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: Is an EAC "copy" as good as a "test and copy"? (Read 8333 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Is an EAC "copy" as good as a "test and copy"?

Hi,

I'm new to PC audio. I want the highest quality ripps in order to archive music streamed to a high end sound system via  a Squeezebox.
(PS>SB2>BigBen>Tact 2.0s>Dac1>Bryston 4bsst>Thiel 2.4s)

I initially ripped  half my music collection using the "copy selections" command under the EAC "ACTION"  tab. Later someone told me that I should be using "test and copy selections".  Now I'm hearing that one can test one's ripp quality against an online standard. I was under the impression EAC automatically did a comparison in order to establish quality. Do any of the above techniques yield significantly superior results? (if it's the on line test proceedure how is this done?)

Thanx

Is an EAC "copy" as good as a "test and copy"?

Reply #1 –
none of the methods you mentioned will give you any more accurate results than the others you mentioned, assuming you are using secure mode.  in secure mode with error recovery quality set to high will give you the best quality rips you can achieve with your given drive and with the cd in its current state.  the advantage of using test and copy, or accurate rip (the online database you were talking about) is simply for peace of mind.  it will give you an idea as to whether or not your rip is accurate.

i would recommend you set up accurate rip in eac if you are ripping your cd's to individual tracks, because it will give you that added certainty as to whether or not your rip is accurate, but wont take any extra time.  this link from eac's download page should give you sufficient directions to setup accurate rip.  doing this will give you the added benefit of finding your drive's offset correction for you accurately and easily too.

if this method is not appealing to you for whatever reason (maybe your cd's are common enough to be in the databases or something) then you might consider the test and copy method.  this will take twice as long though because you will be actually ripping the cd twice, and then eac will examine both rips and tell you if they are identical.  that is not so valuable to me, and not worth the extra time in most cases.

either way, keep in mind that it will not make your rips and more accurate (unless you consider accurate rip correcting your offsets more accurate ripping), it will only give you a better idea if your rips are accurate.  good luck.

edit: typos
a windows-free, linux user since 1/31/06.

Is an EAC "copy" as good as a "test and copy"?

Reply #2 –
I rip my CD's in normal secure mode. If a consistant error isn't detected in normal secure mode, then EAC will also return twice the same wrong CRC when using test and copy. In secure mode with C2 then EAC is able to detect the consistant errors, but it won't correct them since EAC only uses C2 for detection but not for correction. When using secure mode with C2, then test and copy is usefull since the C2 detection isn't perfect on many drives.

-Martin.

Is an EAC "copy" as good as a "test and copy"?

Reply #3 –
Have a look at my signature, gdg. It's a guide which should give you the understanding to make your own decision.


Personally I'm a big fan of Test & Copy for the first extractions one does with a new drive/EAC setup (preferably enough: 50-100 at least).
The reason for doing so, is to get an idea how good your rips will be when you'll no longer be using Test & Copy.
You might, for example, find out that for your drive C2 isn't so safe after all

  • Or that your drive's cache should be disabled in order to extract securely.
    Or that your drive is worth nothing.
    In other words, Test & Copy allows you to test that your setup is really secure (secure is why you use EAC).

    After a while you may want to decide to drop the Test & Copy. It's only the perfectionists among us who keep using Test & Copy. 
    They continue to use it because it basically allows to filter out some extra errors that would otherwise go unnoticed. That happens rather rarely though (a few % of the CDs is my experience). Moreover those errors are CRC mismatches and much less serious than read errors (usually they're inaudible). So whether

    If you'd decide to use Test & Copy, don't forget to check the CRC compare column. Otherwise it's no use

  • in Test & Copy C2 is always safe though

Is an EAC "copy" as good as a "test and copy"?

Reply #4 –
Hmm I forgot about accuraterip.
If you manage to get it working, it could replace the Test & Copy.

Is an EAC "copy" as good as a "test and copy"?

Reply #5 –
Quote
If a consistant error isn't detected in normal secure mode, then EAC will also return twice the same wrong CRC when using test and copy.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=316772"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That's not what happened with the Teac e540 firmware 3.0 !
A synch bug always occured when reading the tracks sequentially, and never using test and copy, or the opposite. And when it occured, the data returned when rereading was always the same, even with caching disabled.
Thus it was a (locally) consistent error detected by test and copy.

Is an EAC "copy" as good as a "test and copy"?

Reply #6 –
Quote
Quote
If a consistant error isn't detected in normal secure mode, then EAC will also return twice the same wrong CRC when using test and copy.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=316772"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That's not what happened with the Teac e540 firmware 3.0 !
A synch bug always occured when reading the tracks sequentially, and never using test and copy, or the opposite. And when it occured, the data returned when rereading was always the same, even with caching disabled.
Thus it was a (locally) consistent error detected by test and copy.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317573"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



So how did the error report look with copy vs test and copy?
Was an error reported in either mode and if not how did you detect the bug?

Is an EAC "copy" as good as a "test and copy"?

Reply #7 –
IMHO, Burst Test and Copy is probably as good (and in some cases better) then Secure Mode. There is no real reason to use Test in secure mode, especially if you have AccurateRip

Is an EAC "copy" as good as a "test and copy"?

Reply #8 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
If a consistant error isn't detected in normal secure mode, then EAC will also return twice the same wrong CRC when using test and copy.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=316772"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That's not what happened with the Teac e540 firmware 3.0 !
A synch bug always occured when reading the tracks sequentially, and never using test and copy, or the opposite. And when it occured, the data returned when rereading was always the same, even with caching disabled.
Thus it was a (locally) consistent error detected by test and copy.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317573"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



So how did the error report look with copy vs test and copy?
Was an error reported in either mode and if not how did you detect the bug?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317669"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In Test & Copy errors are not "reported" the classical way ("status report: no errors occured"). You have to look yourself in the 10th column of EAC to see if the CRCs all match.
Every now and then you see a mismatch while EAC reported no errors. I think that answers your question: these are errors consistent in secure mode, but not in Test & Copy. This type of errors is the type I referred to in my previous post. They occur every now & then, but it's nearly impossible to assess their share in the total amount of consistent errors (because that amount is unknown).

Is an EAC "copy" as good as a "test and copy"?

Reply #9 –
Quote
IMHO, Burst Test and Copy is probably as good (and in some cases better) then Secure Mode. There is no real reason to use Test in secure mode, especially if you have AccurateRip
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317684"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

the opposite is true for me.  error correction is what is important to me, not just knowing if the error is there.  i just want the best rip i can get from my cd's.  if its not perfect, so be it, but i want it to be as close as possible.  therefore, secure mode w/ error correction set to high is my weapon of choice.
a windows-free, linux user since 1/31/06.

Is an EAC "copy" as good as a "test and copy"?

Reply #10 –
Quote
the opposite is true for me.  error correction is what is important to me, not just knowing if the error is there.  i just want the best rip i can get from my cd's.  if its not perfect, so be it, but i want it to be as close as possible.  therefore, secure mode w/ error correction set to high is my weapon of choice.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317750"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I use Test & Copy first, then if a CRC mismatch occours I use secure mode with error correction for the tracks in question.

Is an EAC "copy" as good as a "test and copy"?

Reply #11 –
I use Test and Copy in Burst Mode. IIRC, this is what Andre Wiethoff uses for his rips. (See here.)  If I still don't get matching CRCs after 3 tries, I switch to Copy in Secure Mode.
WavPack 4.31 / LAME 3.98 alpha 3 -V9 -vbr-new

Is an EAC "copy" as good as a "test and copy"?

Reply #12 –
If I used EAC, I would use Test and Copy in burst mode too (zooom!).  If errors occured I would slow down extraction, if errors still occured after that I would then switch to secure mode.

Always check you have matching CRCs!

daefeatures.co.uk
 

Is an EAC "copy" as good as a "test and copy"?

Reply #13 –
If a drive caches audio then burst + test & copy is faster than secure mode, but since my drive dosen't cache audio, then i use secure mode. If the track quality is 100%, then the secureness is the same as CRC OK in burst + test & copy. If the track quality is under 100%, and getting Copy OK, then the secureness is lower than CRC OK in burst + test & copy, but getting under 100% in track quality, means that burst mode + test & copy, would have failed anyway, and that secure modes error correction was needed...

-Martin.