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: New drive, slower rips, accuracy hardly improves (Read 7407 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: New drive, slower rips, accuracy hardly improves

Reply #25 –
Test and copy in order to compare checksums between two separate extractions to see if they were consistent.  Inconsistent checksums indicate that at least one extraction contains errors. Consistent checksums are meant to provide warm fuzzy feelings.

Re: New drive, slower rips, accuracy hardly improves

Reply #26 –
Thanks. I sometimes find the checksums don't match but the final copy still matches AccurateRip. I presume the Test phase is less picky on the error-correction front.

Personally, I like the extra assurance (hence leave it on, with the old drive), but only if it doesn't take forever (hence despise it with the new drive).

Re: New drive, slower rips, accuracy hardly improves

Reply #27 –
The only difference between test and copy is that no file is written during the test pass.

I'm not sure what assurance you're talking about.  Matching checksums is an assurance that test and copy passes delivered the same result. There is no assurance the result was error-free, regardless of the ripping mode.

Re: New drive, slower rips, accuracy hardly improves

Reply #28 –
Quick note on Test & Copy.

I have a feeling the read speed is adjusted during the Test phase, resulting in (sometimes) more accurate results in the Copy phase.

Also, the value of T&C is that a CRC match indicates read consistency, which will not occur with some types of error. So if you're not getting an AccurateRip match but your CRCs match... 1) If you're not seeing any rereads at all, then you definitely have an error-free disc that is a different pressing from AccurateRip. 2) If you are seeing rereads but the errors are recovered without an error warning, then you can at least be sure that you have the best read possible with that disc and drive combination -- and quite likely the errors are being correctly recovered.

In contrast, if your Test and Copy CRCs don't match, then you know the read is marginal, even if it does match AccurateRip.

All that said, at least with common CDs, there's a strong argument for turning off the Test rip initially and just using Burst Mode, and only reinstating Test and Secure Modes for tracks that don't match AccurateRip.

Re: New drive, slower rips, accuracy hardly improves

Reply #29 –
I promised to come back with some final results, and here they are.

I took the iHAS124F back, and they suggested trying a different model, so I bought an Asus DRW-24D5MT. This drive doesn't appear in the 2016 accuracy rankings, but the Asus drives that do appear (DRW-24*) are all in the 98% block. That said, given how close the accuracies are between the top and median values, I think we need to know more about what precisely is being measured before using these rankings to inform purchase decisions (eg: does a track with errors count, or is it only error-free tracks?).

The Asus drive is faster than the iHAS124F, but still slower than my original TSST drive. I suspect this is because the TSST drive doesn't cache. The Asus drive is also slower on error recovery, but still two orders of magnitude faster than the iHAS124F! So that's a win. The new drive is more accurate on difficult tracks (as measured by matches to AccurateRip), in that I can often get an exact match on the Asus when the TSST has managed to correct errors but doesn't match AccurateRip. But it can take a while to get that improved rip. Interestingly, I quite often get an unrecovered error on the Test rip but no errors and an AccurateRip match on the Copy rip.

So here's my process, now:

1) Secure rip with T&C and Medium error recovery using the TSST drive.
2) Switch to Burst mode on the TSST drive for any tracks that don't match AccurateRip.
3) Follow up with a Secure rip, T&C, Medium error recovery on the Asus drive for tracks that still don't match.
4) One final try on Burst mode with the Asus drive.
5) If errors are indicated, try High error recovery on the TSST drive (usually after step 2).

This process seems to get me AccurateRip matches on roughly every track but one per 30 discs, and at a rate of roughly 30 discs per day.

However, there is one caveat. I've noticed that sometimes an entire disc (or occasionally just one track) consistently disagrees with AccurateRip. Given that the library has multiple copies of some audio books, I've taken to simply borrowing every copy, and using the second (or third) copy of a problematic disc to fix errors and retry AccurateRip mismatches. As a result, I've ripped some discs 8 times (2 different discs, twice each on two different drives) with identical, error-free results that refuse to match a unanimous AccurateRip verdict. What I find most puzzling about this is that every other disc for that audio book generally *does* match. I guess that's something we just have to live with (and my results, when submitted, will help future users).

Hope that's useful to someone.

Re: New drive, slower rips, accuracy hardly improves

Reply #30 –
Have you tried CUERipper, included with CUETools? It provides EAC-formatted style logs with AccurateRip results, different modes (burst mode + AccurateRip verify set to default) but with an actually decent UI, metadata addition from three different sources (with previewing and editing), among a variety of good features.

EAC killed my last drive so CUERipper is what I now use.
 

Re: New drive, slower rips, accuracy hardly improves

Reply #31 –
EAC killed it, or did you kill it because of the way you configured EAC?

There are far too many people in the world who think it's a gook idea to configure EAC to be as inefficient as possible.  I'm surprised there aren't many people advocating Paranoid mode.

Re: New drive, slower rips, accuracy hardly improves

Reply #32 –
Quote from: greynol on
EAC killed it, or did you kill it because of the way you configured EAC?

There are far too many people in the world who think it's a gook idea to configure EAC to be as inefficient as possible.  I'm surprised there aren't many people advocating Paranoid mode.

I was using the 'recommended' (EAC's words) Secure mode. Failed to work on two different drives and caused one drive to become literally unusable (haven't tried the second drive since so unsure if that was affected). CUERipper provides many of the same features and a much better tagging and general UI. Surprised it doesn't have more users. Needless to say the burst mode is all I'll be using.