Question about CD -> CD-R

Topic: Question about CD -> CD-R (Read 8670 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Question about CD -> CD-R

2003-04-08 22:02:09

Hey there. I finally bought a DVDDoctor and it works pretty good. The first cleaner to actually ATTEMPT to do its job. Anyway, i had an Eminem Show that was badly scratched and half the tracks stumbled when trying to rip. So i DiscDoctored©(haha jp) it and after i was done most tracks were aided but some were still slow with EAC. so i burnt a 1:1 copy with Nero to a CD-R. Of course, now that no scratches exist it ripped fast on EAC (the duplicate). So furthermore, my question is how can i tell if my rip has a flaw in the sound or not? Can i do some fast testing or do i just have to listen to the whole cd and find out for myself? (please NO)!!!

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #1 – 2003-04-08 22:51:53

EAC tells you if there were errors.

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #2 – 2003-04-08 22:56:46

There is no sure way to know if Nero let errors pass through.

You can rip again with Nero and compare the results.

But setting EAC is burst mode and performing a "test and copy selected tracks" is the same, and more convenient. If the CRCs are ok, the track is OK.

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #3 – 2003-04-08 23:47:37

Quote

in the sound or not? Can i do some fast testing or do i just have to listen to the whole cd and find out for myself? (please NO)!!!

Why did you copy the disk if you don't want to listen to it?

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #4 – 2003-04-08 23:48:08

i did secure mode. Test and copy would be a useless tool because it all read 100% quality (the cd-r just came off the tray after burning so obviously theres no scratches ). But, my question was to ensure that the cd-r didn't record scratchy, flawed errors from the little-scratched up copy that i tried to repair with CDDoctor©. So, i needed to make sure i didn't encode mp3s from a cd-r that was recorded from an "ok" condition cd. Any one know any tools? or should i just listen to each track and use common sense?>

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #5 – 2003-04-08 23:59:41

I don't understand, why didn't you just use EAC instead of Nero in the first place? Then you would know if it had errors. Plus it would do a better job of reading around them, so even if there are errors EAC would make a better copy.

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #6 – 2003-04-09 00:10:27

Quote

i did secure mode. Test and copy would be a useless tool because it all read 100% quality (the cd-r just came off the tray after burning so obviously theres no scratches ).

Slow down, wiseguy.
Pio2001 meant "test & copy" the ORIGINAL SCRATCHED CD
It has been widely discussed (again, search is your friend )
that MAYBE the best way to get accurate results with EAC on scratched CDs is to use burst mode (again, search for more info). But how do you make yourself sure that burst mode won't screw you, since there is no error correction involved but the drives own? Well, have EAC read twice, hence "test & copy".
Nero uses one of two methods (in my experience, Nero is second on my "scratched CD" list) 1) burst withouth verification and up to 9 re-reads, or 2)jitter correction, which, depending on your drive, could be the solution (you will have to listen to the resulting CD to be sure).

It's been discussed here a million times, but here goes again:
EAC's best feature is it's ERROR DETECTION, not correction. To put it this way, EAC is sincere, if it couldn't do the job, it will let you know. Other programs will lie to you (you won't know there's an error until you actually listen to the music).
EAC won't do anything more with scratched CDs than to do it's best (and for that kind of CDs, it's best is usually determined by the drive) and tell you how it went.

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #7 – 2003-04-09 02:36:40

while were on the topic which one reads more accurately with excellent, top condition original cd's? Burst Mode with T-n-C or Secure Mode? I've been using Secure Mode so far but, i'm just ensuring i'm making the right choice

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #8 – 2003-04-09 02:38:45

Either way will probably be fine with brand new/perfect condition cds but if you want to be extra sure, just stick with Secure mode.

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #9 – 2003-04-09 02:43:55

"if you use burst mode and are sure you know you are insecure" -ALWAYS GO SECUREMODE -Moi

I have a question while we are on the subject of ripping and such. Can anyone who has ripped Blink-182 - Going away to college off Enema of the state confirm there is a pop in the very beginning? Secure Mode says the track ripeed 100 % and the cd is near-mint condition. Also, i tried CDDoctoring still same pop effect. Just double CheckinG

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #10 – 2003-04-09 05:17:29

Quote

I have a question while we are on the subject of ripping and such. Can anyone who has ripped Blink-182 - Going away to college off Enema of the state confirm there is a pop in the very beginning? Secure Mode says the track ripeed 100 % and the cd is near-mint condition. Also, i tried CDDoctoring still same pop effect. Just double CheckinG

Well first of all: you tell us.
Does it make the same thing on a normal CD player (a stereo, a walkman)? Those devices have "error concealment", that's why they can play correctly the CDs that introduce errors as a form of copy protection. I am in NO WAY suggesting that the Blink cd is protected, okay? But sometimes CDs have mastering errors. A normal person who just listens to their CDs on standalone players would probably never now it, but if he tried to make a digital copy...
I have one of those CDs myself (out of 500 CDs I own). It is not copy protected (was made before such shit) but has a song that is unrippable by any of my devices (and my friend's too). That is, securely. Because if I use burst, the track gives me no problems.
So, try that. I'm not a fan of Blink 182 (and none of my buddies is) to tell you for sure, but my guess is that maybe there's nothing wrong with it. Most modern drives support accurate stream, so if you get that even on burst mode, maybe that's the way it is.
Another suggestion that may be of help is to use "Accurate Rip". I do not know much about it, but I think is a system in which you compare ripping results with those of other people. Try the search function to learn more.

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #11 – 2003-04-09 11:40:59

There is no way to know if your copy has inaudible problems from the original, and the only way to know if it has audible problems is to listen to it. Once Nero has read it in order to copy it, all the information about read errors is lost.

Test n copy burst mode is similar to secure mode, no C2, cache, thus better than secure with C2 and/or no cache. The difference is that there is no seeking during the rip.

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #12 – 2003-04-09 12:03:07

Quote

Try the search function to learn more.

"EAC Test Copy" - no results found in CD forum (no results found in all categories)
"Test Copy" - no results found in CD forum, in all categories I got this thread, one about are you male/female and two others on different topics
"Test AND Copy" - ~100 results (haven't yet found one about EAC
"EAC AND test AND copy" - ~75 results (again... I'm still looking)

Am I searching 'wrongly' or is the search function not doing it's job? I always have this problem, hence I ask a question and rarely try searching, all it does is frustrate me.

I have a CD which gives out hordes of errors, it looks fine on the surface which is why I'm confused. CDex slolwy goes through the whole cd (1/10th normal speed) and I end up with clicks throughout. I gave EAC two hours in secure mode, and it hadn't bothered getting more than 1% into the first track.. which is why I tend not to use EAC, it just doesn't do anything for me

I'm trying to find out about this test & copy procedure. I've put EAC into burst mode (my drive has C2 features apparently). There aren't any obvious test & copy options, so my guess is you mean rip each track twice, then get EAC to compare them?

Could someone please enlighten me, and give that crappy search engine a kicking..

edit: burst mode just gave as many clicks and gaps as was in the CDex rip..

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #13 – 2003-04-09 12:30:50

srry but the pop plays in the "walkman" and other equipment. I am pretty sure there is no security option because it was made in 2000 B). SecureMode T&C and Secure Mode detect no errors when i rip this track. I did my 2 cents can someone fill up my 4cent bubblegum machine? (extra bubblegums taste good too)

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #14 – 2003-04-09 13:23:39

Quote

i burnt a 1:1 copy with Nero to a CD-R. Of course, now that no scratches exist it ripped fast on EAC (the duplicate).

IMO, making a copy with Nero and then ripping the CD-R with EAC won't give you better results than using EAC burst mode on the original.

What you should do is rip the original CD with EAC. First, try secure mode. Even if EAC reports track quality to be less than 100%, you shouldn't re-rip in fast/burst mode. It only means that some errors were corrected by EAC.

If secure mode crashes/freezes/takes forever on some tracks, re-rip those in burst mode.

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #15 – 2003-04-09 16:08:20

Quote

Test n copy burst mode is similar to secure mode, no C2, cache, thus better than secure with C2 and/or no cache. The difference is that there is no seeking during the rip.

I do not totally agree

1) burst mode reads once (indeed less seeking) so is faster
2) secure mode will also do retries at the spot where a difference is found so there is a much better chance to get a good copy
3) you enter in the comparision with/without C2, which very much hardware depending so cannot be said in general. (more or less the same with cache/no cache)

So, I agree with 1 but not with 2 and 3
--
Ge Someone

edit: spelling

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #16 – 2003-04-09 17:16:32

Quote

Test n copy burst mode is similar to secure mode, no C2, cache, thus better than secure with C2 and/or no cache. The difference is that there is no seeking during the rip.

GeSomeone, if you perform test & copy in burst mode and get matching CRCs the security is similar to copy (without test) in secure mode, C2 off, "Drive Caches ..." checked. If the CRCs don't match you'll have to do some extra work to get similar security. Of course secure mode test+copy gives a little bit extra security.

So IMO burst mode test+copy is a good, fast way to rip CDs that are in good condition.

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #17 – 2003-04-09 17:55:57

why is there more security in burst tandc than secure mode? Because secure mode reads the tracks several times to ensure while burst reads twice total with tandc. I'm not arguing id just think common sense that secure mode is bettter (thats what i use now) should i switch?>

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #18 – 2003-04-09 18:02:02

Quote

Am I searching 'wrongly' or is the search function not doing it's job? I always have this problem, hence I ask a question and rarely try searching, all it does is frustrate me.

I'm trying to find out about this test & copy procedure. I've put EAC into burst mode (my drive has C2 features apparently). There aren't any obvious test & copy options, so my guess is you mean rip each track twice, then get EAC to compare them?

Read the FAQ, Pio2001 has put together a shitload of info about EAC there.

Quote

I have a CD which gives out hordes of errors, it looks fine on the surface which is why I'm confused. CDex slolwy goes through the whole cd (1/10th normal speed) and I end up with clicks throughout. I gave EAC two hours in secure mode, and it hadn't bothered getting more than 1% into the first track.. which is why I tend not to use EAC, it just doesn't do anything for me

Sounds like a protected CD. What is it?
BTW. if it's copy protected, you are pretty much screwed.

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #19 – 2003-04-09 18:07:59

Quote

why is there more security in burst tandc than secure mode? Because secure mode reads the tracks several times to ensure while burst reads twice total with tandc. I'm not arguing id just think common sense that secure mode is bettter (thats what i use now) should i switch?>

Secure is better, no question about it.
But (there's always a "but"), there are times when burst could be, say, "more convenient". If you are trying to rip a new, unscratched CD, burst t & c will give you the same results as secure, but only a little faster. On a scratched CD you should try secure first, then Skip Doctor and sewcure, and if that's not working, try burst.

BTW, here's my 2 cents, that Blink 182 CD is meant to sound like that. That's what I think. If it was not, at least one of your devices would have given different results by now.

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #20 – 2003-04-09 19:17:16

Quote

why is there more security in burst tandc than secure mode?

As I said, it depends on the secure mode. There are six different secure modes :

-accurate, no cache, C2
-accurate, no cache, no C2
-accurate, cache, C2
-accurate, no cache, no C2
-not accurate, cache
-not accurate, no cache

The test and copy burst mode is more secure than some of them.

Secure mode / no C2 must read twice, but supposedly at the same speed as burst mode, thus adding the rereading and seek times, plus cache flushing for caching mode, you get the small speed of secure mode, while the CD is in fact read at the same physical speed. I don't know why accurate/no cache/C2 is slower than burst, though it's quite as fast for me.

Aslo, we must decide if we speak about perfect CDs, the goal being detecting hypothetical errors, or scratched CDs, the goal being getting most errors corrected.

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #21 – 2003-04-10 01:29:12

Quote

Quote
why is there more security in burst tandc than secure mode?

As I said, it depends on the secure mode. There are six different secure modes :

-accurate, no cache, C2
-accurate, no cache, no C2
-accurate, cache, C2
-accurate, no cache, no C2
-not accurate, cache
-not accurate, no cache

The test and copy burst mode is more secure than some of them.

Secure mode / no C2 must read twice, but supposedly at the same speed as burst mode, thus adding the rereading and seek times, plus cache flushing for caching mode, you get the small speed of secure mode, while the CD is in fact read at the same physical speed. I don't know why accurate/no cache/C2 is slower than burst, though it's quite as fast for me.

Aslo, we must decide if we speak about perfect CDs, the goal being detecting hypothetical errors, or scratched CDs, the goal being getting most errors corrected.

You have now oficially confused me, Pio2001.

You are telling me, that, we must not pay attention to the results of "Detect Read Features"?
That would be new to me (and catastrophical)

Because, as understand from your post, there are "more secure" methods of "secure mode" ?

I thought, from what Andre said, that "cache/no cache" is really just the way EAC approaches extraction for a particullar drive, in order to have an accurate copy.

Anyway, I felt I was beyond this. I have made lots of test on my drive (LiteOn 24102B). And, well, secure it's just that: secure.

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #22 – 2003-04-11 11:24:58

Without C2, you can't get more secure than test and copy, non accurate, cache. Accurate and no cache are just speed improvements. You need to detect your drive features in order to know if your drive allows you to use a secure mode faster than this dreadful ~2x mode.
Only C2 can bring, in a few cases (repeatable errors) something more (but most of the time, it is the opposite, it's less secure).

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #23 – 2003-04-11 11:31:36

[Pointless Post]
My god, its all so complicated... I used to just think it was a bunch of 1's and 0's in a seemingly random order!
[/Pointless Post]

Question about CD -> CD-R

Reply #24 – 2003-04-11 12:03:28

Heh, I never actually saw that FAQ before... I thought the link up the top took you to the rules and reg's

The CD is Busta Rhymes 1st album - The Coming (from '96). The very edge of the CD has got covered in black specks which don't wash off.. and from what I vaguely remember about Pio's threads on damage, it makes me think the cd is oxidized? Meaning it's well and truely had it

Notice