

Anyone with thoughts on whether performing a "meta-T&C", using two different manufacturer/model drives (properly configured for C2 and offset, of course) could be of any value in detecting consistent errors when AR isn't available?

-brendan

>detecting consistent errors when AR isn't available?

Yes I think different drives would return errors differently.

It's funny how the first thing you say on the subject is 99.9...% as if you ran some kind of test or did some calculation. Yet once someone with clearly more expertise on the subject than you attempts to give you a meaningful explanation, you challenge it because he didn't make up any numbers like you did.

With agreement from AccurateRip using data other than my own submission, absolutely!

Stop right there!

YOU are the one who has decided it is agony. I've pointed out a simple fact which you would prefer to ignore, which is your business. It is also your business as to why you wish to ignore it, but don't go assuming how others may feel about it. Yes, errors can happen in the manufacturing process, but also errors can also occur during a remastering process which have nothing to do with the manufacturing process. I suppose you'll get all up in arms over this one too.

That's funny. I never offered up how often I think they happen other than to say I've seen them happen and can give you evidence of them happening. At least you're admitting that you made your number up.

Answer me this, have you ever gotten different T&C CRCs for a rip in secure mode without C2 where EAC didn't report a suspicious position?

If you have, then you've most likely encountered an error that has some degree of consistency.