Strange EAC issue.. has this happened to any of you?

From Edison cylinders to pre-amps to ProTools: talk about it here.
damianm
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:46 am

Strange EAC issue.. has this happened to any of you?

Postby damianm » Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:59 pm

Hi everyone

I've been having this odd problem with EAC on one computer (haven't noticed it anywhere else) .. from what I remember it just started one day, I don't recall having ever changed any of the settings, and no-one else uses this PC. I also haven't changed anything on the hardware side; it's always been the same HP 9100+ series burner.

What happens is that, when ripping a whole-disc WAV+CUE image, EAC drops index points seemingly at random throughout the cuesheet; the WAV files themselves are always fine. From what I remember, other programs I might've tried didn't do this.

An example-

INDEX 00 18:04:22
INDEX 01 19:14:37


In that particular case, the actual song starts at 19:14:37 on the WAV file- but EAC drops an index point at 18:04:22 (?!), which when burnt and played back, results in a lovely -1:08 .. -1:07 .. -1:06 .. -1:05 countoff while the last minute-or-so of the previous song is still playing.

I can get around this in many cases by downloading the .CUE files from the 'Net, but that doesn't help for homemade comps and other 'one-off' CDs. I've tried re-installing EAC at least once, and it didn't solve the problem.

Any ideas? Thanks

User avatar
Xenu
Sellout
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 8:15 pm

Postby Xenu » Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:35 pm

I've had EAC get overzealous once or twice, but never as regularly as you're mentioning. I think what you *might* be seeing is its index-point searching algorithm getting a little greedy (i.e. the "find gaps" concept). Do you have it on SECURE already? If so, change which mode you're using.

-D
-------------
"Fuckin' Koreans" - Reno 911

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:47 pm

This is a side note, but I've never understood why there's a need for 3 different gap detection methods. I've used the same software on the Mac with at least 4 or 5 different drives, and it has always been able to get the right gaps. Why should EAC need a different method for different drives?

As a side note, I've had EAC choke detecting the gap on certain CDs. It doesn't *seem* to be drive dependent, as it would do the same thing on the two different drives in my PC desktop. Again, my Mac program has no such problems.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

damianm
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:46 am

Postby damianm » Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:32 pm

Xenu wrote:I've had EAC get overzealous once or twice, but never as regularly as you're mentioning.

It appears to happen at random- I haven't found a pattern (yet). Pressed discs, CD-Rs.. I don't think that makes a difference either.

Do you have it on SECURE already?

Yup. I use it on Secure about 70% of the time, except when I need it to go fast, or when I'm ripping a really trashed disc- I find Burst works best in those cases (even if the results might not be as good). It does the same thing on Burst, from what I remember.

lukpac wrote:This is a side note, but I've never understood why there's a need for 3 different gap detection methods.

..

I don't know either, but I'll play around with those. I had totally forgotten about them.

Just in case I never get it to work right again.. what's a good alternative to EAC?


Thanks!

User avatar
Xenu
Sellout
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 8:15 pm

Postby Xenu » Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:23 pm

I don't mean "Secure" for *extracting*...I mean for gap detection. IIRC, I think it's "Inaccurate," "Accurate" and "Secure."
-------------

"Fuckin' Koreans" - Reno 911

damianm
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:46 am

Postby damianm » Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:04 am

Xenu wrote:I don't mean "Secure" for *extracting*...I mean for gap detection. IIRC, I think it's "Inaccurate," "Accurate" and "Secure."

My bad- sorry about that. I'll take a look.

(15 secs. later)

What do you know. It was on 'Inaccurate' of all things :roll:.

I'll run a couple discs thru it today after work and let you know how it works. Thanks!