This CRC method only works for tracks with errors detected, and all corrected, that is very uncommon.(The only way so far to test the C2 accuracy is the DAEquality kit)EDIT : I'm talking about the CRC method for checking secure mode, not for checking a rip (in the latter case, it nearly always works).
I meant that if you turn C2 on, then test and copy a CD, and get the same CRC, it doesn't prove anything. It is even likely to happen if your drive have no C2 support at all ! It is common to get a correct extraction with a good CD, thus CRC OK.So you can't say that if you get CRC OK on a C2 rip, your drive have perfect C2 support.
Of course you get CRC mismatches only when C2 is on, because a "no C2 mode" failure means a consistent error, that is twice the same wrong CRC !thus the CRC method can't be used to test the secure mode accuracy, since CRC comparison is the same as readig twice. Either they both succeed, either they both fail.
I trust "No C2" because (implicitly assuming "an error, in most of the cases, do not occur the same way, and is random by nature") my CRCs are reproducable. Wheras on the tracks I have a mismatch with the CRC of "C2 on" and "C2 off", the "C2 on" could not produce the same CRC repeatedly.
How does a drive realize it made a mistake if there's no error detection mechanism in audio CDs?
In the same manner I'm sure there're other errors in some of my CDs, which C2 system could not realize because there's no indication that the byte has a flaw
But if there were a real time deglitch system built in EAC, maybe we could correct those errors. Was the experimental switch related to "C2 error correction" that is removed from newest prebetas coded for that purpose?
a) 990 not repeatable and detected by C2. b ) 5 repeatable and detected by C2, c) 5 not repeatable and not detected by C2.
The 5 b ) errors are detected, but not corrected, though EAC believes they are
There is an error detection, and correction, mechanism in audio CDs
the kind of approach I see too often these days, i.e. regarding * guide as some kind of bible and any other rips other than * ones as inferior, is pissing me off. Maybe I started to project that to everyone whose signature involves *
I think terminologywise "consistent" is a better term
There're also "D) consistent (repeating) errors that C2 could not detect" that I was referring to.
I don't understand this. If EAC gets constant C2 errors no matter how many times it reads, wouldn't it go on indefinitely?Or does it just give up even though C2 tells something is wrong after sufficiently many multiple reads?
isn't C2 also an error correction mechanism? Is there some B type errors that could be corrected with the help of C2 information?
Hmm, I've naively believed [...] that [..], Audio CDs have no error detection/correction mechanism. [...] So what's the difference then?
Hello! "CD ROMs are like audio CD with error recovery files included. An audio CDR has a capacity of 740, or 800 MB. A CD ROM records 650 or 700 MB of data and 90 or 100 MB of error recovery data. In order to benefit from them in audio, just burn wav files on data CDs"How can i do this correctly? I mean burning wav files?