IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Best way to copy badly damaged CDs via EAC?
db1989
post May 14 2013, 23:25
Post #26





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (greynol @ May 14 2013, 18:13) *
QUOTE (db1989 @ May 14 2013, 05:14) *
That’s what the percentage describes: how many of the attempts obtained the same (most common) set of samples.
This is not quite correct.

From http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/...tion-questions/
QUOTE
It is the ratio between the number of minimum reads needed to perform the extraction and the number of reads that were actually performed. 100% will only occur when the CD was extracted without any rereads on errors.
Of course. I was rambling as though the figure was for a single sector at a time, but obviously EAC provides only one figure for the entire range (CD, track, whatever). I should try thinking before I post. Thanks for the important correction.

QUOTE (BFG @ May 14 2013, 20:21) *
(I know many will question my ripping of each disc twice - once per format. But I haven't found any other way to preserve all of the metadata, including album covers, that I've painstakingly entered by hand. It's lost in my FLAC to MP3 processing, but there's probably something simple I'm missing.)
Indeed, there should be a simple way to perform the conversion and include metadata automatically with no trouble at all.

QUOTE (Porcus @ May 14 2013, 20:46) *
There have been these discussions about foobar2000 losing album art in this conversion
Do you mean from the past when it could not transfer any art, or are there problems even nowadays that I’ve missed?

QUOTE (pdq @ May 14 2013, 21:21) *
QUOTE (BFG @ May 14 2013, 15:21) *
So as long as AccurateRip returns good results on the FLAC I'm not too overly concerned that the MP3 was faulty.
Don't you worry that there might be a random read error that gives the right data when you rip to FLAC, but the wrong data when you rip to MP3?
It happening the other way around is the scenario that’s worth worrying about, I would think. But then, in any case, how likely is it that an exactly matching checksum would occur once by chance from an inconsistent CD? (That’s a genuine question, not a trick one. tongue.gif)

Anyway, ripping twice is massively wasteful and should be easy to avoid using either of the methods that have already been suggested and probably many more. That would make such questions purely academic at best.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post May 15 2013, 09:20
Post #27


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5101
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (greynol @ May 14 2013, 20:26) *
There is no software that will work the magic you request. Spending more than 10 minutes on a ~4 minute track is a complete waste of time.
I agree entirely - from experience, it just doesn't make things better.

Whereas brasso, and stand-alone CD players, do. Plus they don't take 24 hours, or destroy your PC's CD drive in the process.

Making EAC re-read data that simply isn't there any more (label side damage), or is completely obscured (bad under side scratch) is pointless. It only makes sense on damage that sometimes causes a read error, but mostly does not cause a read error. That scenario is very damage and drive dependent. It can help sometimes - but just because it's the default fall-back in some beloved software does not mean it should be the default fall-back when we humans encounter damaged CDs. On some discs, brasso, stand-alone CD player, CTDB, and/or just manually fixing a burst rip, will be preferable.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post May 15 2013, 09:39
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (greynol @ May 14 2013, 22:05) *
QUOTE (Porcus @ May 14 2013, 12:46) *
chances are that there are lots of recoverables too

Of course, but do you honestly think this will end up in an audibly better enough result


Audibly better? If the count of scratch sounds is the yardstick, then sometimes yes – if all tracks with at least one are deemed equally useless, then very rarely (only a very few times in thousands of CDs, and likely no full CD was “saved” [edit: until CTDB arrived]). Five years ago I had quite a few rips I could have uploaded seconds from, but for obvious reasons I deleted the least tolerable ones. That said, switching drive (and maybe between dBpoweramp and EAC) was more likely to improve.

QUOTE (Porcus @ May 14 2013, 12:46) *
to warrant the trouble?


The “trouble” of pushing a button and going to sleep? I'm not OCD'ed enough to sit there staring at it :-o



QUOTE (greynol @ May 14 2013, 22:05) *
but for a track that takes an hour or longer?!? Hell no!!!


FWIW, I just opened a few of my biggest .log files, and found an Accurate-verified track that actually took five hours. (Not the best drive though, but I did not know at the time.)

This post has been edited by Porcus: May 15 2013, 09:42


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post May 15 2013, 12:25
Post #29





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



...and I have seen a rip that took hours in secure more which only took minutes in burst mode and was extracted accurately. Lots of things are possible, especially when you are willing to entertain phenomena that exists less than 1% of the time. wink.gif

Also, I wouldn't be so quick to imply that errors which are benign enough to be ripped accurately in secure mode will necessarily be audible when ripped in burst mode.


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post May 15 2013, 13:03
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (greynol @ May 15 2013, 13:25) *
...and I have seen a rip that took hours in secure more which only took minutes in burst mode and was extracted accurately.


I was about to go “who does that when the burst rip is good?” but then, EAC can still not be configured to (automatically) follow the dBpoweramp-esque workflow of burst -> AR check -> secure?


QUOTE (greynol @ May 15 2013, 13:25) *
Lots of things are possible, especially when you are willing to entertain phenomena that exists less than 1% of the time. wink.gif


Well this discussion does deal with troublesome discs.



QUOTE (greynol @ May 15 2013, 13:25) *
Also, I wouldn't be so quick to imply that errors which are benign enough to be ripped accurately in secure mode will necessarily be audible when ripped in burst mode.


OK, maybe “FWIW” wasn't a sufficient disclaimer, but still I think you turned the “warrant the trouble” argument on its head. If I can get an AR-verified rip in my sleep, why should I instead spend an hour listening carefully through a doubtful track? Except if I am worried over a few dimes' worth of drive wear?


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post May 15 2013, 13:44
Post #31





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Porcus @ May 15 2013, 05:03) *
EAC can still not be configured to (automatically) follow the dBpoweramp-esque workflow of burst -> AR check -> secure?

That's correct, it's either burst mode where no re-reads will be performed or secure mode where re-read sets will be performed if triggered. Also, EAC does not make any workflow decisions based on AR results.

QUOTE (greynol @ May 15 2013, 13:25) *
why should I instead spend an hour listening carefully through a doubtful track?

How would you then know if a track ripped with secure mode that didn't pass AR would sound any better than a track ripped using burst mode that didn't pass AR?

QUOTE (greynol @ May 15 2013, 13:25) *
Except if I am worried over a few dimes' worth of drive wear?

Your drive might not make it through the night, in which case it wasn't exactly a few dimes' worth of wear.

This post has been edited by greynol: May 15 2013, 20:39


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DVDdoug
post May 15 2013, 20:31
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 2566
Joined: 24-August 07
From: Silicon Valley
Member No.: 46454



So... I was just looking around online a bit and I found CleanDISCPro. You mail your discs to them (Miramar Florida) and for $3 (or less depending on quantity) they will resurface them. The good news is they won't charge you if they can't repair the disc. Like I said, I didn't have much luck with my little polishing machine, but the service seems worth a try if you have an important irreplaceable disc. (Actually they say they don't play the disc, so I guess you have to ask for a refund if they fail.)

This post has been edited by DVDdoug: May 15 2013, 20:32
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post May 16 2013, 00:42
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (greynol @ May 15 2013, 14:44) *
QUOTE
why should I instead spend an hour listening carefully through a doubtful track?
How would you then know if a track ripped with secure mode that didn't pass AR would sound any better than a track ripped using burst mode that didn't pass AR?


Eh ... please read again the part of the sentence that you cut away from the quote.


QUOTE (greynol @ May 15 2013, 14:44) *
QUOTE
Except if I am worried over a few dimes' worth of drive wear?

Your drive might not make it through the night, in which case it wasn't exactly a few dimes' worth of wear.


If a drive breaks down after thousands of hours, does it seem appropriate to allocate the cost to the wear from the single last track it was in the process of reading?
Once a drive is in the state where it cannot stand eight hours, isn't it then likely that you would have to replace it very soon anyway?


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post May 16 2013, 01:25
Post #34





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Porcus @ May 15 2013, 16:42) *
Eh ... please read again the part of the sentence that you cut away from the quote.

The part about you having a crystal ball telling you that your decision to let the rip go overnight would pay off?!? Yes, I read that.

QUOTE (Porcus @ May 15 2013, 16:42) *
isn't it then likely that you would have to replace it very soon anyway?

Not if you are to believe what Spoon says about drive stress:
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/secure-ripper.htm

This post has been edited by greynol: May 16 2013, 01:45


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post May 16 2013, 09:53
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (greynol @ May 16 2013, 02:25) *
QUOTE (Porcus @ May 15 2013, 16:42) *
Eh ... please read again the part of the sentence that you cut away from the quote.

The part about you having a crystal ball telling you that your decision to let the rip go overnight would pay off?!? Yes, I read that.


OK, so I was wrong in assuming good faith. Not the first time.


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post May 16 2013, 10:59
Post #36


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5101
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (greynol @ May 16 2013, 01:25) *
Not if you are to believe what Spoon says about drive stress:
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/secure-ripper.htm
The data there proves the other thing that is mentioned previously in this thread: If you leave your ripping program thrashing your drive for minutes/hours, and after lots of work it finally reports an error-free rip, that rip might still have errors in it.

I've long suspected this, because I have discs where I can get an accurate rip match with one burst read pass on every track on the CD but one. That track clearly has errors, but after ten minutes effort re-ripping sectors I'm told the rip is now secure - but still doesn't match accurate rip. It seems obvious to me that this track has (on this disc, in this drive) unrecoverable errors, my rip is not correct, and labelling it "secure" is misleading at best.

In that context, it's pretty obvious what's gone wrong, and that something has gone wrong. Whereas on a disc which has loads of initial errors and/or no accurate rip match, who can really say whether the final result is accurate?

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spoon
post May 16 2013, 11:38
Post #37


dBpowerAMP developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2745
Joined: 24-March 02
Member No.: 1615



Well that is just it, drives cannot detect errors 100% of the time (c2 or re-reading), an external source is required. The more re-reads that are done, the greater the chance of a consistent error (c2 can help to an extent with re-reads).


--------------------
Spoon http://www.dbpoweramp.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eli
post Jun 17 2013, 17:18
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 1056
Joined: 16-October 03
Member No.: 9337



QUOTE (Porcus @ May 14 2013, 02:49) *
(Secure rippers could actually improve if they would implement a feature logging the troublesome frames, and use that log upon re-ripping with another drive. Then they could pick whatever passes C1&C2 on at least one of the rips.)


I have been trying to get Spoon to add that for YEARS. Maybe Gregory will add it to CueTools ripper...


--------------------
http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?t=21072
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DonP
post Jun 17 2013, 22:41
Post #39





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1471
Joined: 11-February 03
From: Vermont
Member No.: 4955



If the problem is scratches (vs stuff stuck on the plastic) I'd go with filler rather than removing material. Ideally something (usually a wax) with the same index of refraction as the polycarbonate, but in a pinch I've even had saliva work temporarily (obviously it won't permanently affect the disk) and in that case I'd specify a slow rip speed so it doesn't just fly off.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th August 2014 - 14:25