0

I have just bought a brand new CD and I wanted to make a rip of it, since I usually listen to my favourite albums through a lossless portable DAC. The CD is therefore perfectly shiny and flawless, without any marks or scratches. I have always used EAC to rip my CDs (several by the same band), using all the recommended settings for accurate ripping and I have always got quite good results (I also tried once CUEripper which gives the same output log of EAC). This time it seem there is something different, something wrong, and I would like to understand the origin of this sudden unexpected behaviour.

As main Drive settings I have used secure mode with 'accurate stream' support (no cache and no C2 errors detection), auto detect drive read command (which turns out to be MMC1, gap detection method A (secure) and read offset correction +103 without "overread into Lead-in and Lead-out. As extraction settings I have that missing samples due to drive offset are filled with silence, synchronization between tracks and error recovery quality high.

With my first (several) attempts I always got the same result, the first and the last tracks cannot be verified as accurate. Here's the log file: log without overread into LI and LO

Then I decided to use another setup, unchecking the "fill up missing offset samples with silence" and, conversely, forcing the drive to read into lead-in and lead-out in order not to lose samples. Unaccountably the result is pretty the same:log with overread into LI and LO

Wheen checking the cue file with CUEtools, it seems there is a complete match of all the tracks. Maybe I really do miss something, I really can't understand why this time, only some of the tracks are repeatedly ripped in a non-accurate way.

I could provide also additional information as well as other test rips with different configurations. I hope my question is not against the rules of the site.

  • (1) Try a sanity test with a CD that you have already successfully used with EAC. (2) Consider cleaning the optical drive (e.g. the lens) for dust. Typically I've had to open up the drive by disassembling it. – sawdust Apr 28 '17 at 21:40
  • @sawdust I'm sorry, what do you mean with "sanity test"? Maybe a cross check using CUEtools database? – Vexx23 Apr 28 '17 at 22:02
  • You have made a point in describing the pristine condition of the disc in question. But that is only one part of the process that you're performing. What about the condition of the other parts that you are using? You are assuming those other parts are perfectly functional. Test that assumption! Perform a test using EAC with a disc that worked in the past. – sawdust Apr 29 '17 at 1:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.