How fast is YOUR EAC Secure Mode Speed!?

Dieses Thema im Forum "Exact Audio Copy - English" wurde erstellt von Gabriel_Eliot, 17 August 2001.

  1. Gabriel_Eliot

    Expand Collapse

    How fast does your Plextor drive rip audio in EAC when the program is set up with SATCP style settings (secure mode, etc.)? If your non-Plextor drive gets a good speed, feel free to post that as well.

    Please post your digital audio extraction speed along with your pertinent system setup!

    My new Plextor 40X SCSI Wide drive (with appropriate Wide capable PCI SCSI board) starts at around 8X and works up to slightly over 10X. I have never seen it hit 11X although I have only extracted 5 or 6 six discs on it so far.

    My system is: Pentium II 400 Mhz, 128 MB Ram, Windows 98 SE, Startech SCSI Wide card ($68 cheap SCSI card, although incredibly easy setup and works great so far), EAC pb11.

    I am wondering if this speed is slow, average, or fast compared to what everyone else is getting for DAE.

    On burst mode I get around 15 X, although I think this may be limited by my hard drive (old EIDE).

    Do you think a faster system would speed up DAE with EAC on secure mode?

    Your input is appreciated!
  2. JohnMaynardKeynes

    Expand Collapse

    The highest AVERAGE I've seen (secure == c2 + caching) with my new Plexwriter 24/10/40A is 10.3x. Typical is around 8-10. Badly scatched discs, however, fall short of those marks.
  3. Verbal Kint

    Verbal Kint
    Expand Collapse

    Asus 50X

    I rip consistantly around 11ish. V
  4. Pio2001

    Expand Collapse
    Member Deluxe

    Registriert seit:
    28 September 2000
    With the Hitachi GD7500, accurate, no cache, C2, it starts at 8 x for track 1 and goes to 16 x for the last track of a 80 min CD.

    I've got RAM problems, so I've still to check that it's really secure.
  5. Unregistered

    Expand Collapse

    I get around 0.6X with my Plextor 16/10/40A...which is why I don't use EAC anymore. Sigh. I was getting about 10X with my old Kenwood 52X before it died.
  6. Unregistered

    Expand Collapse

    My Plextor 8/4/32 gives DAE speeds in secure mode of up to 7.7x at the end of a CD in secure mode. Up to 24x in burst mode.

    Speed at the beginning of a CD is about half of that for the last track.
  7. Unregistered

    Expand Collapse

    using eac prebeta11 (latest...) made out a HELL of tweaking on my old gold, asus 34x max ide driver... i set up a secure mode (it tells me and i checked this out to be true... Secure Stream & C2 YES, Cache Audio NO -- the best switch mix u can get for secure) - i set the driver speed to MAX (33.9) and ticked 'let slowdown if error' - further more i had to activate 'spin up' tick box to gain full speed and reliability in reading
    believe it or not, on perfect originals, it goes from 14,3x at the start till 27x at about 70mins...
    of course i countecheccked CRCs at any speed and with any switch on/off in secure mode... it gives the same 'full speed' CRCs so i guess i'm doing right...
    of course max speed not always works, one has to throttle it down a bit

    hey guys! i don.t really think that any plextor could do so slow (0,6??? naaaaa) maybe something wrong with aspi layer or setup... really dunno

    glad to help / i'm babaz, for tha to know :)
  8. Unregistered

    Expand Collapse

    The speed of my drive (Ricoh MP7200A, IDE) varied from 8x to 14x. Guess some CDs were better to read than others..

    Without C2 secure mode gives me usually 4 x speed. Sometimes more, rarely less.
  9. thisismynick

    Expand Collapse

    Secure mode ripping speeds

    Got a TEAC CD540E f/w 3.0A Beta on IDE Port 1 Slave and a Plex PX-W161040A f/w 1.03 on IDE Port 2 Master on a PIII700 (100 FSB), 128 MB, 2 x HDD IBM DTLA 307030 UDMA 66 machine with Win 98 SE & Win XP Build 2532 (dual boot), DMA on.

    Ripping settings Teac: secure mode, no caching, C2 report yes, accurate stream yes-> from 12x up to 25x, normally no errors, from time to time "sync lost" on the very, very end of the last ripped track (?!?), but no audible errors.

    Settings Plex: secure mode, caching yes, C2 report yes, accurate stream yes -> only 8x - 16x, but always *perfect* rips.

    Same settings on Win XP -> CRAP! Works only with DMA off, and then it's slooooow (like, 10x max.)

  10. Tirook

    Expand Collapse

    K6-2 450 @4*112
    256MO PC133
    2.1GO PIO4!!!! (very bad)
    TEKRAM DC395U (synchronized mode)
    ULTRAPLEX 40XMAX (synchronized mode)
    EAC 0.9pb10
    Evrything is activated: secure, C2...
    my rip speed is between 12X-16X (note that ultraplex use Constant Angular Velocity)
    Eachtime I have a slow rip speed, it's because of the bad quality of the CD. Then I just rip tracks as many files in secure mode, skip bad tracks, and rip bad tracks with an other rip mode.

    Christophe from France
  11. BurnMaster

    Expand Collapse

    Afreey 52x cd-rom

    In Secured Mode:
    Accurate stream = Yes
    Cashe = No
    Cr2 = Yes

    Ripping speed:
    Start: 8-9x
    End: 18-19x
  12. Unregistered EAC Lover

    Unregistered EAC Lover
    Expand Collapse

    p3-600, W98se

    Secure (no caching)
    Speed selection = actual
    Allow speed reduction during extraction = yes

    Toshiba 6702B (1007 gives far fewer ghost errs but same speeds as 1005):
    start: 5 - 5.5X with C2, ~ 2.8X w/o C2
    end: ~9X with C2, ~ 5X w/o

    Ricoh MP7060A (1.70):
    slightly (10-15%?) faster than my Toshiba

    Teac 540E:
    very slightly faster than my Ricoh

    I tried (and rejected/returned) the Teac last month. That beta firmware does
    indeed cause end-of-last-track anomalies upon extracting data from some CDs.
    (Given the direction of that drive's offset, the end-of-CD problem should not occur.)
    With the Teac speed utility set to highest speeds, EAC exctraction was slightly
    SLOWER, as it took time to slow down to where DAE could be performed reliably...
    The middle teac speed util speed setting gave best EAC performance. Running that
    teac speed util with EAC open/idling brought about a severe system crash (I had to
    restore from prev registry to get system back to normal...). So I take all those "don't
    blame us no matter what bad things happen" warnings in the Teac beta software EULAs
    pretty seriously.

    I think those mythical reports of 23X extractions with that drive are nebulous at best.

    Remember, folks:

    1. it's generally much harder to accurately read an audio CD than to write one!

    2. it's not much good to be the fastest through an autocross course unless there are
    no flattened cones left behind...

    3. C2 error detection effectiveness varies widely among drives, but never seems to be
    implemented with 100% reliability.
  13. thisismynick

    Expand Collapse

    Teac CD540E DAE Speed

    @Unregistered EAC Lover:

    Hmm, I find it VERY strange that you don't get DAE speeds AND proper results anywhere near mine with your Teac CD540E with that beta f/w 3.0. Especially your saying that this drive of yours gives you results only at about 20% (I got that right?) faster than the Tosh 6702B f/w 1007 - which I happen to own too. And as good a data disc reader this drive is, it really sux major time when it comes to DAE as your numbers (that match my own experiences) proof.

    Maybe your bad results with the Teac have more to do with the condition of the used disc(s?) or some manufacturing issue with the production lot your drive(s) is/are from. After all, if you returned the drive to the dealer you initially buyed it from and got a second unit from the very same dealer, it is quite probable that this drive is from the same - assumed faulty - lot. Where's manufacturing, there's tolerance and worse issues.

    Be rest assured that I DO get no errors (not even recovered errors) @ speeds between 12-25x in SECURE MODE and C2 on. This is no mythical urban legend. As you will know, if EAC doesn't report errors there are no errors, no audible errors anyway. Of course, this *only* applies for DAE of discs in *good condition*.

    Also note that I ALWAYS test and only then copy tracks. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but with doing "test and copy tracks" AND C2 reporting feature enabled, one should be pretty much on the safe side of proper ripping, whatwith double reading of all samples PLUS C2 error correction layer, huh?

    If error correction does not kick in once AND the checksums are identical, there are no "flattened cones" in my book ;o)

    A different issue indeed are the once in a very great while occurring "sync errors" at the end of last ripped tracks with that beta firmware. Whenever that happens I just re-rip those tracks with a slower speed - still sure pays off to do the ripping normally @ max. speed.

    Also true is some kinda instability in regard of the speed setting util with EAC running in background...but I'd anyway recommend always to do one step at a time with such stuff.

    I hope you'll manage to sort out your non-satisfactory speeds with the Teac, since it really is a great drive for DAE (sux with CloneCD, but that's another story). If I can help you in any way, please don't hesitate to contact me.

  14. Unregistered

    Expand Collapse


    I get about 13-17x around the begining and up to about 27-28x towards the end of good clean CDs with my Plextor 40max SCSI drive. I had it in my Linux box for a while 'cause I had problems using my SCSI card with my Abit KT7 MB but the BIOS appears to be fixed finally so I moved it over... Glad I did! My PlexWriter 12/10/32 only does about 8x which is painful after seeing clean rips at 27x :)

    -- Chris Epler
  15. gnoshi

    Expand Collapse

    On a 450mhz win98se box with 256 meg ram, I get:
    on my Pioneer 105s DVD drive on a standard IDE controller: no more than 2.6x
    on my Matashitsa cw-7502 scsi drive on a symbios logic scsi card: no more than 2.4x
    on secure mode
    both drives cache audio, and have accurate stream, but no c2

    all this with eac 0.9 prebeta 11
  16. Unregistered

    Expand Collapse

    Currently, 5 - 6x. That's using C2 through the Win32 interface in XP. When I used the ASPI interface in Me I only got .2 or .3x!!!! How weird is that? Also, in ASPI, if I turned off C2 I'd get more or less the same speeds I'm getting now, through Win32 with C2 on! I'm using a Toshiba XM-6302B CD-ROM (32x max speed).
  17. Pio2001

    Expand Collapse
    Member Deluxe

    Registriert seit:
    28 September 2000
    The extraction speed depends also on the IDE config : Master only/master/slave, and what is the other device on the same cable if there is one.
  18. Unregistered EAC Lover

    Unregistered EAC Lover
    Expand Collapse

    re: flattened cones

    If the C2 consistently fails to recognize/report errors it should, then I'm not sure
    testing (doesn't that just come up with a prior/comparison extraction chksum value?)
    with C2 recognition enabled can be considered a conclusive test. I'd thought the
    Toshiba's C2 was reliable, but it recently got fooled on a delaminating CD, and so now
    I rely on it less, even though that means slower extractions, 'cuz I'll always prefer to
    wait for the right result than to settle for a quicker but inferior one.

    > I ALWAYS test and only then copy tracks

    I never bother with that any more. I prefer to do a slow finnicky read once using
    known-reliable hdwe/software than read it twice quickly and see if they match.

    > Be rest assured that I DO get no errors

    Actually, I rest more assured of no errors when I turn off the C2 and find that my drive
    notices differences (after more time-consuming re-reads and resolves them) that
    otherwise would have gone unnoticed had I left the C2 enabled. I don't think any
    drive's C2 info can always be fully trusted. If you notice significantly more re-reads
    (not all red squares stay as dark as they started out) without C2 than with C2, then
    that's a pretty good indication that C2 err detection has not been implemented as
    stringently/completely as one could hope for.

    Repeat cone flatteners often do not notice when they've flattened one. Some drives
    can remain blissfully ignorant of the fact that they've just retrieved and passed along
    bogus data. Enabling C2 is good for speed, but relies much more on the drive to
    always know when it's just been a gossip and passed along bogus info.

    I suggest you do some actual checksum (and, if indicated, file) comparisons with
    another drive (with and without C2, on discs in a variety of conditions) before you put
    too much faith in the Teac. Just because a drive can notice a C2 error does not mean
    it will recognize them all...

    As for how I could prefer Toshiba over Teac (another good but imperfect choice),

    My Teac was a possible replacement/solution to 'ghost errors' with Toshiba v1005 that
    Toshiba said could only be fixed by returning to factory for upgrade (swap-out for a
    remanufactured unit, actually) to v1007 under warranty. Local PC retailer agreed to
    a potential swap (especiallysince the Teac is a less expensive piece) I suggested as a
    possible solution.

    So I tried the Teac, and rejected it (even though it seemed to be able to see through
    scratches better than the Toshiba), because the Teac drawer didn't like being pushed in
    (the Toshiba doesn't mind, and here the open drawer blocks the button...) and the Teac
    drawer has that annoying spring-loading thing that requires greater care to use without
    an oops than does the Toshiba's. And there's that problem of the Teac's own ghost
    errors at the end of some CDs (having everything(?) to do with how the data is laid out
    wrt the end of the disc and seemingly nothing to do with the physical condition of the
    disc? I do know that given the drives' offsets that the Toshiba should have had more
    end-of disc read problems than the Teac, and sometimes the reverse was true!)...
    regardless, that meant swapping a drive I liked with one little problem for
    a slightly faster (max speeds were always too full of read errors, requiring
    time-consuming slowdowns) drive I didn't like as much with one little problem.

    Once I found I could try a 'risk-free' (I already had an RMA# with Toshiba...) firmware
    upgrade to 1007 for free, and did, and found that the "one litttle problem" (occasional
    ghost errs) with the Toshiba were about 99% cured, I returned the Teac and have
    been beating on the Toshiba ever since, with only a very rare 49:54 ghost error that
    only shows up after long continuous use at high altitude.

    For those very few discs the Teac could read and the Toshiba simply cannot, I use my
    burner to read 'em.

    Actually, there was another little problem with the Teac. There was one disc in which
    4 of the 12 tracks come up with differing checksums than the Toshiba had (just prior
    to its removal from my system). Using my burner for DAE and EAC's file comparer as
    the tiebreaker, I found that the Teac (at the seemingly more reliable midle-of-3 speed
    range settings) had made some small mistakes! The Teac had, in fact, retrieved
    different samples for periods of ~ 0:00.016 (16, 16, 16, 16, 17, 30). Of course, EAC
    had reported "Track quality 100.0%" (accoring to the Teac). So I've observed direct
    evidence that the Teac is not completely trustworthy; that it was too likely to lie about
    perfection and also return anomalous extracted data. I did not try to see if disabling
    C2 detection cured the problem; for me that was enough to clinch my decision -- the
    Teac 'cure' was worse than the Toshiba disease (now mostly cured) had ever been. So
    I removed the Teac and went back to my now-flashed-to-1007 Toshiba. (And since
    then I've seen that CloneCD thinks the Toshiba's a pretty good drive...)

    If Teac ever fixes that end-of-some-CDs read err and either fixes the C2 or loses
    the small extraction anomalies, I'll then endorse it as a clearly superior tool over the
    Toshiba 6702 for doing DAE. 'Til then, it's a matter of picking which occasional
    functional glitch is less objectionable and/or more easily worked around.

    If your 540E w/beta firmware works better for you than mine did for me, good for you.
    If your drive never misreads and so there are never any errors to report and can do
    all this at 12-25X (divide by two for time to test each track?), go for it.

    But mine was only 20-25% faster and contained flaws.
Die Seite wird geladen...

Diese Seite empfehlen