Hydrogenaudio Forums > Glaring Errors in Wiki Regarding EAC

Full Version: Glaring Errors in Wiki Regarding EAC

Hydrogenaudio Forums > Knowledgebase Project > Wiki Discussion

greynol

Jul 30 2007, 11:20

I was helping someone over at digital-inn who raised some questions regarding what is said in the wiki, specifically in the EAC Lossless Backup article.

The information in the following lines are completely wrong:

Fill up missing offset samples with silence: Unchecked (In later configuration, you will fix your drive offset error so there will be no missing offset samples.)

Correction: This setting should always be checked.
Override Lead-In and Lead-Out: Disable (Your offset should be correct so this is not necessary and will only result in an inaccurate extraction).

Correction: This setting should be configured based on the configured offset and capabilities of the drive being used. Furthermore, it is overread, not override.

Mods: If there is a more appropriate place for this discussion, please move it.

Moved to Wiki Discussion.
--"Mods"

EDIT: Thanks for the moderation, JensRex. I could see no other posts in the wiki forum, so I wasn't sure that it was the right place. I apologize if you found "Mods" offsensive.

Oh dear, I've found another...

Ripping a CD
Select Action>Create CUE Sheet>Multiple WAV Files With Corrected Gaps... (shortcut key combination: Alt+O)

This is the wrong type of sheet to suggest if you don't also specifically instruct people to rip with gaps appended to the next track. I should also add that the method of prepending gaps is non-standard. The proper CUE sheet when leaving EAC at its default gap setting or when ripping before detecting gaps is Multiple WAV Files With Gaps (Noncompliant).

exec

Jul 30 2007, 12:05

Well, it seems that nobody has read this article carefully. These lines are definitively wrong, should be changed asap.

Just a little OT: You've just mentioned overread capabilities; what if you check this option and your drive doens't support this? Any drawbacks then?

greynol

Jul 30 2007, 12:14

QUOTE(exec @ Jul 30 2007, 11:05)

Just a little OT: You've just mentioned overread capabilities; what if you check this option and your drive doens't support this? Any drawbacks then?

Not off-topic at all!

Let's say you enter a positive number for the offset correction and you have this setting checked. If your drive can't overread into the lead-out and the overread samples on the disc you're ripping aren't null, you'll get an error. It's also quite likely that there will be additional missing samples (substituted with silence) that would not have been had the setting not been enabled. I've seen situations where otherwise correctly ripped tracks could no longer be verified by AccurateRip. Finally, this type of error is consistent which means that a pair of matching CRCs are pretty much useless.

Cosmo

Jul 30 2007, 13:07

Should something like the EAC configuration process be repeated in multiple wiki pages?

BTW - the EAC Drive Configuration page needs work too.

greynol

Jul 30 2007, 13:46

QUOTE(Cosmo @ Jul 30 2007, 12:07)

BTW - the EAC Drive Configuration page needs work too.

It sure does!

Accurate Stream/Drive has ‘Accurate Stream’ feature
If EAC reports "Accurate Stream: Yes", enable this option by ticking the "Accurate Stream" box. This means that your drive doesn't jitter and enabling this option on such drives will decrease the probability of errors & cause a speed increase.

What is in bold is categorically incorrect.
Caching/Drive caches audio
Tip: EAC may misinform about audio caching as an alternative you can use Feurio's audio caching test found in Feurio.exe\Ctrl+Alt+P\Test device\Cache test.

This is untrue FUD. Unless someone finds a drive that caches more than 64kB which EAC consistently reports as non-caching, this statement should be stricken.

Tip: If you are not sure whether your drive caches audio data or not (or if you simply don't wish to perform Feurio's audio caching test and you still want accurate results), as a rule of thumb, enable this option. By doing this, you instruct EAC to flush the cache every time it reads audio data-irrespective of whether your drive caches audio data or not. This might result in lower ripping speeds, but the results will be most accurate.

Might? It will result in lower ripping speeds!

Most accurate? Your rip is either accurate or not accurate. When dealing with drives that don't cache audio data, selecting this setting will in no way improve accuracy!
C2 Error Info/Drive is capable of retrieving C2 error information
With C2 enabled, EAC's error detection becomes dependent on the drives C2 accuracy which varies from drive to drive & increases the probability of errors, this feature also results in a speed increase because EAC doesn't read the data twice anymore, If your drive supports this feature & you decide to use it enable this by ticking C2 Error Info box.

Holy run-on, Batman!

Enabling C2 does not increase the probability of errors, it increases the chances that errors may go undetected.

Tip: If you are not sure whether your drive is capable of handling C2 error information, as a rule of thumb, disable this option. Once again, this might result in lower ripping speeds, but the results will be most accurate.

Same issue I had earlier. Although I agree in principle, the wording should be more precise in order to lower the chances of misinterpretation. Perhaps it should also be mentioned that C2 information is not used during re-reads and as such its usage provides no benefit other than a speed increase at the expense of security.

...then there's the list of mostly dead links.

Next on my hit-list is the genre issue when configuring EAC away from it's native ID3 tagging in favor of using Lame. This has led to more trouble than just about anything else I've seen regarding EAC and the wiki. If you guys want to promote Lame tagging over EAC, that's fine; but do so in a way that doesn't cause potential problems. Furthermore, I have yet to see a single shred of evidence showing that there's something wrong with the way EAC writes tags (besides the fact that ID3v1 tags are not optional and an EAC line is added).

exec

Jul 30 2007, 15:21

QUOTE(greynol @ Jul 30 2007, 20:14)

Let's say you enter a positive number for the offset correction and you have this setting checked. If your drive can't overread into the lead-out and the overread samples on the disc you're ripping aren't null, you'll get an error. It's also quite likely that there will be additional missing samples (substituted with silence) that would not have been had the setting not been enabled. I've seen situations where otherwise correctly ripped tracks could no longer be verified by AccurateRip. Finally, this type of error is consistent which means that a pair of matching CRCs are pretty much useless.

OK, but what's the difference? If you enable it and your drive doesn't support this, then EAC would try to overread without success. Probably filling the missing samples with silence (??).
If you disable this option, then it wouldn't try to overread, just filling up some silence according to the offset settings.

Is there any difference at all?

Fandango

Jul 30 2007, 15:34

I think he clearly described the differences.

JeanLuc

Jul 30 2007, 15:45

@ Greynol

As for the AccurateStream feature, it would be better IMO if someone changed these lines in a way that most people will understand what AccurateStream really means.

Simply put ... a drive capable of AccurateStream will always return the same read offset when a read command for a given address on a given red book CD is issued multiple times. The real reason for is that red book CD's do not feature dedicated sector adresses like yellow book data CD's do.

Jitter in this context isn't real jitter but rather sector desynchronization - 'real' jitter in e.g. digital interconnects describes variations of a given clock signal, hence the jitter measurement in picoseconds or nanoseconds as a statistical standard deviation.

EAC always performs sector alignment by overlapped reading, even if the drive is being checked as capable of accurate streaming ... the only difference is that the overlapped areas in secure mode are smaller compared to sector resync (falsely interpreted as jitter-correction) read mode.

greynol

Jul 30 2007, 15:52

QUOTE(exec @ Jul 30 2007, 14:21)

As I said earlier...

QUOTE(greynol @ Jul 30 2007, 20:14)

It's also quite likely that there will be additional missing samples (substituted with silence) that would not have been had the setting not been enabled. I've seen situations where otherwise correctly ripped tracks could no longer be verified by AccurateRip.

I just tried this to give you one example. Using a drive that cannot overread with an offset correction of +1858, the number of missing samples with overreading disabled is 1858, the number of missing samples with overreading enabled is 9502. The number of samples AccurateRip ignores in order to compensate for potential problems is 2940.

Believe it or not (and as silly as it may seem), many people have gone out of their way to buy drives that can overread so there aren't any missing samples after an offset correction has been configured.

So, yes, there is a difference!

@JeanLuc
I was hoping to start a discussion so that people with a higher-level of expertise, such as yourself would contribute. My "corrections" were just to point out specifically what is wrong or what the end result should be. The wording I've given is probably inadequate in most cases.

exec

Jul 30 2007, 16:01

QUOTE(Fandango @ Jul 30 2007, 23:34)

I think he clearly described the differences.

QUOTE(greynol @ Jul 30 2007, 20:14)

Error? AccurateRip "not accurately ripped", or what?

I just asking this (maybe stupid, sorry) question because I've tried it with some disc on my own. It doesn't matter which setting I choose, I always get the same (AccurateRip) results.
So from my POV, it seems that this settings doesn't matter at all. So what's the reason to activate/deactivate it?

I think that's a general issue: EAC is a complex application, but there's no properly documentation included what happens "under the hood". Due to this, there are wiki articles (or other "sources of information") like these mentioned above. You have to try it on your own or ask the same question again and again in forums like HA.
No offense to Andre, but if there would be a good documentation, which explains all features of EAC (in every detail!), then it would be much easier. Why something like this doesn't exist, despite the fact, that EAC does exist for a few years? He would get any support he would ever need...

Edit: ok, you guys were faster

Fandango

Jul 30 2007, 16:02

Hm, may I suggest the following.

The explanations for the recommended EAC options are held very simple and brief in the backup guide. But all occurences of let's say "Accurate Stream" are turned into a link to an article that explains in detail what this feature is.

greynol

Jul 30 2007, 16:09

QUOTE(exec @ Jul 30 2007, 15:01)

QUOTE(greynol @ Jul 30 2007, 20:14)

Error? AccurateRip "not accurately ripped", or what?

EAC will report a sync error.

QUOTE(exec @ Jul 30 2007, 15:01)

I just asking this (maybe stupid, sorry) question because I've tried it with some disc on my own. It doesn't matter which setting I choose, I always get the same (AccurateRip) results.
So from my POV, it seems that this settings doesn't matter at all. So what's the reason to activate/deactivate it?

What is the make and model of your drive?
If it supports overreading then you can disable it without an error given by EAC and it won't affect the result returned by AccurateRip. If you look around you'll also discover that AccurateRip ignores the first five frames of the first track and the last five frames of the last track in order to compensate for drives that can't overread.

To reiterate, this only matters when ripping discs where overread samples are not null.

QUOTE(exec @ Jul 30 2007, 15:01)

I think that's a general issue: EAC is a complex application, but there's no properly documentation included what happens "under the hood". Due to this, there are wiki articles (or other "sources of information") like these mentioned above.

...and it would help if they provided accurate information.

JeanLuc

Jul 30 2007, 16:15

QUOTE(exec @ Jul 30 2007, 22:01)

I think that's a general issue: EAC is a complex application, but there's no properly documentation included what happens "under the hood".

exec is right on that point ... I still wait for clarification on the "C2" terminology ...

Is EAC's C2 correctable C2 (thus E12-E22 or E42) or uncorrectable C2 (thus E32/E52 and above or CU in Plextools terminology) ... seven years of using EAC and I still don't know ... ^^

greynol

Jul 30 2007, 16:33

I don't really think it matters and in this case I think my suggestions are sufficient. If you think it's important, we can impart additional information while being careful to choose wording that explains why EAC's C2 setting isn't such a good idea without blaming anyone.

In general, I think the information about the C2 setting is pretty good in the wiki EAC Drive Configuration article.

The cache setting on the other hand ...

QUOTE(Cosmo @ Jul 30 2007, 12:07)

Should something like the EAC configuration process be repeated in multiple wiki pages?

QUOTE(Fandango @ Jul 30 2007, 15:02)

The explanations for the recommended EAC options are held very simple and brief in the backup guide. But all occurences of let's say "Accurate Stream" are turned into a link to an article that explains in detail what this feature is.

I totally agree, though this may be more work that I wanted to generate. At a minimum, drive options should be removed from all places except for the most obvious, with all other articles linking to it when needed.

Honestly now, does this lossless backup guide provide any useful information that isn't already contained elsewhere in the wiki???

Synthetic Soul

Jul 31 2007, 01:09

It would be superb to see a concerted effort from those in the know to ensure that we have an accurate and comprehensive EAC guide in the HA wiki.

May I recommend that those people who have the expertise PM Jan and request a login for the wiki? I can edit the wiki, and I'm happy to help, but it is so much easier if those making the suggestions can edit the page(s) themselves.

I tend to agree with Fandango, that the core guide should be kept relatively simple, with links to other pages that cover certain areas, like C2 and caching, in greater detail. Using this technique the guide will be kept accessible to basic users and those more experienced, without confusing core issues with too much text.

exec

Jul 31 2007, 02:33

QUOTE(greynol @ Jul 31 2007, 00:09)

What is the make and model of your drive?

It's a samsung SH-S182D. Offset of -6. Can't find any info on the samsung hp about overreading capabilities. daefeatures.co.uk says it can overread the lead in (would be useless). If you test the DAE features with Nero CD-DVD Speed, then it says that it can't overread at all. But I don't know if you can trust the results of this program, because it'll tell you that this drive has an offset of 0, which is obviously wrong.
So, are there other possibilities to test the overread capabilities on my own?

QUOTE(greynol @ Jul 31 2007, 00:09)

If it supports overreading then you can disable it without an error given by EAC and it won't affect the result returned by AccurateRip. If you look around you'll also discover that AccurateRip ignores the first five frames of the first track and the last five frames of the last track in order to compensate for drives that can't overread.

OK, this was the reason why the AccurateRip results were the same. Thanks for pointing this out.

QUOTE(greynol @ Jul 31 2007, 00:09)

QUOTE(exec @ Jul 30 2007, 15:01)

QUOTE(greynol @ Jul 30 2007, 20:14)

Error? AccurateRip "not accurately ripped", or what?

EAC will report a sync error.

How will EAC know that the overread samples aren't null if the drive can't overread at all?

greynol

Jul 31 2007, 03:59

QUOTE(exec @ Jul 31 2007, 01:33)

It's a samsung SH-S182D. Offset of -6. Can't find any info on the samsung hp about overreading capabilities. daefeatures.co.uk says it can overread the lead in (would be useless).

You can test which area your drive can overread from using the EAC's "detect read sample offset correction" routine.

QUOTE(exec @ Jul 31 2007, 01:33)

If you test the DAE features with Nero CD-DVD Speed, then it says that it can't overread at all. But I don't know if you can trust the results of this program, because it'll tell you that this drive has an offset of 0, which is obviously wrong.

This is probably the combined offset, which means that you'd use a write samples offset of -6 to go with your read offset correction of +6.

QUOTE(exec @ Jul 31 2007, 01:33)

How will EAC know that the overread samples aren't null if the drive can't overread at all?

I don't know that it does, it just returns an error when they aren't null and doesn't return an error when they are. Does it really matter?

Rain

Jul 31 2007, 04:14

QUOTE(greynol @ Jul 31 2007, 10:59)

You can test which area your drive can overread from using the EAC's "detect read sample offset correction" routine.

I have AccurateRip configured and that button's blanked off in EAC, the read sample offset correction is +102, my drive is MATSHITADVD-RAM UJ-851S 1.50 (referred to as Panasonic drives in the AccurateRip website). What other ways are there for checking which area my drive can overread?

exec

Jul 31 2007, 05:12

QUOTE(Rain @ Jul 31 2007, 12:14)

Just untick "Use AccurateRip with this drive", then then button is enabled.

JensRex

Jul 31 2007, 07:15

QUOTE(greynol @ Jul 30 2007, 19:20)

Thanks for the moderation, JensRex. I could see no other posts in the wiki forum, so I wasn't sure that it was the right place.

Nah, there haven't been any posts for a while, but IPB only shows posts from the last 30 days per default. There's a dropdown box at the bottom where you can choose to see all posts made in the section.

QUOTE(greynol @ Jul 30 2007, 19:20)

I apologize if you found "Mods" offsensive.

I'm just playing with you.

greynol

Jul 31 2007, 10:58

QUOTE(exec @ Jul 31 2007, 04:12)

QUOTE(Rain @ Jul 31 2007, 12:14)

Just untick "Use AccurateRip with this drive", then then button is enabled.

...or temporarily remove AccurateRip.dll from your EAC directory if you're using V0.95. Ok, can we please take the OT EAC help requests elsewhere and move on to the buisness of hopefully improving the wiki?

QUOTE(JensRex @ Jul 31 2007, 06:15)

I'm just playing with you.

I was beginning to think of The Who's Quadrophenia.

exec

Jul 31 2007, 13:44

QUOTE(greynol @ Jul 31 2007, 18:58)

Ok, can we please take the OT EAC help requests elsewhere and move on to the buisness of hopefully improving the wiki?

OK, to start with, it maybe would be a good idea, that the people, who are willing to participate in the HA-EAC "facelift" agree on a certain structure.

So, beside the fact, that some information is simply wrong in the wiki, imho the structure and linking of all EAC related artiles could be improved. Now there are many articles "how xyz can be done using EAC". All these articles try to explain everything related about xyz and concentrate on only the relevant options. I think we should broaden the view on EAC and it's configuration:
1. Generate a page for EAC configuration
2. For beginners there should be a simple guide (as already mentioned above)
3. Next, there should be articles about all EAC options (let's say one article for every option dialog in EAC). Here the options should be explained in every detail (and correctly, of course

), maybe with some background info.
4. The articles from 2. and 3. then are linked together by the article 1.

The goal should be, that we don't dictate the user how he has to configure all the options, e.g. when he want to create lossless backups, just by saying "tick this option and untick the other". All options should be explained in such a way, that the user is provided by enough background and in-deep information that he can make his own decisions, because he knows that hides behind all these options.
Another side effect would be that we can remove all the redundant or even conflicting information.

exec

Aug 1 2007, 16:09

Hm...no replies - no good idea? Leave it as it is and only fix the obvious errors? Say something...talk to me.

I relly would like to help with this, but I'm afraid to mess up something by changing structure/content...

greynol

Aug 1 2007, 17:32

Yeah, I'm not sure about how best to organize, but I do have a pretty good grasp on what the content should be and how it should be worded.

Concerning beginner/advanced, I think a one-size-fits all approach will be adequate. EAC isn't rocket science. It all boils down to providing accurate and concise descriptions using language that is easy to understand.

Regarding the structure/organization, I think we need enough articles to cover all the bases without providing unnecessarily redundant data. I do like the way the Compression Options are currently being handled (one article per popular codec) but I don't think there should be more than one article that contains drive options or more than one article that contains EAC options.

dewey1973

Aug 1 2007, 23:28

One of the easiest things to do for the beginner would be screen shots of the correct options (at least the ones that don't vary with the drive.)

One important thing would be to keep the guide updated as quickly as possible when new versions of EAC are released. This, IMHO, is the weakness of every other guide I've seen.

I like the idea of have individual articles for each option, even if it is just a definition. Even if it is the SAME definition that is in the EAC tool tip. I really dislike it when guides only go into more detail on some of the settings.

Another idea, for the drive specific options, would be a flowchart or decision tree. If EAC determines your drive is C2 capable then do this...

Just my $0.02.

greynol

Aug 2 2007, 00:29

QUOTE(dewey1973 @ Aug 1 2007, 22:28)

One of the easiest things to do for the beginner would be screen shots of the correct options (at least the ones that don't vary with the drive.)

[...]

I like the idea of have individual articles for each option, even if it is just a definition. Even if it is the SAME definition that is in the EAC tool tip. I really dislike it when guides only go into more detail on some of the settings.

Yes, but so many options are a matter of personal taste and are otherwise completely inconsequential.

Dynamic

Aug 2 2007, 02:06

Is there a sort of scratchpad area in the Wiki where we can try to organise a tree of related articles first before disrupting those we have already?

I think you're right about the structure.

First page - Introduction to EAC
What does it do? What does it cost/is it open source? Why is it different, and for what uses does it excel?
From there, provide a series of links to different articles on the second and third levels, plus links to EAC homepage and DigitalInn.

Subsidiary first page - comparison table of EAC in various modes (secure/burst/with AccurateRip etc.) to other competitive software, either by popularity or similar features. i.e. compare EAC to iTunes, Windows Media Player and other popular apps in one table. Compare EAC to other secure ripping apps such as dBpowerAmp, foobar2000 etc.

Second Level pages - EAC Basic Guides
Each guide has a link near the top that direct you back to the First Page, that should be more obvious than simply a link on the word EAC. Should explain briefly why, by analogy if necessary, without going into unnecessary technical detail, but links to Third Level pages explaining technical details in full should be provided.

Third Level - EAC Technical Articles
Each Technical Article can go into detail about topics and options and their consequences and circumstances to use them.

greynol

Aug 2 2007, 13:07

I actually started this topic in order to address errors in the existing pages (read the title!). If people feel that the entire suite of articles regarding EAC should be overhauled, that's fine.

In the meantime, I'd like to get these errors fixed. I've already re-written some of the offending parts in the EAC Drive Configuration article, though I'd ultimately like to replace the entire thing.

Since the wiki is no longer a free-for-all, I thought it would be best to share the changes I came up with (so far) before incorporating them. The sections shown are complete replacements. Visit the page if you want to see what it says currently.

QUOTE

EAC Options
Check out the EAC options in the EAC menu. While it isn't necessary to change anything, you may want to set error recovery quality to "High". Caution: By doing this you may increase the chances that EAC will give you bad data and not report an error without necessarily improving your odds of getting accurate data. This setting only applies while ripping in secure mode.

Drive Features
Accurate Stream/Drive has 'Accurate Stream' feature
Drives without this feature are not capable of addressing audio data down to the exact sample in a consistent way. In order to compensate for this problem, EAC will perform additional synchronization.

If EAC reports "Accurate Stream : Yes", it is safe to check the "Drive has 'Accurate Stream' feature" box. This will tell EAC not to perform additional synchronization and provide an increase in speed.

Caching/Drive caches audio data
In order for secure mode to work properly, every read request made by EAC must cause the drive to seek data from the CD. If your drive caches audio, subsequent requests for the same data may result in the drive fetching it only from its buffer, rather than from the physical disc. To prevent this from happening, EAC has a routine to ensure previously requested data gets flushed from drive's cache. This is done by having the drive read extra data from the disc; more data than the cache can store.

If EAC reports "Caching : Yes", it is important that you enable the cache flushing routine by checking the "Drive caches audio data" box.

If EAC reports "Caching : No", it is not necessary to enable the flushing routine. Checking the "Drive caches audio data" box with drives that are reported by EAC as not caching will not improve EAC's accuracy. It won't improve EAC's ability to detect errors nor EAC's ability to correct them. What it will do however, is reduce your ripping speed and shorten the life of your drive.

Tip #1: If you're concerned that your drive caches audio data even though EAC is saying otherwise, try ripping a scratched disc (one known to produce errors easily). Make sure you uncheck the "Drive caches audio data" setting AND uncheck the "Drive is capable of retrieving C2 error information" setting. Make sure you also set the error recovery quality to "Low". If EAC is capable of displaying a read error then cache flushing isn't necessary.

Tip #2: If you're still paranoid that your drive caches audio, feel free to try Feurio's audio caching test (Ctrl+Alt+P\Test device\Cache test) or spath's cache explorer. If either determine that your drive caches less than 64 KB of data (ignore the reported buffer size), then cache flushing isn't necessary. The reason for the 64 KB barrier is that EAC will never request less than this amount while ripping.

I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who wants to give it regarding the way it's worded and whether it's understandable. Regarding the validity of the content, I'd prefer that comments only come from those who understand the issues beyond what is written in third-party online guides which often contain incorrect information.

What's next is to revisit the C2 feature and to change what is written regarding the wizard (if not simply blow it away). The new version of EAC has a different wizard. Is it still true (was it ever true?) that there was a problem allowing the wizard to configure your drive the very first time you run EAC? I have seen only one post in the entire forum that makes mention of it which was several years ago.

Fandango

Aug 2 2007, 13:31

What about offering (a) EAC Profile(s) for those who're too impatient?

After loading such a pre-made Profile it is then only necessary to set up the drive options. Although the flaws discussed here are mostly regarding the drive options, it might be a good idea for a "quickstart" guide.

PS: @greynol

What about you getting a Wiki account? Wouldn't it make this whole thing easier for you?

greynol

Aug 2 2007, 13:52

QUOTE(Fandango @ Aug 2 2007, 12:31)

PS: @greynol

What about you getting a Wiki account? Wouldn't it make this whole thing easier for you?

I have one.

...just trying not to be a bull in a china shop!

(I already fixed what was wrong in the EAC Lossless Backup guide.)

dewey1973

Aug 2 2007, 13:55

Excellent job, greynol! Everything is very clearly worded and goes to an acceptable level of detail for the average user. One phrase that may need some work is this one:

QUOTE

Check out the EAC options in the EAC menu. While it isn't necessary to change anything, you may want to set error recovery quality to "High". Caution: By doing this you may increase the chances that EAC will give you bad data and not report an error without necessarily improving your odds of getting accurate data. This setting only applies while ripping in secure mode.

What I'm thinking is something like this (assuming my statements are factually correct:)

QUOTE

Check out the EAC options in the EAC menu. Most of these options do not effect the ripping process. For those settings that would effect the ripping process, the default options are correct and therefore no changes are necessary. The rest of the options deal with how the user prefers EAC to act. (For example, whether EAC will automatically get information from freedb, whether it will save log files, where the resulting files will be saved, etc.) You may want to set error recovery quality to "High" although by doing this you may increase the chances that EAC will give you bad data and not report an error without necessarily improving your odds of getting accurate data. This setting only applies while ripping in secure mode.

[By the way, you have now scared me about using the High setting.

]

Then when/if the entire guide is overhauled you could add a sentence like:

QUOTE

You can find more information on each option here (link.)

That way the user can learn more about those settings that are (as you put it) "a matter of personal taste and are otherwise completely inconsequential." Having more information about each setting would allow new users to develop their "personal taste" without worrying that they will effect the security of their rip.

I also want to say thank you for going after the errors in the guide. I seem to dedicate a great deal of time to archiving my collection only to have to leave the ripping world for a while. When I come back, I always worry about how things have changed since I have been gone. If an accurate and updated configuration guide exists I can at least be assured that I can jump to the current recommended version of EAC. Then I just have to worry about which new encoder I am going to use, what my new file structure will be, what add-ons (like REACT and AccurateRip) I will use, which source of album art is the best, and so on, and so on, and so on!

exec

Aug 2 2007, 14:07

@greynol: Just edit the article(s), it could be rolled back if anything went wrong.
More problems when the structure was changed, therefore...

...Following suggestions about restructuring the whole thing:

Main EAC article
- EAC Configuration (overview)
  - Beginners Guide (wizard, first setup)
  - EAC options menu
  - Drive otions menu
  - Comression Options menu
    - Configuration for MP3
    - Configuration for FLAC
    - ...
  - freedb/database options menu
  - WAV editor options menu
- EAC usage (creating CUE sheets, T&C vs. copy, etc.)
  - ...
  - ...

And then general technical articles (e.g. I wasn't able to find something about offsets in general) which are linked with the according EAC pages (as background info).

IMHO this would it make much more easier to go all through this and configure EAC first and then get some tips for usage because it's according to the program's srtucture.

Any comments/suggestions? Or should we leave the structure as it is now?

greynol

Aug 2 2007, 14:14

QUOTE(dewey1973 @ Aug 2 2007, 12:55)

The only reason why I think this specific setting was included in the Drive Configuration Guide was because it ties directly into EAC's method of ripping in secure mode. The rest of what is in the EAC options menu might be better suited in a separate article. Perhaps the error recovery quality would be better over there as well?

QUOTE(dewey1973 @ Aug 2 2007, 12:55)

[By the way, you have now scared me about using the High setting.

]

I'm not trying to advise against using the setting, I'm simply trying to explain that there's a bit more to it than what's advertised. (You may want to see what I wrote about it in the EAC Lossless Backup Guide.) EDIT: In light of this, I think the section as shown above needs some more work.

QUOTE(dewey1973 @ Aug 2 2007, 12:55)

Nothing wrong with a brief explanation. I guess that's a good reason to have separate information about the settings as well as a configuration guide for those that aren't a matter of personal taste.

Thanks for the kind response!

@exec:
I like your organization very much. If others want to pitch in I think that would be great!

I think my role in this whole thing is to help with the content in areas where I feel most comfortable (Drive Options, EAC Options and ripping methods). FWIW, I prefer manual configuration over using the wizard but I assume most people would prefer using the wizard. This is the one area of current Drive Configuration article that I'm uncomfortable working around. Part of the reason is that it's a good idea to run EAC's drive features detection more than once (Andre mentions that it's difficult to detect cache with slow drives. This doesn't change the fact that EAC can't report a read error when using a caching drive with the setting unchecked, however.)

Where's pepoluan?

dewey1973

Aug 2 2007, 22:35

QUOTE(greynol @ Aug 2 2007, 12:14)

You may want to see what I wrote about it in the EAC Lossless Backup Guide.)

While I was reading the Lossless Backup Guide I was surprised to read:

QUOTE

Skip track extraction on read or sync errors: Unchecked

Why would you want to keep a track that had a read or sync error?

greynol

Aug 2 2007, 23:08

QUOTE(dewey1973 @ Aug 2 2007, 21:35)

While I was reading the Lossless Backup Guide I was surprised to read:

QUOTE

Skip track extraction on read or sync errors: Unchecked

Why would you want to keep a track that had a read or sync error?

Lots of reasons.

Here's something worth looking at:

CODE

     Suspicious position 0:01:20 - 0:01:21

     Peak level 99.8 %
     Track quality 99.4 %
     Test CRC 4AB5F428
     Accurately ripped (confidence 8)  [04F4EEB9]
     Copy finished

All tracks accurately ripped

There were errors

Suppose if it took you over 20 attempts to get a rip that could be verified. Would you really want EAC to skip it?

greynol

Aug 3 2007, 18:24

Updates were just made to the EAC Drive Configuration page.

exec

Aug 8 2007, 04:37

So I finally started restructuring the whole EAC thing.

Created: EAC configuration
Moved: EAC Drive configuration --> EAC drive options

Next tasks would be to slightly change the main EAC article to link to the EAC Configuration page and remove the EAC and LAME/OGG/etc. links (in future these pages should be accessable through the EAC Compressions Options page).
Then the drive config page has to be edited to fit in this scheme.
And of course the other pages have to be created.

I'll do this step by step when I can spend some time and keep you informed in this thread. Shout as soon as you think things got messed up. Also feel free to edit the newly created articles when you think you have some better phrasing and/or detected errors.

greynol

Aug 8 2007, 11:08

Sounds great!

It'll be good to only have one page dedicated to compression options that don't need to change from codec to codec. I already edited the EAC/Lame page and then noticed some of the same edits would apply to the other pages (CRC check, Check for return code). Now we'll more easily be able to tell people not to use a compression offset.

exec

Aug 8 2007, 11:22

QUOTE(greynol @ Aug 8 2007, 19:08)

Yes, all these "codec guides" may be (partly) merged together in the "EAC compression options" page. Only specific information about the codec (e.g. command line options, tips, etc.) may stay in seperate pages. I think tomorrow I'll create all the pages as stubs (just would need some help to get these pages filled with correct info or at least some proofreading).

pepoluan

Aug 9 2007, 01:36

QUOTE(greynol @ Aug 3 2007, 03:14)

Where's pepoluan?

Whoa, someone called my name with big black fonts

But seriously, what do you expect me to do? Sorry I didn't really follow the discussion; hectic times at work for the past 2 weeks.

If you have good ideas on how to make the wiki better, or even better, you've written a good EAC guide yourself but got flummoxed when you want to edit the wiki, send me:

An .rtf or .doc file with your guide, properly formatted, with pictures embedded.
Supporting picture files in .jpg or (preferably) .png format

Then I'll see what I can do.

PM me, and I'll PM you with my email.

Edit: Oops, I see Exec has started to work on the EAC pages. Sorry, didn't see that post

Really I should read a thread in its entirety before posting a reply.

Good Luck, Exec!

Moderation: Trimmed unecessarily large quote block. Please keep quotes reasonable.

buzzy

Aug 14 2007, 11:02

QUOTE(greynol @ Aug 2 2007, 02:29)

Yes, but so many options are a matter of personal taste and are otherwise completely inconsequential.

Not really, for those who need a guide. The Coaster Factory had a recommended option for each setting that made sense, which was great because you could tell people to just set it up that way, and they'd learn later on what it meant. That worked well.

greynol

Aug 14 2007, 11:37

QUOTE(buzzy @ Aug 14 2007, 10:02)

QUOTE(greynol @ Aug 2 2007, 02:29)

Yes, but so many options are a matter of personal taste and are otherwise completely inconsequential.

I'm not so sure all of the Coaster Factory's recommendations made sense. Its Quickstart Manual is responsible for spreading quite a bit of misconception (to be honest, I'm happy to see that it's gone). EDIT: To clarify, I'm happy to see the Quickstart Manual gone; I'm not happy to see the Coaster Factory gone.

Some people prefer to be told what to do, so I respect where you're coming from; but do we really need to recommend whether EAC instructs your PC to beep after it's done ripping?

Anyhow, I think the wiki should be able to accommodate everyone. It's just a matter of creating the pages and organizing them so that readers don't get overwhelmed with so much information. I think it would be great to see more people throw in their hats and start contributing.

exec

Aug 17 2007, 04:17

Sorry guys, but I have a whole lot of work to do these days so not really much time for creating/editing wiki articles. However, today I finally took the time to create an article about the EAC wizard just to start with. Comments/suggestions?

During working on it I've realized that we do not have any article about AccurateRip. I think it would also be a great idea to put some information about the AR functionality in the wiki, because I've seen many discussions about it in the forums. Hey, where's greynol?...

Edit: Just created a new thread about newly created/restructured EAC articles in the wiki here.
Only because this thread title here is hopefully not related to these new articles.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.