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: A couple of questions about EAC (Read 4585 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

A couple of questions about EAC

Hi guys, I opened another thread to ask something about EAC etc. My first question is if there's any real benefit by activating the C2 error information mode. EAC says my drive is capable of retrieving C2 error information but I read here and on various forum on the web that maybe it's not a good choice. I'm a little confused. My current configuration is Secure Mode with accurate stream + test and copy to extract audio. Mine is a good choice?

Another questions is about "differs samples" in some tracks. I read that it could refer to some bad rips from users. I tried to listening at the point of samples and I don't hear any glitch ecc. This is my result:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
"Always account for the change."

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #2 –
Quote from: Linuxx on
EAC says my drive is capable of retrieving C2 error information but I read here and on various forum on the web that maybe it's not a good choice.
EAC can test if C2 capable but cannot tell you whether the C2 setting will be reliable.
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=EAC_Drive_Options#Drive_is_capable_of_retrieving_C2_error_information

Quote from: Linuxx
Another questions is about "differs samples" in some tracks.
This section of the extraction results are from the CUETools Database Plugin for EAC
You should be looking at
Code: [Select]
  1   | (1862/1890) Accurately ripped
  2   | (1870/1890) Accurately ripped
  3   | (1868/1890) Accurately ripped
  4   | (1863/1890) Accurately ripped
  5   | (1873/1890) Accurately ripped
  6   | (1872/1890) Accurately ripped
  7   | (1869/1890) Accurately ripped
  8   | (1854/1890) Accurately ripped
  9   |  ( 24/1890) Accurately ripped
 10   | (1857/1890) Accurately ripped
and not worry about the "differs in" unless it doesn't say "Accurately ripped" or x is not greater than 1 (x/1890)
Quote
---- CUETools DB Plugin V2.1.6

[CTDB TOCID: yDm0YkACmmd4RAS8_ZDfcWmkGN0-] found
Submit result: already submitted
a (1/1890) Accurately ripped result could be from your own previous rip

Quote from: Linuxx
I read that it could refer to some bad rips from users.
Any "differs in" where x is not greater than 1 (x/1890) should be ignored as a probable bad rip. See plugin Known Issues.
The issue was fixed in newer versions of the plugin but some people are still using older versions of EAC with the old plugin.

Edit: cleaned up
korth

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #3 –
Yeah result was already added in database from my previous rip in mp3. Now I'm ripping in flac. I attach entire EAC log.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So I don't have to worry? My rip is perfect? And about C2 pointers even if EAC says it's supported can I keep it disabled? As in log, config is like this:

Read mode               : Secure
Utilize accurate stream : Yes
Defeat audio cache      : No
Make use of C2 pointers : No
"Always account for the change."

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #4 –
All tracks accurately ripped.
It is OK to disable use of C2 pointers.
korth

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #5 –
Thanks Korth! Very gentle!  :) A last question...I'm ripping in individual tracks and when I create the cue sheet file I get INDEX 00 for some album. Is it normal?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

"Always account for the change."

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #7 –
After read all which one should I choose? Current Gap Settings or Multiple WAV Files With Gaps (Noncompliant)?
"Always account for the change."

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #8 –
With the default settings
Quote
Append Gaps to Previous Track (default)
either would produce the same CUE.
korth

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #9 –
Ok, now everything is clear! So I always did well to use "Multiple WAV Files With Gaps (Noncompliant)". Thank you again Korth for your patience!  ;)
"Always account for the change."

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #10 –
Quote
So I always did well to use "Multiple WAV Files With Gaps (Noncompliant)"
If I'm not mistaken that will prevent you from using Cuetools and many other tools which expect a compliant cuesheet.

Personally I've always preferred to rip losslessly as an image (single .wav file + CUE) and eventually use Foobar2000 to split the tracks and compress them with LAME for usage on my portable devices, but of course YMMV...
Sergio
M-Audio Delta AP + Revox B150 + (JBL 4301B | Sennheiser Amperior | Sennheiser HD598)
 

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #11 –
CUETools can read a Noncompliant CUE sheet. CUETools and CUERipper will also create Noncompliant CUE sheets when the gap information is available.
Other programs that adhere to the cue sheet specification, like foobar2000 won't be able to read it.
korth

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #12 –
Oops! Sorry for spreading misinformation!
Sergio
M-Audio Delta AP + Revox B150 + (JBL 4301B | Sennheiser Amperior | Sennheiser HD598)

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #13 –
@korth this is a good rip despite a lots of differ in samples?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
"Always account for the change."

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #14 –
That rip is good. All the "differ in samples" are 3 CTDB submissions. (They might very well be the same rip, but do not care about others' faulty rips - care about good ones.)

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #15 –
Ook! Thanks a lot for the answer! :)
"Always account for the change."

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #16 –
And this time a log says "If you are sure that your rip contains errors, you can use CUETools to repair it." The last track has less feedback with accurate rips...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Should I assume that my rip is good or bad?
"Always account for the change."

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #17 –
Quote
15   | (  6/208) Accurately ripped
good ["Accurately ripped" and for (x/nnn) x is > 1 ]. Your rip matches 6 others already in the CTDB database for your variant (pressing) of the CD. CTDB groups all pressings together so the higher numbers on other tracks are from other variants of the CD (pressings) that also match your rip. 
What did AccurateRip say about the rip?

Quote from: Linuxx on
And this time a log says "If you are sure that your rip contains errors, you can use CUETools to repair it."
Look at your first post in this thread again. The CUETools DB Plugin for EAC always adds that when a recovery record exists that differs (differs in xx samples) from your rip.
korth

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #18 –
Just a little curiosity...Why last track matches only 6/208 while the others have 191/208?
"Always account for the change."

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #19 –
Quote from: korth on
CTDB groups all pressings together so the higher numbers on other tracks are from other variants of the CD (pressings) that also match your rip.
AccurateRip stores each pressing separate. What did AccurateRip say about the rip?

see also
AccurateRip#Pressings

Your CD is a variant meaning all the data on your CD doesn't exactly match all the other pressings. It differs by 1 sample (you can't perceive one sample). Your rip does match others that ripped the same variant of the CD that you have.
korth

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #20 –
For example a cd remastered or different edition, right?
"Always account for the change."

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #21 –
Quote from: Linuxx on
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
How long is the track? If 10:34:48 is at the very end ...
What does AccurateRip (not CTDB) say?

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #22 –
@Porcus Accurate rip is ok:

Track 15

     Filename C:\EAC Rips\M83 - Before The Dawn Heals Us\15. Lower Your Eyelids To Die With The Sun.wav

     Peak level 99.2 %
     Extraction speed 4.5 X
     Track quality 100.0 %
     Test CRC 7F4C2F0D
     Copy CRC 7F4C2F0D
     Accurately ripped (confidence 8)  [376FAAE5]  (AR v2)
     Copy OK

And yes, differs in samples is at the end of song, absolute silence.
"Always account for the change."

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #23 –
Confidence 8, and the rest have ... higher or about the same?

It doesn't matter that much:
Quote from: Linuxx on
And yes, differs in samples is at the end of song, absolute silence.
IDK about CUETools, but AccurateRip ignores the last five frames = 1/15th of the CD, for that reason. Depending on offset and overreading capabilities, some drives may start the "absolute silence" a little bit earlier. Here it could be one sample ... whoa, that sounds rare.
Things are complicated by different pressings (i.e. different write offsets, each master being written to CD with different offsets). Normally, five frames would be enough.

If you consistently get issues with the last track, try to have a look at overreading options. As long as it does not cut off the audio so early that actual music is lost, then you won't miss anything (I count one sample near-silence at the end as "nothing). But, it might fail to verify rips that are basically OK. (If there is not enough in the database, it won't tell you where and how big the error is; an inaccurate-and-nothing-more wouldn't tell you whether it is just the near-silence at the end, total corruption.)

Re: A couple of questions about EAC

Reply #24 –
Confidence 8 for all tracks. Anyway differs in samples at the end of last song is 100% on silence. The song ends with fading a few seconds before. So I think there isn't any problem.
"Always account for the change."