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: 99% with EAC (Read 15008 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

99% with EAC

Reply #25 –
Quote
This still seems to be not enough to proove that your extraction is "true", but thanks for your effort. What a pitty that you don't have digital out on your player!
I'd really like to know your accuraterip results when this will work.

CRC's also match on my old computer using Sony USB CD-RW Drive CRX100E/X, it's now very old but it's good at ripping -- even nearly impossible discs.

I'm going to have to wait for the AccurateRip database to include the cd I have since it isn't listed in the database on the website, mine is too scratched to submit the ripping status from.

99% with EAC

Reply #26 –
pio, what do you mean you can *see* the tracks on a cd!!??  i don't see a damn thing! are you a cyborg?  ...

99% with EAC

Reply #28 –
Eli, in the thread you mentioned there seems to be no answer for PhileasFogg's question.

PhileasFogg, take a close look at a CD with silent (100% silence reported by EAC) gaps that are at least two seconds long. Use a bright light, turn the CD in your hand so that the light is reflected differently. You'll see what Pio and I were talking about.

Quote
But the basic jist is that I have noticed that track quality of 98% and below, EVEN if NO errors are reported, does not tend to be error free when compared with the accuraterip results
(Eli)

You're right to not trust less than 99,99% track quality. If this is the case, you must do the things I've mentioned in this post.
I know that I know nothing. But how can I then know that ?

99% with EAC

Reply #29 –
Quote
pio, what do you mean you can *see* the tracks on a cd!!??  i don't see a damn thing! are you a cyborg?  ...

Look at these :

http://perso.numericable.fr/laguill2/pictures/cdtracks.jpg (163 kB)

You can see them in a dark room with ponctual bright lightning (mini halogen lamps are good) in your back. They appear mostly in the golden shining part.

99% with EAC

Reply #30 –
I never paid that much attention to the pressed audio disc's before and had noticed
some data discs having a very irregular pattern almost like a normal ring that was wet
and smeared around.

In grabbing several all are slightly different but none so far like yours 'Pio'. Yours looks like a vinyl disc, having different distances between the rings designating the varying
track lengths.
So far the handful I looked at either have many rings (maybe 50+) or dont exhibit any type of rings but have that distinguishing pattern as like when writing only part of cdr.

99% with EAC

Reply #31 –
Have a question back on the original subject about those that talk about 'not trusting'
or 'not being error free' if NOT 100%.

Are you guys just being 'overly sensitive' (Not being a bad thing)  and noticed a couple
bytes differening at the very beginning or very end of a track possibly relating to
the 'synchronize between tracks' causing it or have you heard a definite audible error when that happens?

Just want to be sure when I relay an answer to this question since usually quoting
the EAC faq's and from the very informal or unscientific tests ive done never noticed
a problem that I'm stating for the most part truthful information.

99% with EAC

Reply #32 –
I've never heard anything wrong and I am overly sensitive...
However, investigating more, I finally found a bug in my drive : it silences the end of the last track, and this causes the quality to be inferior to 100 % (not sure if it reports an error at the end).

For the track pattern on CDs, it is quite difficult to see. Since in my room, with a signle light on the ceinling, I couldn't see anything, I lit a lamp in next room, and positionned the CD in the dark, facing the distant light in the next room.
Then, when I can see the lamp reflecting in the CD, there are no rainbows.
Turning the CD downwards, some rainbows appear, aligned with the lamp reflection, that is no more visible.
On both sides of this rainbow, there is a dark zone, then a golden one. The track separation is most visible in these zones, between the lamp reflection and the begining of the main rainbow.
We can also notice in the above picture that before and after the data zone, there are some different zones. They feature dull rainbows, but parallel to the groove, unlike the bright main one that is perpendicular. It's these rainbows that can be seen between tracks. These zones all feature null data (before audio, between tracks, after audio).

99% with EAC

Reply #33 –
teleguise,

Let's say you have the following result for a track:
Track quality about 99,98% or so, CRC=OK and, during the extraction, only the first row of the red lights lighted up. Then I'd accept this extraction as being "true" and I am overly sensitive.
I only had one single case out of a thousand or so when CRC was OK and there were two single samples different from the probably "true" extraction. And no, I can't here a single wrong sample, and I'm sure anybody else in the world also can't.
There were never audible errors, unless EAC did report a 'sync error' or 'read error'.
But one exception: I have an old drive, that creates audible clicks at the end of the tracks and EAC doesn't notice it. But the reason is definitely the drive. So, if you've once compared your extraction with the extraction from a second drive and they were identical, and you have the conditions I've mentioned above,  you really don't need to worry.

as for the CD data surface issue:

Quote
These zones all feature null data (before audio, between tracks, after audio).
(Pio)

I know I've suggested this 'null data' explanation, but have you read what I've written in this post, Pio ?
I know that I know nothing. But how can I then know that ?

99% with EAC

Reply #34 –
One isolated wrong sample can be audible if it was not detected and corrected by the drive, but this is a nearly SF scenario. First you'd have to get one isolated error (with at least 3 wrong samples. It should not possible to get less than 3 wrong samples at once), which is rare, then, it would have to be an undetected, thus uncorrected error (speaking about the internal processes of the drive) in order to be audible, which is even more unlikely (statistically 1 % of these rare cases). Last, internal error detection/correction failure seem to occur in extreme conditions (the lens can't follow the groove anymore, for example), which implies sourrounding errors.

So yes an isolated sample can make a lot of noise, but you won't find just one on a CD because of a read error (there will be many more with it  )

For the spaces between the tracks, even if it is not perfect silence, it can be a dithered silence oscillating between two values. The presence of two kind of codes instead of 65536 must be able to produce visible marks.
In fact samples are divided into bytes. So it is even possible that parts with peak level below -6 db are visible, since they are made with 50 % of null bytes.

99% with EAC

Reply #35 –
So are you saying that if the track quality falls below say due to it going
two the 2nd or 3rd row that you don't consider this 'true' anymore?

I gather each row is computed individually & doesn't each row (up to 5) simply mean a 
re-read of 16x's and that EAC doesn't consider it correct unless (1/2) 8 of them are
identical?

Still confused how the term 'up to 82 times' multiplies out,  does the very first read + re-read  account for the 2 additional read times and not inclusive when going into error recover? Hence 2+(16x5)=82

PIO you know way to much 

99% with EAC

Reply #36 –
Quote
I gather each row is computed individually & doesn't each row (up to 5) simply mean a 
re-read of 16x's and that EAC doesn't consider it correct unless (1/2) 8 of them are
identical?

A fas as I know, that's right. This 82 figure must be a "marketing trick"
 

99% with EAC

Reply #37 –
teleguise,

what you said seems to be right.
It doesn't matter that much if the track quality is 99,9% or 99,8%. The important thing is CRC=OK, since this is very unlikely (unless the rip is 'true'). My experience is that whenever EAC needs more than the first row, it mostly needs all rows, and if no error is reported, then most likely CRC=#. But sometimes  EAC needs the first row of error correction at the end of some tracks (perfect CDs, perfect settings etc.). This seems to be a bug and leads to track quality= less than 100,0%, but it causes no further problems or errors (and of course it isn't audible).


Pio,

my point of view was one or very few samples which are few sample values out of range, just to make it sure.
I know that I know nothing. But how can I then know that ?