Tweet
The AccurateRip CD Drive Sample Offsets table lists my drive as having a +6 offset. However based on my testing I believe this to be incorrect.
If I do a rip using EAC with offset of -1000 and with fill missing samples enabled. I get exactly 1000 null samples at the beginning of the wave file. Sample 1001 has non null value/content. If I use the +6 offset then the first 6 samples are omitted. If I use +0 offset then there are no null sample fills and the first 6 samples are not omitted. This seems to me that +0 is the correct offset.
So it seems that using the +6 offset that is listed in the CD Drive Sample Offsets table results in an inaccurate rip. Though it will be reported as accurate because it is based on an offset of +6.
Could there be a flaw in "Detect read sample offset correction..." that is inflating offsets by +6?
CD Drive: LG Electronics - DVDRAM SP60NB50 (HL-DT-STDVDRAM SP60NB50 1.00 Adapter: 1 ID:0)
Correction Offset: +6
Submitted By: 57
Percentage Agree: 100%
If I do a rip using EAC with offset of -1000 and with fill missing samples enabled. I get exactly 1000 null samples at the beginning of the wave file. Sample 1001 has non null value/content. If I use the +6 offset then the first 6 samples are omitted. If I use +0 offset then there are no null sample fills and the first 6 samples are not omitted. This seems to me that +0 is the correct offset.
So it seems that using the +6 offset that is listed in the CD Drive Sample Offsets table results in an inaccurate rip. Though it will be reported as accurate because it is based on an offset of +6.
Could there be a flaw in "Detect read sample offset correction..." that is inflating offsets by +6?
CD Drive: LG Electronics - DVDRAM SP60NB50 (HL-DT-STDVDRAM SP60NB50 1.00 Adapter: 1 ID:0)
Correction Offset: +6
Submitted By: 57
Percentage Agree: 100%
Comment