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: I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page (Read 16255 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #25 –
Pretty much every drive in the last 4-5 years is accurate stream, or they would not work with AccurateRip. Personally I would drop it as it only confuses things.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #27 –
Quote
2) The issue is not whether drives with Accurate Stream can be used, but whether drives without Accurate Stream can be used. I guess you decided not to read the comments I made earlier.

3) I'm saying that just because a drive has the ability to provide C2 pointers does not mean that it won't work with XLD. This has an entirely different meaning from saying that XLD cannot make use of a drive's ability to provide C2 pointers.

What about #1??? We really shouldn't be writing articles that simply copy information from other ones, especially when this information is not correct. Some of what is being copied over gives me the feeling that I'm being marketed to, rather than being given objective (and verifiable!) information.


I understand what you are saying and I will make changes to the page, but the problem here in lies that you guys make everything so damn confusing. You keep referring to the hardware. I am talking about the software here. I am trying to help clarify things here that's why I expanded the page.

Here is what I did. I Fixed #1. #2 ok it should read "Does XLD/EAC/dbPowerAMP work on drives that DON'T support AccurateStream?" it's either that or we just drop AccurateStream if it's a hardware feature #3 Well does it work with XLD? Well does XLD have the ability to provide C2 error pointers via the software? I think we need to get some more information on that. That was the whole purpose of expanding the page. Maybe I should just put (software) next to each one seeing that's all we are concerned about.
budding I.T professional

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #28 –
Spoon is right.  We should just drop the Accurate Stream thing.  I have not seen or heard of a drive that cannot consistently seek to an address down to the exact sample in at least the last 5 years.  FWIW, drives that don't have Accurate Steam need a ripping mode that performs synchronization.  EAC has this ability as does cdparanoia; dBpoweramp does not.

So that you know, it's the drive that provides C2 pointers.  Software does not provide C2 pointers; software receives C2 pointers (but only when the pointers are requested).  XLD does not request C2 pointers, but this doesn't mean that it can't be used with a drive just because the drive is capable of providing them.

This is nonsense too:  "If the full 1,000 bytes are erroneous, than a false repair seems to be highly unlikely since there are 2561000 = 1.73 * 102408 combinations."  It wrongly assumes an equal likelihood of each combination.  I'd actually scrap the entire paragraph.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #29 –
>dBpoweramp does not

As far as burst ripping, dBpoweramp will work with non-accurate stream drives as our routines stream the audio from the drive so that syncing is not required.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #30 –
Beginning with version 20080921a, XLD now supports C2 ripping (with C2-capable drives, of course).

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #31 –
Quote
Beginning with version 20080921a, XLD now supports C2 ripping (with C2-capable drives, of course).


Thanks for the tip I will update that on the Secure Ripping page. Thanks again. 
budding I.T professional

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #32 –
Quote
Note: Any rippers not listed on this page are not considered "secure" and are therefore not recommended by the Hydrogenaudio community (i.e example such the Itunes Ripper).
Foobar2000 is a secure ripper, and from what I understand Easy CDDA Extractor is a secure ripper also.

>Accurate Stream
Drives don't "support" accurate stream.  They either have the accurate stream feature or don't have the accurate stream feature.  But as has already been discussed and without having to get into the details of whether dBpoweramp can successfully perform re-reads with drives that do not have this feature, the article should not bother with Accurate Stream.

>EAC is a nightmare to configure
Quote from: twostar on
Setting up EAC is just a matter of following the config wizard, changing 3 options from their defaults and using T&C if C2 is detected. I wouldn't call that a nightmare even for a new user.
+1

>CDex is painless to configure
Regular questions about how to get Lame to work according to the latest recommendations tend to contradict this claim.

>CDex can provide the same secure rip's [sic] without the extra features like C2 error pointers
Luckily the wording is "can" and not "will".  If I show you a disc that can be ripped correctly with dBpoweramp or EAC but not with CDex, will you remove this claim?

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #33 –
Quote
Foobar2000 is a secure ripper, and from what I understand Easy CDDA Extractor is a secure ripper also.


I changed that comment to reflect CD rippers that aren't listed on the page. I am sure there are quite a few of them. 

Quote
>Accurate Stream
Drives don't "support" accurate stream. They either have the accurate stream feature or don't have the accurate stream feature. But as has already been discussed and without having to get into the details of whether dBpoweramp can successfully perform re-reads with drives that do not have this feature, the article should not bother with Accurate Stream


Well you are specifically referring to EAC and dbPowerAMP, which we already know with dbPowerAMP. I would be willing to bet EAC works on drives that don't have Accurate Stream.  I can fix the wording on that.  I am not really concerned with EAC and dbPowerAMP.  We already know that main focus with these two applications is on Accurate Stream, Caching, and C2 error correcting. Why we NEED to know is if the other rippers work on drives that DON'T have Accurate Stream. I did some research on it and you are correct. A majority of drives have an Accurate Stream feature.

Quote
This is nonsense too: "If the full 1,000 bytes are erroneous, than a false repair seems to be highly unlikely since there are 2561000 = 1.73 * 102408 combinations." It wrongly assumes an equal likelihood of each combination. I'd actually scrap the entire paragraph.


I removed this ripping logic as stated. We are only concerned MD5 checksums that Rubyripper uses to do secure ripping.


Quote
>CDex is painless to configure
Regular questions about how to get Lame to work according to the latest recommendations tend to contradict this claim.

>CDex can provide the same secure rip's [sic] without the extra features like C2 error pointers
Luckily the wording is "can" and not "will". If I show you a disc that can be ripped correctly with dBpoweramp or EAC but not with CDex, will you remove this claim?


To answer the first question that's, because not enough guides have been written for it. Once I do some research I plan to change that.

The answer to the second question is "no"  . I would need to see a secure ripping test done between EAC and CDex again with the new cdparanoia libaries. The cache issue has been addressed and I am still not sure what people are complaining about. Pio2000 did a test in the past that was inconclusive.
budding I.T professional

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #34 –
Quote from: HotshotGG on
I am not really concerned with EAC and dbPowerAMP.  We already know that main focus with these two applications is on Accurate Stream, Caching, and C2 error correcting.
Actually, this is the focus of EAC's three main secure mode settings.  Why this entire article is forcing other programs to be categorized by these three features is beyond me. 

Quote from: HotshotGG on
To answer the first question that's, because not enough guides have been written for it.
In the meantime CDex isn't exactly painless to configure, now is it?  Yet EAC has plenty of good documentation now, but it's a "nightmare" to configure.   

Quote from: HotshotGG on
The answer to the second question is "no"  . I would need to see a secure ripping test done between EAC and CDex again with the new cdparanoia libaries. The cache issue has been addressed and I am still not sure what people are complaining about. Pio2000 did a test in the past that was inconclusive.
So you're 1) making conclusive statements about results from an inconclusive test and 2) continuing to insist that this article be based on a version of a program that doesn't yet exist and be based on guides that don't yet exist.