Yea I know, another set of questions on the correct way to set up EAC for "the perfect rip". Sorry . However I've not been satisfied with the answers I've found in the wiki, and hopefully after I'm all cleared up, I'll be able to put the advice you've given me into the wiki (with the permission of Jan S. of course).

Well, I've actually set up EAC fine (the F9 options at least), however when it comes to setting up a drive from what I've found here in this post by greynol, a different array of settings should constitute a different method of approaching the ripping process. My drive only has Accurate Stream, so the most efficient method would be to rip in burst mode and if AccurateRip says it was a good rip with a confidence of say over 5 then that's good enough, yes? Otherwise fall back to secure mode with medium error recovery quality (as high is overkill).

Also I remember somewhere that it's a good idea to check the value AccurateRip returns for an offset should be checked several times for accuracy, but having done this the once I cannot for the life of me find a button or anything anywhere to do it. I know there is the checkbox in the "Offset/Speed" tab of the drive settings but that doesn't re-check it and when I've deselected it and checked the offset with EAC's inbuilt offset checker I've got wildly different values from ~+600 to ~+1350, however each CD always gives me the same offset. Any help on these numbers as from my point of view (you can guess the pun coming up I'm sure) just don't add up. (I warned you - I'm terrible at jokes ). This question relates to some of the info I give later on in the post concerning gaps, but seems better to put the question here (yea alright i'm an obsessive compulsive control freak who just has to know everything about what's going on), but when the CRC of track is compared to the one on the AccurateRip server, was it calculated with or without the gap that is attached to the track (assuming you chose to add the gaps to the tracks)?


Secondly, the issue over Gap settings and cue sheets and actually starting the ripping process...

From what I can see, I need to:

1. Detect the gaps using F4
2. Then check that they only contain silence using F3 (however I've no idea what to do if they don't)
3. Then create a cue sheet (which is best?)
4. Then finally, carry out the rip per the instructions in paragraph 2.


I think I've worked out that if I were to rip with no gaps, then the cuesheet "Multiple WAVs with leftout gaps" would be the best for that situation; similarly "Multiple WAVs with Corrected gaps" would go with "Append gaps to next track"; and the non-compliant cuesheet would go with the "Append gaps to previous track". Please tell me I've got this right. And in theory, could they all result in an exact copy of the original CD to be produced with the correct gap timings and the whole works? (Leaving out all the issues of drive overburning and the burning offset etc. etc. as discussed...well all over the forum, no need to put links up, just search and you'll find a whole load of topics on the subject


And a very final last 2 questions about some of the options available to me in EAC:

1. Under the Actions menu, what is "Copy Selected Tracks Index-Based"?
2. Under the tools menu, what is "Remove gaps from TAO images"?


Lastly, a massive well done to those of you (if any) who managed to struggle through my incomprehensibility and stupidness of not being able to understand this from elsewhere and a literally MASSIVE thank you to those of you who can answer my questions.

Anyway I'm off to bed now as it's heading for 1am and I'll check back sometime tomorrow :sleep:. Thanks again,
AliL

Since you used the word "only", I guess it's safe to assume that your drive doesn't provide C2 pointers. However, whether it caches audio data is ambiguous since some don't consider it a feature. So, does your drive cache audio data?

If your drive caches audio data and your discs are in very good condition, then yes, this is the most efficient method. If you're expecting errors and think that you might get accurate results using secure mode, then using burst mode might not be the best choice. I fully realize that you really can't know this ahead of time, but I do think people have the ability to inspect a disc and make an educated guess. If EAC is having a difficult time, you can hopefully cancel the operation, make changes to the configuration and try again.

I wouldn't feel comfortable picking a hard number. If it said 100 then sure. If it said 1 and I'm not feeling terribly paranoid, then sure. If I was feeling paranoid for whatever reason (phase of the moon, the way my day had been going, etc.) then I might take additional steps like using a different drive or checking the rip against a different pressing in the database if one exists.

I wouldn't characterize it as overkill; the high setting increases the risk that EAC will pass a consistent error.

AR will determine whether you need to get consistent results form additional discs. Once it has set the value you don't need to worry about it ever again.

That's right (and you better hope you keep getting the same number, otherwise you have a bad disc or your drive isn't accurate stream-capable). The reason for the numbers disagreeing with one another and the result from AR is that they are from different pressings than the ones Andre used. His website has very specific instructions to check the code found on the inner-ring of the disc and to find at least two discs that give matching results, IIRC. Luckily this cumbersome and often unsuccessful method has been supplanted with AccurateRip.

AR is based on ripping with gaps appended to the previous track or not detected (there is no difference between the two).

I have no idea why you would want to do this.

You've got this right.

No. "PREGAP" lines found in a cue sheet insert frames of null samples. If the gap that they are replacing was something other than frames of null samples then your copy will not be exact. Maybe this is why one would press F3 (it's probably clear by now that I don't use that feature ). I recall questioning its accuracy in the past and I vaguely remember testing it; but I don't recall the results. Seldom is this ever an issue as most people I work with want gaps included.

So the only thing most people worry about is whether there is an additional gap before the first track that contains data that is non-null. If you append gaps to the next track or rip as a single-file image, this gap will be extracted without any additional effort. However, there are ways to get at this data when ripping with the default method of dealing with gaps. One is to rip as a range (F7) and the other is...Choosing this option will save the gap (INDEX 00) as a separate file as well as individual files for each of the other indices (there can be up to 99 of them) for each selected track. When using this method to get the gap before the first track, simply keep the file for the 00 index and delete the rest.

This is for ripping CD-Rs that were created in track-at-once mode or were created with 2 seconds of additional silence placed between tracks (Nero is notorious for doing this by default and forcing you to jump through hoops if you don't want it; every single time you want to burn a disc). The problem is that sometimes gap detection performed on these discs may give something other than 2 seconds (like 00:01:74) in which case it doesn't work as advertised.

Deleted because the quoting didn't format properly, sorry.

Hmmm, the reply system seems to limit me on the number of quotes I can do per post so I'm gonna have to split it into 3.



Sorry, I should have clarified in my original post. No, my drive does not cache audio data and you were right in thinking that it doesn't make use of C2 pointers either



Ok, so basically you're saying use burst mode unless you're getting errors or the disc looks in a bad way before you even start the rip. Common sense really



Ok...so depending on my level of paranoia at the time I should ideally try it on another drive but failing that T+C mode to get a CRC match.



Yea, I thought I'd read about that somewhere, but couldn't remember where. But you're basically saying stick to medium.



That's pretty neat. So I've done the test the once and it didn't ask for an additional disc so I'm good to go. Hurray!




OK, so I'll ignore these values and just use the one AccurateRip gave me. That's made life easier...well the ripping thing anyway, my life's not that bad



Sounds simple enough, but what if the gap doesn't contain silence? Won't the values be different when the gas are added to when they aren't?



Let's just say because I like total control...But if I'm appending gaps to the end of the previous track there's no need to worry about this as they'll be there anyway. It's just there for if I'm leaving out the gaps.



Another hurrah!



So in order to write a CD-R that's pretty much the same as the original I'd need to extract with gaps appended to the previous track and use a non-compliant cuesheet with it, making sure that there were no non-null samples before first track by either using the F3 function to check for me (which may or may not be perfectly accurate), or to extract as a range using F7 for the time as given by the detect gaps feature (F4) and to check the output externally (say in audacity although I don't know how) or to extract the INDEX 00 of track 1 and check externally. Stressful...

However if there was a pregap song or something, would I need to manually edit the cuesheet in order to incorporate this INDEX 00 track or would it already be accounted for and placed before the first track in the CD-R so if someone used the CD-R in a stereo they'd have to rewind to hear the song?



So this is only really needed if I'm ripping a CD that wasn't pressed. Which isn't a great plan anyway due to errors in writing the disc etc etc...so I'll just ignore it for now.


Many thanks for your patience greynol (and anyone else who is following my incoherent babble), and by the way, do you not sleep? I saw your posts were made at ~3:50am! Thaks again,

AliL

Edit: that's mad, it incorporated all my posts into one massive one!

Limited to 10, yet if you add another post within a given amount of time it will automatically be attached to the bottom of your previous post, so it worked out for you anyway.

That advice is more clear-cut when using drives that cache. Since your drive doesn't cache, then I would be more inclined to go with secure mode, unless your disc is in the AR database and is in good condition, then burst would be faster. Now for discs that are in such bad shape that secure mode takes a very long time to complete because of a massive amount of re-reads that ultimately result in read or sync errors, burst mode would probably make more sense.

Let's say AR said your tracks were accurate with a confidence of 5. How do you feel about the possibility that your disc may have a defect which is consistent with other discs from the same pressing and that some of these other discs were ripped in 5 different computers that are likely using drives similar to yours? When I pose this scenario, "defect" does not exclude discs that have copy protection.

It doesn't matter. Maybe I can make this more clear. When EAC detects gaps, it's simply looking for a marker. Say you walk from your house to the store and three quarters of the way there you pass a house with a red mailbox. Does the fact that you notice the red mailbox change any of the objects you pass along the way? Let's say there are nothing but vacant lots between the red mailbox and the store. Again, does noticing the red mail box affect whether those lots contain houses?

For discs where the first track begins at something like 00:00:32, I simply open up the first track in Audition and zoom into the beginning samples to check their amplitude. If it would seem that the pregap may contain samples that are not null, then I'd extract it. For pregaps that look like a true hidden track, I don't bother to open the first track in a wave editor. Note that not all drives are capable of extracting the pregap before the first track (which is commonly referred to as HTOA).

Yes.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=448865

Those times reflect where you live. The time of my first post prior to editing was 7:39pm.

Sounds like sound advice to me...(geddit - sound, music - I'm a comical genius ) But yea, that seems like a sensible idea.

I'm not too worried about the copy protection thing as I've only got 1 disc with copy protection and if I remember correctly when I first ripped it (before a HDD failure - yea I've learnt the make 2 backups lesson) it ripped fine, and was even classed as accurate by AccurateRip although that in no way means it was a perfect rip, but I have no better CD drive to rip with and when played back it sounded fine, so there was nothing else I could do. And if it's a problem in the pressing, then everyone else has the same problem so there's also nothing I can do. But I see your point, don't solely rely on AccurateRip values because they're not perfect. Heck the offset AccurateRip gave me isn't even accurate, it's 30 samples out if I remember correctly.

I see what you mean, the CRC is only calculated for the info up the the marker (/red mailbox ). Gotcha. So even if those samples (/lots) aren't null it won't make any difference as they're not taken into account when the CRC is being calculated.



One problem with the Audition idea. It costs £287. So, roughly $535. Massively inflated from the US price of $350, but let's not get into an economic debate. Whatever it costs, I can't afford it.

I don't suppose there's any way of finding out if my drive can extract HTOA tracks short of trying it out for myself? But if I can I might as well extract it using the copy index based method and open that up in Aduacity. I know it's a much less efficient method than yours, but I don't really have a choice otherwise.



Brillo, thanks for the link.


I was sort of being sarcastic. Never mind

Many thanks once again greynol for your infinite patience. P.S. I recognise your avatar from somewhere I'm sure, could you tell me where?

No. The AR checksum (I'm not sure it can be technically classified as a CRC) is for the entire track including the data that would be the gap if gap detection was done. Whether the gap is silent or not is irrelevant.

Well if Audacity is able to show you that the beginning samples of the first track have an amplitude greater than zero, then have at it.

http://www.daefeatures.co.uk/htoa.php

The Smurfs. Someone once accused me of being a troll and since there's such a great affection of cats on this forum, I though it was fitting. This is the one I used to use...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/t..._the_Smurfs.jpg

Then I think you can be satisfied when AR returns a confidence of 1 (or 2 if you had previously submitted results for the disc you're ripping).

These two quotes seem contradictory to me. If the AR checksum is calculated track for a track when the gap wasn't detected but did contain non null data wouldn't that differ from a checksum where the non null data was detected and then included? If not, how does it make no difference? Are you saying the gap data is added anyway even though I haven't extracted it? Or has it been extracted but discreetly disposed of by EAC before the rest of the data is put into a .wav?



:S I'm confused. Assuming my drive can extract the HTOA as a .wav can I not open this up in Audacity and look at the waveform?



You seem to be the source of all links, many thanks yet again! If you didn't live in a different time zone I'd say I'd buy you a beer. Oh well, here's the next best thing



Aha, I knew it. Well I sort of did, but I haven't watched the smurfs for years. Btw if you like smurfs and aren't easily offended (I know many people would be offended by this) you should watch this clip on youtube by a brilliant irish comedian called Dylan Moran if you've not heard of him. Enjoy.

I'm saying there is no difference between ripping a track where gaps haven't been detected and ripping a track with gaps appended to the previous track, regardless of the content of the gap. The statements are in no way contradictory. I suppose the best thing to do is try it out for yourself.

You certainly can. I just don't know what the zooming capabilities are with Audacity; they could be better than Audition for all I know. The thing is sometimes the level in the pregap is like 80dB below full-scale. Then again, maybe preserving this data isn't really that important to you. Anyway, I make no claims of having the most efficient method, I just know that it works for me.

Thanks!

That's funny. Yeah, I bet they taste pretty good.

Yea, I suppose I should actually do it rather than argue the theory of the problem. But it's late and I'll do it tomorrow.



From a quick check it seems that the zooming capabilities of audacity are down to .000001 of a second and to .01 of a decibel. Seems accurate enough for my purposes

Sorry I'm not very good with this whole decibel and negative decibel thing. All I know is that 87dB is an important number for something and that it's a logarithmic scale.


You scare me now...

My point is that -80 dBfs signal is something you'll have to zoom to see and might not be worth the effort of grabbing.