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 16265 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

I gathered information based upon what I have found here on the forums for the most popular rippers for Windows/Linux/Mac OS X to create a Secure Ripping Comparison on the Secure Ripping page, which also includes information gathered from the internet. I think most of the information on the page is correct, but anyone is free to correct the information or update it so that we can have a clear concise guide on what rippers have what secure features. I have included some minor defintions for what Accurate Stream, Cache , and C2 Error Correction are.

Note: This is not guide for seperate rippers or how to configure them (yet), but those can be written seperatly in the future.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Secure_ripping
budding I.T professional

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #1 –
Quote
Note: AccurateRip due to it's liscensing agreement only works with EAC and dbPowerAMP


Well this statement is false (not suggesting you wrote it), right now there are 3 rippers and ~4 utilities.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #2 –
Quote
If the full 1,000 bytes are erroneous, than a false repair seems to be highly unlikely since there are 1000×256 possibilities in theory. (As a byte consists of 8 bits, 28=256).

Thx for your work
btw  you forget ^, 2^8=256.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #3 –
Quote from: PaJaRo on
Quote

If the full 1,000 bytes are erroneous, than a false repair seems to be highly unlikely since there are 1000×256 possibilities in theory. (As a byte consists of 8 bits, 28=256).

Thx for your work
btw  you forget ^, 2^8=256.

Unless I'm misreading it, it should actually be 2^8000.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #4 –
I wouldn't quote that stuff about Rubyripper, actually.  It is based on the assumption that errors result in random data which is simply false.  In the case of large amounts of errors, data may appear to be random, but it really isn't. 

If you want to review my argument refer to this discussion...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=512047

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #5 –
Quote
Well this statement is false (not suggesting you wrote it), right now there are 3 rippers and ~4 utilities.


I fixed this.

Quote
Unless I'm misreading it, it should actually be 2^8000.


I am going to fix this.


Quote
I wouldn't quote that stuff about Rubyripper, actually. It is based on the assumption that errors result in random data which is simply false. In the case of large amounts of errors, data may appear to be random, but it really isn't.


I am a little lost right here. I will need to read your post and frodoontop post regarding the subject and then  I will get back to you. You need to remember not all drives support C2 error pointers as well. In my book they are considered a bit "controversial".
budding I.T professional

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #6 –
You mean to say not all drives report C2 errors.  Frodoontop's false assertion that drives produce random data upon errors has nothing to do with C2 pointers, BTW.

Also, I'm concerned with your comments about rippers that support a drive's Accurate Stream feature. The issue is whether these programs will work correctly for drives that don't have this feature.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #7 –
Quote from: HotshotGG on
You need to remember not all drives support C2 error pointers as well. In my book they are considered a bit "controversial".

You should really read that post I have given.  Yes EAC's implementation of C2 pointers is lacking, but the use of Test and Copy goes a long way towards addressing this.  OTOH, dBpoweramp takes a different approach, essentially turning your notion that they are somehow "controversial" on its head.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #8 –
Quote from: HotshotGG on
Quote
I wouldn't quote that stuff about Rubyripper, actually. It is based on the assumption that errors result in random data which is simply false. In the case of large amounts of errors, data may appear to be random, but it really isn't.


I am a little lost right here. I will need to read your post and frodoontop post regarding the subject and then  I will get back to you. You need to remember not all drives support C2 error pointers as well. In my book they are considered a bit "controversial".


Hmm..."controversial" isn't really the right word.  I'd say that relying on C2 is a "mixed bag" but you can mitigate this by validating your ripping chain (software+firmware+drive).

(Though C2 may be tangential to the issue that greynol brought up, so we may be straying a bit.)

You need to know that both the software and the drive supports the feature well before relying on it.

- Some software may support it half-hearedly (such as only using C2 when performing frame re-reads on frames flagged in previous non-matching classic-secure or classic-paranoia reads).
- Some software supports it well, using C2 with all reads when enabled.
- Some drives report they do not support C2 and do not.
- Some drives report they support C2, but in fact do not.
- Some drives do support it, but the drive's implementation is not very good and should not be relied upon (e.g. perhaps false positives, perhaps false negatives, or perhaps the wrong frames get marked...such as the rare drives that require the -c2flip option in the daequality test, etc.)*
- Some drives do support it, and they support it well.
- C2 is not guaranteed to flag all errors, but it comes pretty close to doing so from a user's lifetime perspective when it has been implemented well in a drive.

Summary: turning the feature on without knowing the software and drive behaviors is not recommended.  And there is no reliable source for recommendations on software+drive+firmware combinations that are known to be fully reliable chains.

On the flip-side, if you do happen to have a reliable chain, disabling C2 means you're less likely to get a good rip.

-brendan

* note: the behaviors suggested for bad C2 implementations are pure speculation on my part and are suggestions about what might possibly go wrong, I have zero documentation on bad implementations.  In case "perhaps" wasn't clear enough.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #9 –
Examples of drives with bad C2 implementation:
NEC - DVD_RW ND-3500A
PLEXTOR - DVDR PX-800A

If you use them with EAC in conjunction with AR or T&C and get a match then you should be ok.  Relying on EAC's no errors occurred message without T&C or AR is not ok.

When using dBpoweramp with an ultra secure pass T&C is automatically included in the secure process and re-reads will be performed in areas where there are differences as well as areas marked by C2 pointers and C2 information will used to drop consistent errors so long as the consistent errors are flagged.  This is a massive improvement over EAC when it comes to getting error-free data.  ATM no software can compete with this method.

Yes, I know there are drives that don't provide C2 error information.  This post is not about such drives.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #10 –
Why no mention of XLD (for OS X) or cdparanoia III 9.8 (Linux, Darwin, etc.)? Those offer more features than Max currently does -- including a ripping log.

@greynol: Is there anywhere one can find a list of drives that are considered to have decent and reliable C2 error implementation? The only info I've found on that seems to indicate that only certain Plextors do. Are there any other drives?

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #11 –
Please also mention foobar2000. It's on par with EAC's secure mode based on this testing. Also with fooaccrip, it can verify any lossless rip with the accuraterip database.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Pepzhez on
@greynol: Is there anywhere one can find a list of drives that are considered to have decent and reliable C2 error implementation? The only info I've found on that seems to indicate that only certain Plextors do. Are there any other drives?
I've heard that some of the newer NEC drives are good, but I can't say for certain.

You might find some results here...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=60091

CDFreaks will likely have some information as well.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #13 –
Quote
Why no mention of XLD (for OS X) or cdparanoia III 9.8 (Linux, Darwin, etc.)? Those offer more features than Max currently does -- including a ripping log.


Those can be mentioned as well, although I am not as familiar with them. I need to go dig up some resources on them though and then I shall continue to write. It's hard to include all of the secure ripping programs out there seeing that there are so many that are home brewed I am just trying to come to a general consensus. 

Quote
Please also mention foobar2000. It's on par with EAC's secure mode based on this testing. Also with fooaccrip, it can verify any lossless rip with the accuraterip database.


I wasn't really sure about FB2K, but now then you mention it we can include that as well. What features does it support though besides AccurateRip.


Quote
Hmm..."controversial" isn't really the right word. I'd say that relying on C2 is a "mixed bag" but you can mitigate this by validating your ripping chain (software+firmware+drive).


Fine then it's just a "mixed bag".  I think our focus should be on the software.
budding I.T professional

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #14 –
Please consider revising this statement:
Quote
EAC... The only drawback is that it nightmare to configure for a new user.

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.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #15 –
Quote from: HotshotGG on
Fine then it's just a "mixed bag".  I think our focus should be on the software.
This talk about C2 was fun an' all, and I agree with you that the article should only show which software can make use of C2 pointers; but it had nothing to do with the original point I was making.

Also, I think Easy CD-DA Extractor should be added to the list.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #16 –
Quote from: HotshotGG on
I wasn't really sure about FB2K, but now then you mention it we can include that as well. What features does it support though besides AccurateRip.

It should also support drives that cache since the drives Synthetic Soul used had their cache disabled based on the EAC log files he posted. I am guessing though so it would be best to ask Peter or Synthetic Soul. 

Quote from: greynol on
Also, I think Easy CD-DA Extractor should be added to the list.

It doesn't look secure based on these tests.

edit: added comment on easy cd-da extractor

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #17 –
Those test results were posted in April of 2003 for version 5.1.  They're up to version 11 now.  Five years ago dBpoweramp wasn't a secure ripper, either.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #18 –
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...ure_ripping#XLD I have updated the secure ripping page so that it includes changes for the latest cdparanoia 10.2 release and I added XLD as a secure ripper!. I also added whether or not the program prints out a log file. Any other suggestions are welcome and I would be glad to add more comparison features between rippers seeing that the page is listed as #1 in Google Search Index! Just let me know. Take care. Bye. 
budding I.T professional

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #19 –
Quote from: spoon on
Quote
Note: AccurateRip due to it's liscensing agreement only works with EAC and dbPowerAMP


Well this statement is false (not suggesting you wrote it), right now there are 3 rippers and ~4 utilities.

Just wonder who supports AR operation costs and resource, e.g. sever hosting?
and what is the licensing status

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #21 –
Please, add some information about cued!
A being darkly wise and rudely great...

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #22 –
1) Still has the nonsense about errors resulting in random data

2) AccurateStream requirements are still backwards

What else?  It says that XLD doesn't work on drives that support C2 pointers.  This is misleading.

This page still needs some serious attention.

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #23 –
Quote
1) Still has the nonsense about errors resulting in random data

2) AccurateStream requirements are still backwards

What else? It says that XLD doesn't work on drives that support C2 pointers. This is misleading.

This page still needs some serious attention.


I am willing to compromise here. I don't understand what you are talking about AccurateStream requirements? also are you saying that XLD does support C2 error pointers via software?
budding I.T professional

I have expanded the Secure Ripping Page

Reply #24 –
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.