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: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE (Read 28259 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE

Reply #125 –
Quote from: SF01 on
How will the information be wrong, if those will be the settings used.
Don't you even read replies?

Quote from: itisljar on
my inquiry, which was specifically "how to get rid of the error
... no, you don't.

Re: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE

Reply #126 –
What is with the AR database? Would this crap enter when pseudo ripped from a virtual drive?
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE

Reply #127 –
There would need to be 2 or more people with, eh, the same workflow.
Not gonna happen.

Re: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE

Reply #128 –
And even if that happened twice, nobody else would you ever encounter those AR hits in this particular case.

Worse are those cases where you buy files that are ripped with errors from an actual CD. At least dBpoweramp tries to protect against submitting from virtual drives that mis-identify as actual drives - I don't know what EAC does, but in the very least it is possible to take some such measures. Also if a virtual drive identifies as such, the AccurateRip database will know, and results from doubtful drives are purged every now and then. Not saying it is fool-proof.

Re: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE

Reply #129 –
Thanks. One rip done with EAC and one in CUETools may be enough then.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE

Reply #130 –
Maybe for the CUETools database. I don't know about AccurateRip:
* Does CUETools even submit to the AccurateRip database? Anyway, just repeat the question with "EAC and dBpoweramp" instead.
* For that, I don't know: but IIRC dBpoweramp (the application) identifies the system configuration, so if you have a computer with two drives, use the first to rip with dBp, uninstall dBp completely and reinstall it and rip with the other drive, two identical won't count.
I don't know if EAC uses the same. (I'd be mildly surprised if they don't.)

Re: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE

Reply #131 –
Quote from: Porcus on
And even if that happened twice, nobody else would you ever encounter those AR hits in this particular case.

Worse are those cases where you buy files that are ripped with errors from an actual CD. At least dBpoweramp tries to protect against submitting from virtual drives that mis-identify as actual drives - I don't know what EAC does, but in the very least it is possible to take some such measures. Also if a virtual drive identifies as such, the AccurateRip database will know, and results from doubtful drives are purged every now and then. Not saying it is fool-proof.

Virtual drives are presented as suc in the EAC log. It's also unlikely that enyone else will have the same workflow, so in worst case scenario there will be an unusable entry in the database that will veryfy against itself in case I need to reprocess anything in the future, but if the records are purged periodically then there won't be anything to verify against.

Re: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE

Reply #132 –
Quote from: Porcus on
* Does CUETools even submit to the AccurateRip database? Anyway, just repeat the question with "EAC and dBpoweramp" instead.
IIRC CUETools can only compare your rip to existing AR entries. It cannot submit new results.

Re: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE

Reply #133 –
Still CUETools db may store some from EAC with plugin or CUETools itself.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE

Reply #134 –
Quote from: SF01 on
How will the information be wrong, if those will be the settings used.
Because you're converting your downloaded files from one format to another, not ripping a CD.

You need a new workflow for your downloaded files that does not involve EAC or any virtual CDs. You refuse to use any new workflow that doesn't produce a log file. So, what information do you need to see in a log file to be convinced that the new workflow without EAC is working correctly?

Re: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE

Reply #135 –
In fairness to the OP he's never stated that the convoluted act of taking downloaded files, mounting them as an image to then just turn them back into individual files offers any benefit, it just silences the voices in his head from his OCD; he literally just wants a text file that looks similar to all the other text files (from actual CD rips) to sit alongside the music. Please stop trying to understand his "logic" and workflow, we all know it makes no sense but that doesn't matter to him.

With regards to AccurateRip submissions, virtual drive submissions are excluded as are any real submissions from that user as noted here, that's why they recommended CUETools for splitting/verifying from anything other than actual CDs.

Re: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE

Reply #136 –
Quote from: SimBun on
In fairness to the OP he's never stated that the convoluted act of taking downloaded files, mounting them as an image to then just turn them back into individual files offers any benefit, it just silences the voices in his head from his OCD; he literally just wants a text file that looks similar to all the other text files (from actual CD rips) to sit alongside the music. Please stop trying to understand his "logic" and workflow, we all know it makes no sense but that doesn't matter to him.

With regards to AccurateRip submissions, virtual drive submissions are excluded as are any real submissions from that user as noted here, that's why they recommended CUETools for splitting/verifying from anything other than actual CDs.

This pretty much sums up my approach.

So you can exclude submissions from certain computer addresses including real CDs so that rips done by specific computer's owner are not stored in the db?

Re: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE

Reply #137 –
Quote from: SF01 on
So you can exclude submissions from certain computer addresses including real CDs so that rips done by specific computer's owner are not stored in the db?
I have no idea what level they block at but would assume it's either machine or EAC/dBpoweramp instance. I've never tried to look at the traffic going back to AccurateRip but I don't think it's secure so you can probably see what's being sent, although looking at the EAC AccurateRip submission screen it contains a string at the bottom labelled Computer, so I assume it's that, although I don't know what it's derived from.

Re: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE

Reply #138 –
Quote from: SimBun on
Quote from: SF01 on
So you can exclude submissions from certain computer addresses including real CDs so that rips done by specific computer's owner are not stored in the db?
I have no idea what level they block at but would assume it's either machine or EAC/dBpoweramp instance. I've never tried to look at the traffic going back to AccurateRip but I don't think it's secure so you can probably see what's being sent, although looking at the EAC AccurateRip submission screen it contains a string at the bottom labelled Computer, so I assume it's that, although I don't know what it's derived from.

Yeah, if it's useful to them.

Re: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE

Reply #139 –
Quote
In fairness to the OP he's never stated that the convoluted act of taking downloaded files, mounting them as an image to then just turn them back into individual files offers any benefit, it just silences the voices in his head from his OCD;

I'll be straight: there is another possible reason, but the poster is not being obsessive, but just is exceptionally careful of not violating the TOS. And the mere fact of wanting to falsify EAC/AccurateRip results to facilitate is just...disappointing. Though not unexpected especially with todays standards...

I thought cred was earnt, not stolen. I'll just leave at that.  ::)

Re: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE

Reply #140 –
Quote from: mudlord on
Quote
In fairness to the OP he's never stated that the convoluted act of taking downloaded files, mounting them as an image to then just turn them back into individual files offers any benefit, it just silences the voices in his head from his OCD;

I'll be straight: there is another possible reason, but the poster is not being obsessive, but just is exceptionally careful of not violating the TOS. And the mere fact of wanting to falsify EAC/AccurateRip results to facilitate is just...disappointing. Though not unexpected especially with todays standards...

I thought cred was earnt, not stolen. I'll just leave at that.  ::)

Believe me, I am not excepttionally careful, in fact I had been temporarily banned on multiple occasions on various databases and fb groups for being very OCD and some admins thought wat you were thinking, but after explaining my condition they would usually understand that they assumed incorrectly.

What today standards?
AR will be purging the results either way, so it's only for my othereise useless to anyone else 1s and 0s encoded in an artificial log file.
What would I possibly gain, if I was operating under your assumed pretenses?

Re: EAC Unhandled exception at ASPI32.4152 -> ASSIGN-RANGE

Reply #141 –
OK, problem solved, the latest CueTools works fine, the option that must be turned off to not trigger the "Invalid stride" is "Verify using CTDB". The TOC is written to separate file however.