I've been using CDRipper for 2 or 3 years now, and haven't had too much trouble getting accurate rips. However, a few hundred discs later, it seems like every disk will rip accurately, but only after every track goes through 2 "regular" passes, 2 UltraSecure passes, and the recovery of 2-300 bad frames. This is making the total ripping time between 1 and 2x. I've tried several new and old discs (all CDs, no CD-R's) from various sets and countries. So I'm pretty sure it's not the discs.

For instance, a 17-track 77-minute disk took about 55 minutes to rip today. Of the 17 tracks on the disk, 1 ripped correctly in 1 pass, but the other 16 went through the 5 steps above.

Here's a time breakdown of one 3:26 track:
0:00 started Pass 1
0:07 Pass 1 complete; start Pass 2
0:15 Pass 2 complete; start Ultra 1
0:38 Ultra 1 0% complete; drive motor powers down
1:05 Ultra 1 reports 1% complete and starts increasing
1:13 Motor powers back up
1:32 Ultra 1 completes; Ultra 2 starts at 0%
1:50 Ultra 2 still at 0%; drive motor powers down
2:25 Ultra 2 reports 1% and starts increasing
2:32 Motor powers back up
2:40 Ultra 2 completes; Start re-reading of 315 bad frames
3:27 Track complete

Obviously, the motor powering down is going to kill ripping time. The drive is a ~9 year old Plextor BD-R PX-B940SA, and maybe it's just shot. Windows Event Viewer isn't showing any errors related to it.

FWIW, I've seen this on R17 and R17.1. I don't remember if it happened earlier. (Doubt that would be a factor.) I did update the system to Windows 10 back in January. It's possible that's related. The Windows Event Viewer reports occasional reset device resets from iaStoreE for \Device\RaidPort1, even though I don't have RAID configured...but that hasn't changed in...years.

Any advice on this? Is there any recommended diagnostic software for gauging the sanity of the drive? A trial version of "OptiDriveControl" was unable to burn a test disk, or provide any other useful information. Of course, if the drive is going bad, that failure would be consistent, wouldn't it? ;-)

Thank you.