Is EAC re-read better then dBpoweramp re-read

[EliC]

I wanted to pick up this discussion:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=73718

Basically, my take on it is this:

greynol is saying that the user can significantly increase the number or re-reads and since dBpoweramp only requires 10 matching re-reads, it can be made (by end user changing of settings) more susceptible to consistent errors IF C2 errors are not used AND accuraterip is not available. EAC on the other hand requires a higher percent of matches (50%) of re-reads. Even then, the track would be marked as secure and not accurate, correct?

Am I summarizing this correctly?

Can dBpoweramp just be changed so that IF C2 and accuraterip is not available, then it requires 50% of rereads to match to consider a rip secure?

Spoon, in this thread you also mention possible improvements to secure ripping. Are there significant improvements to be made?

[Spoon]

Re: Is EAC re-read better then dBpoweramp re-read

Relying on 50% on some drives gives less secure results, on one of the drives we tested, EAC could not rip securely (without AR or C2) because it was relying on 50%

[EliC]

Re: Is EAC re-read better then dBpoweramp re-read

I think in secure mode the preference would be to have false negatives (tracks that could have been recovered, but were not) reported as inaccurate, vs false positives (tracks that are reported as secure, but are not). So yes, maybe the track could be recovered, but the purpose of secure mode is 2 fold, to recover the exact/correct data and to be sure that if it can't be recovered its reported as an error. dBpoweramp does very good if accuraterip and C2 are available. However, if they are not, should the default behavior of dBpoweramp to be to make sure that no tracks are reported as secure when they are not?

[rodhudson]

Re: Is EAC re-read better then dBpoweramp re-read

Relying on 50% on some drives gives less secure results, on one of the drives we tested, EAC could not rip securely (without AR or C2) because it was relying on 50%

That may be the case.

But surely this question is about dbpoweramp's methods, not any perceived deficiencies of EAC.

They can deal with their problems.

[Spoon]

Re: Is EAC re-read better then dBpoweramp re-read

People are banding around that EACs non-c2 methods are superior to dBpoweramps, and want dBpoweramp to copy EACs method. I disagree strongly that this is fact, and is based on some peoples speculation, rather than real-world testing with drives.

[EliC]

Re: Is EAC re-read better then dBpoweramp re-read

Im not saying its better, it just sounds like priorities are different:

Below ONLY refers to No-C2 AND No-accuraterip

dBpoweramp - intention - try to read the original song
- downside - may get a consistent error

EAC - intention - always report if there is an error
- downside - less chance of reading the original song


Please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding. What I am saying, if accuraterip is unavailable then maybe the preference of secure mode should be to over-report errors, vs try to recover the data, which may have errors that go unreported.

[Spoon]

Re: Is EAC re-read better then dBpoweramp re-read

>EAC - intention - always report if there is an error

Not at all, our much advertised testing of certain drives, there were plenty of tracks where EAC did not report an error, a consistent error.

[EliC]

Re: Is EAC re-read better then dBpoweramp re-read

That is why I said "intention", clearly not perfectly implemented.