Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

If you are using a Hotmail or Outlook email address, please change it now, as Microsoft is rejecting all email from our service outright.
Topic: CD ripping speed vs age of CD (Read 1897 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CD ripping speed vs age of CD

I have switched from EAC to dBPowerAmp to rip CDs.  I like the fact that it rips CDs in burst mode, does an AccurateRip check, and if it passes, calls it day.  If it fails, then it does a secure rip.

Today, I got 2 CDs in the mail:

1. Soundtrack to the film Electric Dreams (1984)
2. The Fratellis - Here We Stand (2008)

Here We Stand ripped in probably 2 minutes.  dBPowerAmp just flew through the CD.  Electric Dreams took over 5 minutes to rip.

Electric Dreams did not Secure Rip any of the tracks.  Just burst mode, AccurateRip check, and then the app telling me that it's accurate.

Is this an age related issue?  There is always talk of CD bit-rot.  Is the burst mode ripping engaging C2 error correction and that is slowing down the ripping?  Is there any way to find out?

Two things I have noticed in the past:

1. If you wash a CD with detergent and water and dry with a lint free cloth, you can usually increase the rip time somewhat.  So, obviously the rip time if affected by dirt.

2. I have used ScratchX to save scratched CDs that would not accurately rip.  Squirt some on and then run a buffing pad over the CD for a minute or two, wash with dish soap and water and dry with a lint free cloth.  This can dramatically decrease ripping time.

So, for #1, it's obvious that dirty CDs will take longer to rip.  And sometimes rip time is slightly improved even on a clean CD.  So, I am going to guess that there may just be a thin film of dirt from the thing just being old.

But for #2, I am wondering if the bottom of the CD is maybe oxidizing slightly, and a buff with ScratchX removes the oxidation and improves CD rip time.

Thoughts?  Opinions?

Re: CD ripping speed vs age of CD

Reply #1 –
The drive's firmware might be telling it to slow down, for reasons I can only throw hunches about. If the drive senses some strain (CD maybe not completely even?), it might slow down. Also, before you get to C2 errors, there are C1 errors, that are corrected on-the-fly, but who knows if the drive will take it as a hint to slow itself down if it sees a plenty.

Rot? Didn't those cases corrode to hell pretty quick?
The reflective layer is glued to plastic, and you won't polish the silver at all. If anything cleaning the bottom works, it is cleaning the plastic, not the reflective material.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: CD ripping speed vs age of CD

Reply #2 –
If I remember right, you can also use EAC to do a burst mode rip and do an AccurateRip check after.

Re: CD ripping speed vs age of CD

Reply #3 –
Quote
2. I have used ScratchX to save scratched CDs that would not accurately rip.  Squirt some on and then run a buffing pad over the CD for a minute or two, wash with dish soap and water and dry with a lint free cloth.  This can dramatically decrease ripping time.
Personally, I've never had any luck with polishing, although cleaning has sometimes helped.

The data-layer is actually on the label-side and it's read through full thickness of the polycarbonate.   It can be scratched from the top where it's usually impossible to see the damage, and polishing the label side would only cause more damage.    i.e. If you sandpaper the top you'll destroy it. 

(The data layer on a DVD is in the middle of a polycarbonate sandwich and scratching the op won't hurt it.   The data-layer on a Blu-Ray is on bottom with some kind of "hard protective layer".)

Re: CD ripping speed vs age of CD

Reply #4 –
I've moved from Windows to Mac and Linux machines, so EAC is longer an option for me.

Re: CD ripping speed vs age of CD

Reply #5 –
Quote from: DVDdoug on
Quote
2. I have used ScratchX to save scratched CDs that would not accurately rip.  Squirt some on and then run a buffing pad over the CD for a minute or two, wash with dish soap and water and dry with a lint free cloth.  This can dramatically decrease ripping time.
Personally, I've never had any luck with polishing, although cleaning has sometimes helped.

The data-layer is actually on the label-side and it's read through full thickness of the polycarbonate.   It can be scratched from the top where it's usually impossible to see the damage, and polishing the label side would only cause more damage.    i.e. If you sandpaper the top you'll destroy it. 

(The data layer on a DVD is in the middle of a polycarbonate sandwich and scratching the op won't hurt it.   The data-layer on a Blu-Ray is on bottom with some kind of "hard protective layer".)

I've noticed that Blu-ray discs are much harder to scratch than CDs and DVDs.

Re: CD ripping speed vs age of CD

Reply #6 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
I've moved from Windows to Mac and Linux machines, so EAC is longer an option for me.

I suggest XLD on macOS, Fre:ac on Linux.

Re: CD ripping speed vs age of CD

Reply #7 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
I've moved from Windows to Mac and Linux machines, so EAC is longer an option for me.

CUETools can also be made to work on Linux: http://cue.tools/wiki/CUETools#Supported_platforms

Not tried it. I waved the white flag and migrated from penguinware to get dBpoweramp and ripping my CD carousel 200 discs at the time (that was supported on a certain version of XP Media Center edition), and for foobar2000 ...
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: CD ripping speed vs age of CD

Reply #8 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
I've moved from Windows to Mac and Linux machines, so EAC is longer an option for me.


EAC runs fine via Wine here, CUETools also works via Wine. I was never able to run CUERipper via Wine however, it crashes sooner or later.
Fre:ac for Linux is OK, but has not AccurateRip support yet.

Re: CD ripping speed vs age of CD

Reply #9 –
From my observation from doing a lot of ripping, max speed seems to be determined by where the CDs were manufactured.  For instance, every Rhino CD with an R2 mfr's number rips at 8X max.  I'd guess they were all replicated by the same replicator.

Re: CD ripping speed vs age of CD

Reply #12 –
Fre:ac has a GUI. And supports accurate ripping.

Re: CD ripping speed vs age of CD

Reply #14 –
Quote from: kode54 on
Fre:ac has a GUI. And supports accurate ripping.
I've browsed their website https://www.freac.org/ and must've missed the secure part, can you please point me in the right direction?
WavPack 5.3.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac64 2.71 -V 100

Re: CD ripping speed vs age of CD

Reply #15 –
It uses cdparanoia.

Re: CD ripping speed vs age of CD

Reply #18 –
Then go learn your command line tool, which does AccurateRip, apparently.
 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021