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 Test & Copy (Read 9837 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EAC Test & Copy

Sorry.. terribly sorry if this is an old old hackneyed issue but I need some peace of mind.

I've been using EAC for years with Eli's guide. I use secure test and copy and verify my files against the accurate rip database.

It seems to be a common opinion that if the CRCs match (ie test & copy does not fail), EAC does not report errors, and the accurate rip database reports that the rip is accurate, that it IS IN FACT ACCURATE - regardless of whether caching or c2 pointers or any of that other stuff is going on (with the exception of normalizing the audio).

Would this forum consider this to be true?

Here's a rip of mine as an example:

Quote
Exact Audio Copy V0.99 prebeta 5 from 4. May 2009

EAC extraction logfile from 6. August 2010, 18:19

Jon Hassell/Brian Eno / Fourth World Vol. 1: Possible Musics

Used drive  : TSSTcorpDVD+-RW TS-L633C  Adapter: 0  ID: 1

Read mode              : Secure
Utilize accurate stream : Yes
Defeat audio cache      : No
Make use of C2 pointers : Yes

Read offset correction                      : 6
Overread into Lead-In and Lead-Out          : No
Fill up missing offset samples with silence : Yes
Delete leading and trailing silent blocks  : No
Null samples used in CRC calculations      : Yes
Used interface                              : Native Win32 interface for Win NT & 2000
Gap handling                                : Not detected, thus appended to previous track

Used output format              : User Defined Encoder
Selected bitrate                : 768 kBit/s
Quality                        : High
Add ID3 tag                    : No
Command line compressor        : C:\Program Files\Exact Audio Copy\FLAC\FLAC.EXE
Additional command line options : -8 -V -T "artist=%a" -T "title=%t" -T "album=%g" -T "date=%y" -T "tracknumber=%n" -T "genre=%m" %s


TOC of the extracted CD

    Track |  Start  |  Length  | Start sector | End sector
    ---------------------------------------------------------
        1  |  0:00.00 |  6:55.42 |        0    |    31166 
        2  |  6:55.42 |  3:29.15 |    31167    |    46856 
        3  | 10:24.57 |  4:02.58 |    46857    |    65064 
        4  | 14:27.40 |  6:17.70 |    65065    |    93409 
        5  | 20:45.35 |  3:10.00 |    93410    |  107659 
        6  | 23:55.35 | 21:33.40 |    107660    |  204674 


Track  1

    Filename C:\Documents and Settings\Ryan\My Documents\My Music\flac\[1980] jon hassell & brian eno - fourth world vol 1 possible musics\Jon Hassell,Brian Eno - Fourth World Vol. 1- Possible Musics - 01 - Chemistry.wav

    Peak level 75.2 %
    Track quality 100.0 %
    Test CRC 438D339E
    Copy CRC 438D339E
    Accurately ripped (confidence 9)  [3E46784C]
    Copy OK

Track  2

    Filename C:\Documents and Settings\Ryan\My Documents\My Music\flac\[1980] jon hassell & brian eno - fourth world vol 1 possible musics\Jon Hassell,Brian Eno - Fourth World Vol. 1- Possible Musics - 02 - Delta Rain Dream.wav

    Peak level 97.7 %
    Track quality 100.0 %
    Test CRC 224829B6
    Copy CRC 224829B6
    Accurately ripped (confidence 9)  [2847EC3D]
    Copy OK

Track  3

    Filename C:\Documents and Settings\Ryan\My Documents\My Music\flac\[1980] jon hassell & brian eno - fourth world vol 1 possible musics\Jon Hassell,Brian Eno - Fourth World Vol. 1- Possible Musics - 03 - Griot (over 'Contagious Magic').wav

    Peak level 74.4 %
    Track quality 100.0 %
    Test CRC 7340CEC6
    Copy CRC 7340CEC6
    Accurately ripped (confidence 9)  [D26A7931]
    Copy OK

Track  4

    Filename C:\Documents and Settings\Ryan\My Documents\My Music\flac\[1980] jon hassell & brian eno - fourth world vol 1 possible musics\Jon Hassell,Brian Eno - Fourth World Vol. 1- Possible Musics - 04 - Ba-Benzélé.wav

    Peak level 36.2 %
    Track quality 100.0 %
    Test CRC F1A4C6C6
    Copy CRC F1A4C6C6
    Accurately ripped (confidence 9)  [412E8EC3]
    Copy OK

Track  5

    Filename C:\Documents and Settings\Ryan\My Documents\My Music\flac\[1980] jon hassell & brian eno - fourth world vol 1 possible musics\Jon Hassell,Brian Eno - Fourth World Vol. 1- Possible Musics - 05 - Rising Thermal 14° 16' N; 32° 28' E.wav

    Peak level 18.9 %
    Track quality 100.0 %
    Test CRC 13B76E9F
    Copy CRC 13B76E9F
    Accurately ripped (confidence 9)  [B24FA7FE]
    Copy OK

Track  6

    Filename C:\Documents and Settings\Ryan\My Documents\My Music\flac\[1980] jon hassell & brian eno - fourth world vol 1 possible musics\Jon Hassell,Brian Eno - Fourth World Vol. 1- Possible Musics - 06 - Charm (over 'Burundi Cloud').wav

    Peak level 100.0 %
    Track quality 100.0 %
    Test CRC 33251E0D
    Copy CRC 33251E0D
    Accurately ripped (confidence 9)  [B8FB67A7]
    Copy OK


All tracks accurately ripped

No errors occurred

End of status report


I would very much appreciate your feedback. There seems to be a lot of paranoia and fear when it comes to EAC - I'd just like the facts! 
 

EAC Test & Copy

Reply #1 –
Tracks can still not be accurate even if T&C checksums match and EAC doesn't report errors, regardless of the secure mode settings that are chosen.  These types of errors are called consistent errors.  Feel free to search the forum if you wish to learn more about them.

Something you didn't mention is AccurateRip verification.  AR verification is by far an away the most robust method to ensure your rips are error free, though it can give you false positives from consistent errors as well.  The type of consistent errors that affect AR results will arise from multiple discs with a common manufacturing defect, a bug tied to a specific make and model drive, a bug in the ripping software, or any combination of these.  There is also the possibility that you're just getting a match from your own previous submission that had errors that were consistent (though a confidence number greater than one should rule-out this possibility).

In your quest for truth, sometimes facts can be rather inconvenient.

Again, there are plenty of discussions to be found on this forum about robust methods of ripping.  They can be found in this sub-forum: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showforum=20
This is the forum to which you should have posted your question, not the flac sub-forum.

EAC Test & Copy

Reply #2 –
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly!

I've actually done quite a bit of digging in the forums here. I actually avoid this place typically b/c I get obsessive about this sort of thing way too easily. What I've found is that there seems to be a consensus about virtually nothing on EAC in these forums. I try to follow guides like the one in the knowledge base here - but I recently discovered that a new drive I was using detected and enabled C2 in the drive options, which apparently is not recommended.

Despite this, EAC in secure mode reports no errors, test & copy goes fine, and it verifies with the accurate rip database. I've never encountered a click or a pop or an artifact in the audio. You can see an example in the one quoted above.

So, granting that no matter what I do, or what settings I tick, something may still go wrong:

Is it safe to say that if a rip passes T&C, reports no errors, and validates with a number larger than 1 in the accurate database, that the rip has been robust enough to ignore any more discussions about 'recommended settings' for EAC? In short - I don't want to re-rip this disc or any others if I am working off sheer enthusiast paranoia rather than real possibilities that my audio is damaged.

I would add that I am solely concerned about the audio. This is not about having an exact copy of the disc - I just want to know that the audio (from a sonic standpoint) is retaining its integrity.

PS - Sorry about being in the wrong forum btw - thanks for moving me. And thanks again for responding so quickly. I welcome any input!



EAC Test & Copy

Reply #3 –
>The type of consistent errors that affect AR results will arise from multiple discs with a common manufacturing defect, a bug tied to a specific make and model drive, a bug in the ripping software, or any combination of these.

IMHO it is not even worth mentioning these, because they are so rare.

EAC Test & Copy

Reply #4 –
Quote from: spoon on
>The type of consistent errors that affect AR results will arise from multiple discs with a common manufacturing defect, a bug tied to a specific make and model drive, a bug in the ripping software, or any combination of these.

IMHO it is not even worth mentioning these, because they are so rare.


So are we essentially saying that if a disc passes muster with Accurate Rip, we can, in an imperfect world, rely on the security of that rip? Regardless of C2 pointers or cache settings etc etc...

EAC Test & Copy

Reply #5 –
Here's my take on this:

1) Rip in burst copy mode only. If you get AccurateRip results of 1 (and it isn't your submission) or higher, then your rip was "Accurate".

2) If no AR results, then (best choice when you have only 1 drive*): Burst copy & secure test matching CRC's, then you have a "Secure" rip.

I'd make a clear distinction what is "Accurate" and "Secure" because they are like day and night, i.e. AccurateRip results are much more better proof of a good rip than "Secure" method results.

* Check the posts #9-11 in this topic for more information. And regarding that topic/posts, now very fitting for this topic also, a quote from myself in that topic:
Quote
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.

That was unfinished.. maybe now?

EAC Test & Copy

Reply #6 –
Quote from: thedisavowed on
So are we essentially saying that if a disc passes muster with Accurate Rip, we can, in an imperfect world, rely on the security of that rip? Regardless of C2 pointers or cache settings etc etc...


Yes, close to 100 million discs have passed through AccurateRip and been accurately ripped, of those if I had to guess the % which were effected by the afore mentioned problem it would be 0.0001% or less

EAC Test & Copy

Reply #7 –
Quote from: spoon on
Quote from: thedisavowed on
So are we essentially saying that if a disc passes muster with Accurate Rip, we can, in an imperfect world, rely on the security of that rip? Regardless of C2 pointers or cache settings etc etc...


Yes, close to 100 million discs have passed through AccurateRip and been accurately ripped, of those if I had to guess the % which were effected by the afore mentioned problem it would be 0.0001% or less


Wow, I had no idea that Accurate Rip was the most reliable ripping metric in EAC. Based upon what I understand now, a good Accurate Rip report is my best indication of my rip's quality - even more so than what EAC reports. I never knew this.

Edit: I would add that I can only imagine you guys get pelted with questions like this here. I finally decided to post b/c I was just tired of wading through endless threads of speculation and ripping dogma. I almost wish there was a version of EAC that was less configurable - a version for dummies like me. I know nothing about the deep esoterica of ripping - I just want a big button that says 'RIP TO FLAC' on the page that I press when I put the CD in that I know a good majority at Hydrogen Audio agree with....

Developers start your engines

EAC Test & Copy

Reply #8 –
Quote from: spoon on
IMHO it is not even worth mentioning these, because they are so rare.

You have no idea how rare they are.

In the case where a drive offsets data by two bytes causing a reversal of channels and an offset of one sample between them, I have a feeling it isn't rare at all.  I don't thing that the bug that existed with EAC that caused the final two frames of audio data being repeated with some discs in secure mode when the overreading option is disabled which wasn't corrected until the latest version is all that rare either.  This is only one of the bugs that have surfaced.  The fact of the matter is that there is documented evidence on the web for every single exception I noted.

Quote from: spoon on
if I had to guess the % which were effected by the afore mentioned problem it would be 0.0001% or less

Yes and this is only a guess.  Spoon, I'm sorry but you have a history of being quite loose and fast with numbers when you cite probabilities.  Please provide me with a reason not to think that this is any exception.

EAC Test & Copy

Reply #9 –
Quote from: thedisavowed on
C2 in the drive options, which apparently is not recommended.
Use of C2 pointers is perfectly ok when used in conjunction with either AccurateRip or T&C.

Quote from: thedisavowed on
Is it safe to say that if a rip passes T&C, reports no errors, and validates with a number larger than 1 in the accurate database, that the rip has been robust enough to ignore any more discussions about 'recommended settings' for EAC?
To reiterate and possibly expand upon what Akkurat has said, a confidence of just one is all you need provided it wasn't your own submission.  If it was your submission then the result is still secure.  Regarding the use of T&C, it is not necessary if you get AR verification.  It is also not necessary if you're ripping in secure mode without C2 pointers and you get a track quality of 100% or if the only set of re-reads occurred at the very very end of the track or range.

Regarding the paranoia factor, the best way to get past it is through diversity.  This means comparing results between drives that use different chipsets and ripping in different modes and/or comparing a rip that used C2 pointers with one that did not use C2 pointers.

Quote from: thedisavowed on
I would add that I can only imagine you guys get pelted with questions like this here.  I finally decided to post b/c I was just tired of wading through endless threads of speculation and ripping dogma.
Please try this link in the future so that we don't continue to get pelted:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....Search&f=20

Very little of your wading will reveal any speculation and/or dogma on this forum.

EAC Test & Copy

Reply #10 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: thedisavowed on
I would add that I can only imagine you guys get pelted with questions like this here.  I finally decided to post b/c I was just tired of wading through endless threads of speculation and ripping dogma.

Please try this link in the future so that we don't continue to get pelted:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....Search&f=20

Very little of your wading will reveal any speculation and/or dogma on this forum.


Yeah... been there and done that. I also mod a forum elsewhere - so I'm sympathetic to your 'use the search feature' evangelism. The reason for the thread was the insufficiency of previous speculation/discussion about the accuracy of these or those EAC settings.

But this thread is (like almost all EAC settings threads here) spiraling into the 'there's-no-definitive-answer-but-we-all-have-a-lot-of-strong-opinions-and-everyone's-opinions-are-subjective-and-their-science/math-sucks territory.

Which is exactly what I was trying to avoid. I'm gathering here that nobody really knows, or can agree that anybody knows, and in any case are unwilling to help the neophyte confused by the conflicting reports he reads on this forum.

Spoon took the closest pass at actually directly answering my question, so props to him however loose his numbers are.

I'm down with forum etiquette, I just want a straight answer. Please.

EAC Test & Copy

Reply #11 –
There is no straight answer when it comes to DAE.  We're talking about massive numbers of bytes on a format that doesn't have very good error correction.

PS: Pleas be sure to the edits in my previous response to you.

EAC Test & Copy

Reply #12 –
Quote from: greynol on
PS: Pleas be sure to the edits in my previous response to you.


Thank you Greynol. I do appreciate it. 

EDIT: Greynol -  I meant for that to be emoticon to be a smile. Sorry. I'm struggling technically on too many levels today.

EAC Test & Copy

Reply #13 –
Quote from: thedisavowed on
Edit: I would add that I can only imagine you guys get pelted with questions like this here. I finally decided to post b/c I was just tired of wading through endless threads of speculation and ripping dogma. I almost wish there was a version of EAC that was less configurable - a version for dummies like me. I know nothing about the deep esoterica of ripping - I just want a big button that says 'RIP TO FLAC' on the page that I press when I put the CD in that I know a good majority at Hydrogen Audio agree with....

Developers start your engines


Maybe you want to try [a href='index.php?showtopic=66233']CUERipper[/a]

EAC Test & Copy

Reply #14 –
EAC can be run perfectly safely in beginner mode, but if we're going to go off-topic and recommend alternatives, let me suggest Spoon's ripper, dBpoweramp.  There are still quite a few others.

EAC Test & Copy

Reply #15 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: spoon on
IMHO it is not even worth mentioning these, because they are so rare.

You have no idea how rare they are.

In the case where a drive offsets data by two bytes causing a reversal of channels and an offset of one sample between them, I have a feeling it isn't rare at all.  I don't thing that the bug that existed with EAC that caused the final two frames of audio data being repeated with some discs in secure mode when the overreading option is disabled which wasn't corrected until the latest version is all that rare either.  This is only one of the bugs that have surfaced.  The fact of the matter is that there is documented evidence on the web for every single exception I noted.

Quote from: spoon on
if I had to guess the % which were effected by the afore mentioned problem it would be 0.0001% or less

Yes and this is only a guess.  Spoon, I'm sorry but you have a history of being quite loose and fast with numbers when you cite probabilities.  Please provide me with a reason not to think that this is any exception.


Many of the deficiencies you mention AFAIK happen part way through a disc, or they might be for the first or last track, so you would have:

Track 1 Conf 50
Track 2 Conf 50
Track 3 (error causing issue with drive, or Manufacturing defect, etc)  Conf 2
Track 4 Conf 2
Track 5 Conf 2

It is obvious something has happened, and the forums would fill up with questions about why the confidence was different. I have only seen a couple of these in the 8 years of AccurateRip...

EAC Test & Copy

Reply #16 –
Quote from: greynol on
In the case where a drive offsets data by two bytes causing a reversal of channels and an offset of one sample between them, I have a feeling it isn't rare at all.  I don't thing that the bug that existed with EAC that caused the final two frames of audio data being repeated with some discs in secure mode when the overreading option is disabled which wasn't corrected until the latest version is all that rare either.  This is only one of the bugs that have surfaced.  The fact of the matter is that there is documented evidence on the web for every single exception I noted.


Would you please explain what setting and or ripping conditions must exist to create the two results you described above. Also could you site web pages where they are documented.

Quote from: greynol on
This is only one of the bugs that have surfaced.


What others do you know of?


Quote from: spoon on
close to 100 million discs have passed through AccurateRip and been accurately ripped, of those if I had to guess the % which were effected by the afore mentioned problem it would be 0.0001% or less


Do you have any additional information you could share such as

How many rip results are reported to AccurateRip per some unit of time that you use and
some data on of how this has changed historically?

Of those reported rips, how many are discarded or do not become part of the reporting process to users?

Does the database have any way of knowing which ripping program was used?

Do you archive all data received regardless of if or how it is used?

Thanks

EAC Test & Copy

Reply #17 –
Quote from: alondon on
Would you please explain what setting and or ripping conditions must exist to create the two results you described above. Also could you site web pages where they are documented.

No particular settings with the two byte offset example, they are problems identified with at least a couple of models of Hitachi-LG drives.  Perhaps you don't remember, but you were involved in a discussion about it that surfaced at digital-inn:
http://www.digital-inn.de/exact-audio-copy...erent-crcs.html

Here's a link for the second problem:
http://www.digital-inn.de/exact-audio-copy...rip-result.html

Quote from: greynol on
What others do you know of?

There was another problem reported on digital-inn where a rip done with C2 pointers gave different results than a rip without and these results were consistent across different drives. I see you were involved in that discussion as well...
http://www.digital-inn.de/exact-audio-copy...am-related.html

PS: It is not like I haven't provided these examples in the past.

PPS: I see no reason why any of these examples would necessarily exhibit the type of confidence behavior that Spoon documented in his last post.

EAC Test & Copy

Reply #18 –
> Hitachi-LG drives

If you can collate the exact models, they can be purged from the database - hence removing the problem.