Skip to main content

Topic: Problem with EAC (Read 4368 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Akephalos
  • [*]
Problem with EAC
I am currently ripping all my Cds to flac with eac, but there is a problem:

Eac reads out the CDs correctly, this is not the problem but there are two problems that irritate me.
1. Eac detects different gaps, depending on what detection method i use, how can i find out which one is the correct?
2. Eac only reads out my audio Cds with about 2x Speed, this is very slow. I tried to speed it up by setting the speed manually in the configuration, but it doesn't affect anything. My drive is a LG GH22NS40, has anyone the same problems with the drive?
The thing that irritates me about that point is that when i am ripping with foobar it speeds up the discs correctly, you only take about 5 minutes to rip a CD securely while with EAC it takes about 15 Minutes.
Another thing that i wonder about is that EAC is reacting very slow when i am ripping a cd, it takes about 5 seconds to get it to the front when minimized into the taskbar. Why could this be? My PC should be fast enough with a phenom II x3 720 and 4 gb ram.

Anybody got an idea?
  • Last Edit: 12 October, 2009, 10:32:29 AM by Akephalos

  • Eli
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Problem with EAC
Reply #1
The problems with slow response are not unusual. Andre said some time ago when I brought this up on the EAC forums that it would take a complete re-write to fix and that he didn't have any plans to do so. On challenging discs it would get so bad my system would not respond at all and the only way to get my system back was a restart of the system with the power button... You may want to try dBpoweramp as I have not had this problem with it. dBpoweramp will not do gap detection at this time though (until R14).

  • Akephalos
  • [*]
Problem with EAC
Reply #2
Does nobody know why the rips are so incredibly slow with my dvd device? How can i speed up the ripping process?

  • twostar
  • [*][*][*][*]
Problem with EAC
Reply #3
You could use burst mode T&C or secure with C2 (if your drive supports it) T&C for CDs not in the AR database.

  • Akephalos
  • [*]
Problem with EAC
Reply #4
You could use burst mode T&C or secure with C2 (if your drive supports it) T&C for CDs not in the AR database.

I don't want to use burst mode, i want to have the secure rips on my hard drive.
I thought the Problem would be an issue with the ASPi driver, but it isnt, in burst mode my drive speeds up properly but in secure mode its incredibly slow and only gets up to about 2.0x speed.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Problem with EAC
Reply #5
Burst mode with T&C or AR verification, as twostar pointed out, is secure.
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • Akephalos
  • [*]
Problem with EAC
Reply #6
Burst mode with T&C or AR verification, as twostar pointed out, is secure.

But what do i do when AR is not able to verify my CD because its a different pressing or something? I feel safer when i know that im using the secure mode.

I now discovered an interesting point: when i enable the C2-error-detection then the drive speeds up properly, but many tutorials say, that the C2-error-detection is not good.
What should i do know? Is it so bad to have C2 enabled?

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Problem with EAC
Reply #7
I guess I should have put the word "or" in bold as well.  Burst T&C is no less secure than secure mode when the checksums match.

What you should do is read our wiki regarding settings.  There is little about burst T&C or other ripping techniques besides secure mode, or i would have told you to read the wiki earlier.
  • Last Edit: 13 October, 2009, 02:11:54 PM by greynol
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • Akkurat
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Problem with EAC
Reply #8
Burst T&C is no less secure than secure mode when the checksums match.

I've to confess that this baffles me. I can't remember seeing this discussed here before. Since matching CRC's with erroneous data is possible, isn't the secure mode better because it's theoretically more likely to catch errors since it's reading the data more often? I'm really baffled since my knowledge (FWIW) & intuition (not very scientific ) tells me that secure mode is better but on the other hand, I know your vast knowledge about EAC (+other things).

I faintly remember seeing a numbered list* of different methods to make sure that you get the most secure/accurate rips as possible posted by, umm, was it spoon, in some thread and since that I've wondered sometimes that something like that should be put to the Wiki and end these endless topics/posts about what mode/etc. is better/secure/accurate.

* e.g. (this might be wrong, but it's a opener ):

Method - how secure/accurate it is
1) AR verification (1 match of all tracks within one offset is enough if it's not your own submission to the AR database) - very reliable (odds? one in 4 billion?)
2) Burst copy & secure test matching CRC's with different drives (note! not same chipsets) - how reliable? (first and last tracks (could) yield different CRC's if drive offsets are not the same?)
3) Burst copy & secure test matching CRC's - how reliable?
4) Secure copy & test matching CRC's - how reliable?
5) Burst copy & test matching CRC's - how reliable?
6) etc.?

+ some notes about these, e.g. info about that matching CRC's are not a guarantee of perfect rips, "track quality 100%" doesn't guarantee perfect rip, etc.

What do you think? Would this be a good idea? First discussing it in a topic and then put it in Wiki? I've Wiki rights so I can help there if others with rights are not willing.
  • Last Edit: 13 October, 2009, 06:23:02 PM by Akkurat

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Problem with EAC
Reply #9
Since matching CRC's with erroneous data is possible, isn't the secure mode better because it's theoretically more likely to catch errors since it's reading the data more often?

No.  With the exception of overlapping for synchronization and assuming no use of C2 pointers, secure mode reads data from the disc twice; the same amount read when using test and copy in burst mode.

What do you think? Would this be a good idea? First discussing it in a topic and then put it in Wiki? I've Wiki rights so I can help there if others with rights are not willing.

It would be a good idea, yes.  I posted an order of ripping methods that I trust once or twice, but I haven't looked for them, but they basically follow the order you laid out, though it is my belief that burst t&c is more reliable than secure t&c since secure mode is more likely to deliver a consistent error than burst mode in circumstances where identical errors present themselves often enough to fool EAC's >7 out of 16 re-read threshold, but not often enough that they're going to present themselves in two out of only two attempts.  Maybe I'll do a little searching later, since there have been many good discussions on the subject.

Since you're saying secure/accurate, I'd like to take the opportunity to make sure that those reading realize that secure and accurate are not the same thing.  Secure rips are not necessarily error-free.

(odds? one in 4 billion?)

For this 1 in 4 billion figure to be valid, there will have to be equal coverage of all data and that any checksum is just as likely as any other.  History will show this to be false:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....mp;#entry756260
  • Last Edit: 07 October, 2013, 01:48:32 PM by greynol
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • Akkurat
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Problem with EAC
Reply #10
secure mode reads data from the disc twice; the same amount read when using test and copy in burst mode.

Ahaa, I misread. I thought it was burst T&C Vs. secure T&C.

Since you're saying secure/accurate, I'd like to take the opportunity to make sure that those reading realize that secure and accurate are not the same thing.  Secure rips are not necessarily error-free.

Good catch. I now see how my post could give wrong ideas. That gives me an idea to put a divider in that list which cuts accurate and secure methods apart. As far as I understand, only the first, the AR method, could be considered as accurate, others secure.

  • pdq
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Problem with EAC
Reply #11
I have never been happy with using the term "secure", since it really isn't.