Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: New Pioneer burner to make EAC and co. unnecessary? (Read 19876 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

New Pioneer burner to make EAC and co. unnecessary?

Reply #25 –
Quote from: JeanLuc on
My Premium 1 (in conjunction with Plextools) ripped audio CD's that no other drive could rip

Were you able to verify these rips with a secondary source?

New Pioneer burner to make EAC and co. unnecessary?

Reply #26 –
Quote from: greynol on
Were you able to verify these rips with a secondary source?


Not exactly because no other drive could rip the disc ... EAC hung up on me and Plextools Pro has never supported AccurateRip ... but I, of course, did a second Plextools rip on the same drive that turned out to be bit-identical to the first rip in that special case. Listening also did not reveal any bad spots so it was just fine with me.
The name was Plex The Ripper, not Jack The Ripper

New Pioneer burner to make EAC and co. unnecessary?

Reply #27 –
I actually meant against a different copy of the same disc (or with AccurateRip which I have used successfully to test non-EAC and non-dBpoweramp rips); identical rips of the same disc aren't terribly compelling.

Anyhow, not having owned a Premium myself, I'll take your word that they are better than the PX-7XX series.

New Pioneer burner to make EAC and co. unnecessary?

Reply #28 –
Quote from: greynol on
identical rips of the same disc aren't terribly compelling.


I surely have encountered some consistent read errors in my life (especially with CDS200) ... but from my experience and opinion, their percentage of occurrence is nowhere near that of read errors leading to random values.

As for my special case, the ripped CD extremely rare, out of print and not present in the AR database.

I guess I'll just have to live with it.
The name was Plex The Ripper, not Jack The Ripper

New Pioneer burner to make EAC and co. unnecessary?

Reply #29 –
Quote from: greynol on
Anyhow, not having owned a Premium myself, I'll take your word that they are better than the PX-7XX series.


I have been fanatically happy with my PX-712SA. It is the best ripper I have. I have a 708 laying around that I need to try. I really want to give the 716 a go, but dont have one yet. The 7xx series seems to be very good and certainly outperforms my 2 premiums.

New Pioneer burner to make EAC and co. unnecessary?

Reply #30 –
Differing experiences are always interesting to read.

I've found LG as well as Lite-On drives that perform better than my PX-716A.

@JeanLuc:
Errors do not cause drives to produce random results.

Short of verifying with a secondary source, how do you know when you've encountered a consistent error and when you haven't?

New Pioneer burner to make EAC and co. unnecessary?

Reply #31 –
Quote from: greynol on
@JeanLuc:
Errors do not cause drives to produce random results.


Which is not what I have written ... but I do know what you mean.

Quote from: greynol on
Short of verifying with a secondary source, how do you know when you've encountered a consistent error and when you haven't?


My experience with ~1500 ripped discs during the last 2 years (using both AR and different drives) lead to that rather personal (but nonetheless sufficient for me) conclusion.
The name was Plex The Ripper, not Jack The Ripper

New Pioneer burner to make EAC and co. unnecessary?

Reply #32 –
Quote from: JeanLuc on
Quote from: greynol on
Errors do not cause drives to produce random results.
Which is not what I have written ... but I do know what you mean.
You mentioned reading errors leading to random values from which I drew the logical conclusion.  Reading errors do not result in random values.

Quote from: JeanLuc on
Quote from: greynol on
Short of verifying with a secondary source, how do you know when you've encountered a consistent error and when you haven't?
My experience with ~1500 ripped discs during the last 2 years (using both AR and different drives) lead to that rather personal (but nonetheless sufficient for me) conclusion.
That doesn't answer the question.

New Pioneer burner to make EAC and co. unnecessary?

Reply #33 –
>Lite-On

For testing I have an Lite-ON Super write (20a1p), it is poor with scratched cds, one cd I call medium scratches the drive does not recognize the cd, stuck in a loop trying to read TOC. Most drives only complain with a heavy scratched cd.

Re: New Pioneer burner to make EAC and co. unnecessary?

Reply #34 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Fandango on
Yes, this drive could be a PITA for secure ripping.
As Sebastian put it, the drive will make secure ripping unnecessary.  The problem is that "secure" seems to be moving farther away from accurate.  It's bad enough that so many people mistakenly believe that getting the same result twice means it was accurate.  Now a drive that averages bad data and calls the result good???

Does this mean that even if you just use "burst" method, would that mean that it will turn out secure, without using secure ripping function?

Re: New Pioneer burner to make EAC and co. unnecessary?

Reply #35 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: woody_woodward on
It isn't always possible to get a 'perfect' read.  Striving for the 'best' read even when 'perfect' isn't possible is a laudable objective.
I agree, but hopefully this won't be done in such a way as to conceal less than perfect reads from secure ripping programs.

Does anyone know if Pure Read conceals less than perfect reads from secure ripping programs?
 

Re: New Pioneer burner to make EAC and co. unnecessary?

Reply #36 –
Quote from: pioneerate on
Does anyone know if Pure Read conceals less than perfect reads from secure ripping programs?

You know this thread is from 13 years ago?

Ignore me, I realise you're asking for info....it might be better to start a new thread rather than re-open a 13 year old one though.