Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lalittle]

I'm running into an ironic problem where my newer, faster system is making it MORE difficult to rip slightly damaged CDs.  I believe that this is due to the fact that even though the new system is using the same drive (transferred over from the previous system), it's a much faster processor, and it's therefore able to process the data faster and keep the disc spinning much faster, which means that when it runs into a part of the disc that's difficult to read, it goes through all 16 tries (I always use "Secure Rip") before the disc has had time to slow down sufficiently.

With the older system -- which used the same CD/DVD drive -- my ripping speeds were not as fast, and when a rip report came up with errors, I would run it again, and the disc would not spin as fast on the second try.  This slower rip would almost always be able to read the "problem" sections with no retries.  Now, with the same drive in the new system, the speed is staying much higher, and the "second pass" is still quite fast.  This results in only "slightly" better results on the second pass.

Is there any way to address this?  The read speed setting in MC has never had any effect on any of the drives I've used (Plextor and Pioneer), so I'm stuck with having to try an entire other system to get a rip with zero errors.  Is this something that can possibly be addressed with modern drives in fast, modern systems?  It seems like a lot of drives these days do not respond to software speed settings.  Given this, is there any possibility of MC adding some feature that could alleviate this issue?  I'm seeing a higher incidence of ripping errors on the new system, which as I said is the same drive from the previous system.  The only difference is that the rest of the system is a LOT faster, and it's ironic that the faster overall speed is making it MORE difficult to get error-free rips.

Thanks for any feedback on this,

Larry

[MrHaugen]

I think software speed reduction on DVD/CD roms are very much dependent on what type of hardware is used.
I HATE the fact that CD and DVD's spin max on a HTPC. Except from installing software and ripping (when the disks not damaged), fast spin times is plain bad. Especialy for my ears.

I'm using a program called CDBremse (http://www.cd-bremse.de/). Don't work for all models, but there should be other programs out there that covers most of todays CD/DVD drives. If it can slow down your drive to 1 - 4x it will probably read alot easier.

It would be incredibly cool if the J River staff found a way to slow down the read speed for all drives, no matter if it's used for watching movies, playing music or ripping. I think it's a bit hopeless though.

[hit_ny]

Is there any way to address this?  The read speed setting in MC has never had any effect on any of the drives I've used (Plextor and Pioneer), so I'm stuck with having to try an entire other system to get a rip with zero errors.  Is this something that can possibly be addressed with modern drives in fast, modern systems? 

Any more info on which drives these are ?

It's odd that a faster system would result in more errors as the drive works independent of the CPU.

Check the mobo's site for any firmware updates too.

[carbo]

Maybe you can try to use Nero Drive Speed to lower the speed of your drive.

I've used it on mine to reduce the noise when watching dvds and it's working fine.

Hope this can help,

Guillaume

[dgoodrie]

Be sure that the media is clean before you rip.  Just looking at it is not good enough as light grease/smuges might not show.  A gentle wash with a mild liquid dish washing soap should do the trick.  I've seen this work quite often.

[lalittle]

Thanks for the responses.

If it can slow down your drive to 1 - 4x it will probably read alot easier.

Based on my experience, this appears to be the case.  I've always noticed that on "second passes" (i.e. a second rip without removing the disc from the drive) the read speed is slower, which has typically made the read work with no errors.  The problem is when there are so few "problem" spots that the disc doesn't' slow down on the second pass.

It would be incredibly cool if the J River staff found a way to slow down the read speed for all drives, no matter if it's used for watching movies, playing music or ripping. I think it's a bit hopeless though.

I agree -- I think that would solve the problem, but I have no idea if it's possible.

It's odd that a faster system would result in more errors as the drive works independent of the CPU.

Are you sure that this is the case?  I notice that when ripping/encoding at the same time, the read speed is lower than when ripping and then encoding.  I'm not sure "why" this is the case, but whatever is happening, the problem still appears to be that the faster speeds are preventing a good rip.

Check the mobo's site for any firmware updates too.

You mean the drive's site?  I already confirmed I'm using the latest firmware on the drive (and the latest bios update on the MB as well.)

Maybe you can try to use Nero Drive Speed to lower the speed of your drive.

Unfortunately, as with every other drive I've used, Nero Drive Speed has no effect on this drive.

Be sure that the media is clean before you rip.

You're absolutely correct that this can often times solve the issue, but I'm referring to the cases where this just doesn't work.

Thanks for any further feedback on this,

Larry

[hit_ny]

Are you sure that this is the case?  I notice that when ripping/encoding at the same time, the read speed is lower than when ripping and then encoding.  I'm not sure "why" this is the case, but whatever is happening, the problem still appears to be that the faster speeds are preventing a good rip.

I say that because an optic drive is a seperate mechanical unit, CPU speed has no impact on its operation. It rips, reads & writes as fast as it physically can or not depending on the instructions received.

What are the model#s of the drives you have ?

[dgoodrie]

Larry,

Did you try this?

Discwasher Digital Wet/Dry DVD Laser Lens Cleaner Model 1503

Perhaps during the transfer from the old to the new PC you picked up too much dust.

[lalittle]

I say that because an optic drive is a seperate mechanical unit, CPU speed has no impact on its operation. It rips, reads & writes as fast as it physically can or not depending on the instructions received.

What are the model#s of the drives you have ?

Off the top of my head, I've used the Plextor "Premium" (52x CD), the Plextor 716, and the Pioneer DVR107, DVR112, and DVR115.

Regarding the rip speed, what you're saying makes sense, but with secure rips there is definitely a noticeable difference in actual disc read speed between faster and slower systems -- the faster system will maintain a higher speed.  I'm thinking that this is due to the way secure rips work -- i.e. since secure rips are not simply streaming, maybe the overall read speed is effected by the CPU.  The MC secure rip system reads each section of the disc more than once (up to 16 times) and has to determine on the fly whether or not it can move on.  My thinking is that perhaps the faster system can process the 16 retries more quickly, and therefore maintains a higher read speed during the process.

Of course I don't know if this is what's happening -- it's just a theory.  I do know, however, that on a faster system, the SAME drive does not drop as far in speed when doing secure rips.  The faster system also results in more "unreliable data after 16 retries" messages than the slower system, where the speed stays lower.

Larry

[dgoodrie]

Your drive should be set to DMA mode.  However, too many errors may force the drive back into PIO mode.  You may want to check this function.

[lalittle]

Larry,

Did you try this?

Discwasher Digital Wet/Dry DVD Laser Lens Cleaner Model 1503

Perhaps during the transfer from the old to the new PC you picked up too much dust.

I really don't think it's a lens issue since the drive is VERY new -- I only used it on the previous system for a little while.  Also, the overall issue is independant of the state of the drive.  By this I mean that regardless of what else is happening, slower read speeds result in fewer read problems.  The fact that this is the case still holds whether or not the lens is dirty.  I also notice this general pattern on other sytems as well -- i.e. faster systems result in faster overall secure rip read speeds as well as more errors.

There is intuitive logic to this -- i.e. it makes sense that a slower rip speed will more accurately read the disc, and that if a disc does not slow down enough before the 16 retries are over, it will never be able to accurately read a section.  Conversely, a slower read speed could result in a good read on the first try with no re-tries needed.

Has anybody at JR entertained the idea of using a lot more re-tries for secure ripping, or perhaps some other clever way of forcing a slower read?  I understand the point of diminishing returns, but maybe only 16 re-tries is not enough to really "ensure" a good rip.  Maybe with more retries, faster drives on faster system would be able to drop to a low enough speed that a truly accurate read could be obtained.  Or... is there perhaps a way to force the drive to a lower speed via some other method?  Maybe it could force spin-downs when it hit bad section that would force a slower read at that spot.  I really don't know what the possibilities are.

The bottom line is that I am unable to get good reads on the faster system with slightly damaged discs, but that the same discs on the same drive gave me fully reliable reads on my older, slower system.  It seems odd to be considering using an older, slower drive in order to get more accurate rips.

Thanks again for all the feedback on this,

Larry

[lalittle]

Your drive should be set to DMA mode.  However, too many errors may force the drive back into PIO mode.  You may want to check this function.

I've actually seen this happen before on various systems, so I do check it from time to time.  The new system has yet to do this.  Ironically, setting the speed back to PIO mode might actually result in better rips since this could prevent the drive from spinning as fast.  Unfortunately, this is not a viable alternative since it would make the drive slow for everything else.

Thanks,

Larry

[hit_ny]

Regarding the rip speed, what you're saying makes sense, but with secure rips there is definitely a noticeable difference in actual disc read speed between faster and slower systems -- the faster system will maintain a higher speed.  I'm thinking that this is due to the way secure rips work -- i.e. since secure rips are not simply streaming, maybe the overall read speed is effected by the CPU.  The MC secure rip system reads each section of the disc more than once (up to 16 times) and has to determine on the fly whether or not it can move on.  My thinking is that perhaps the faster system can process the 16 retries more quickly, and therefore maintains a higher read speed during the process.

So you are saying that during secure ripping that a faster system can decide quicker whether to retry a read or not than a slower system, i suppose cummulatively the time saved over those decisons will result in an overall reduction in time to rip the disc but don't expect it to be too much (?)

If so then why should a faster system make more mistakes ?

That's the part that does not make sense.

..either it says reread or proceed, faster than a slower system.

[lalittle]

So you are saying that during secure ripping that a faster system can decide quicker whether to retry a read or not than a slower system, i suppose cummulatively the time saved over those decisons will result in an overall reduction in time to rip the disc but don't expect it to be too much (?)

That's basically my theory.  As I said, I can't say what's happening under the hood, but I can report that the read speed is lower on the slower system.

If so then why should a faster system make more mistakes ?

That's the part that does not make sense.

It actually might make sense.  Is it possible that the faster system is processing the "re-try decisions" so fast that the disc does not have a chance to fully slow down before all 16 tries have been done?  I really don't know how it works, but it doesn't really matter since the real question is what can be done to get the overall system (i.e. MC12 with a given drive and a given Mobo/CPU) to get an accurate read.  At the moment, with modern systems using fast drives, the drive never slows down enough to get a reliable read before 16 tries are done.  Is there any way to address this?

Larry

PS.  I've tried cleaning some of the problem CDs using everything from basic methods to high end disc re-surfacers, and while I can improve the results a bit, I still cannot always get a fully reliable read.  The evidence suggests that this would be rectified if the drive would simply spin slower.

[dgoodrie]

Larry,

If system speed is the issue, then could you please state your system specs such as FSB speed, memory speed, CPU speed, etc.  I won't agree that a single 3 ghz processor will cause the problem since I have a 3 ghz processor. That is not to say that my system wouldn't have issues with your problem disks. AND, most applications are not multi-threaded so that should rule out a dual/quad core issue.  Not many systems have memory faster than 800 mhz so that can most likely ruled out. So we are down to cache size and speed and possibly the FSB speed. Of course a more efficient memory controller with sufficient overlapping memory fetch cycles should allow the drive to reach maximum performance.  Everything is pretty much speed buffered matched so components of different speeds can coexist on the bus and interface with each other. If the internal bus speed is beyond the specs of your drive then this could be the result during error processing situations. If the drive was spec'd for an internal FSB of 800 mhz and your new powerful system has an internal bus speed of 1333 mhz then the results could be unpredictable. Check the drive specs and perhaps tap the manufacturer on bus speed limitations.  One last thought, have you tried to rip the disks with another commerical software program?

Of course your bios, drive firmware, etc. has been updated to the latest and the greatest.

[dgoodrie]

MC 12 does have some ripping speed options listed under ADVANCED RIPPING OPTIONS. Also, Plextor does not recommend read speeds beyond 40x as the media may come apart.

[lalittle]

MC 12 does have some ripping speed options listed under ADVANCED RIPPING OPTIONS. Also, Plextor does not recommend read speeds beyond 40x as the media may come apart.

Unfortunately, the MC speed settings have no effect on the read speed of any of the drives I've used.

Larry

[lalittle]

Larry,

If system speed is the issue, then could you please state your system specs such as FSB speed, memory speed, CPU speed, etc.  I won't agree that a single 3 ghz processor will cause the problem since I have a 3 ghz processor. That is not to say that my system wouldn't have issues with your problem disks. AND, most applications are not multi-threaded so that should rule out a dual/quad core issue.  Not many systems have memory faster than 800 mhz so that can most likely ruled out. So we are down to cache size and speed and possibly the FSB speed. Of course a more efficient memory controller with sufficient overlapping memory fetch cycles should allow the drive to reach maximum performance.  Everything is pretty much speed buffered matched so components of different speeds can coexist on the bus and interface with each other. If the internal bus speed is beyond the specs of your drive then this could be the result during error processing situations. If the drive was spec'd for an internal FSB of 800 mhz and your new powerful system has an internal bus speed of 1333 mhz then the results could be unpredictable. Check the drive specs and perhaps tap the manufacturer on bus speed limitations.  One last thought, have you tried to rip the disks with another commerical software program?

Of course your bios, drive firmware, etc. has been updated to the latest and the greatest.

Just to make sure we're on the same page here, I'm not seeing "windows" errors when ripping.  I may be mistaken, but I get the impression that you might be thinking that I'm seeing "errors" when ripping cds, which is not happening.  The problem I'm seeing is that with the faster system, I am seeing more "Unreliable data after 16 retries" messages compared to the same drive on a slower system.  In other words, "problem CDs" are "more" problematic on the new system.  Based on circumstantial evidence, it appears that the problem is that on the new system, the drive's read speed never slows down enough to get a good read -- the drive does slow down, but not by all that much.  I get the impression that it essentially just flies through the 16 re-tries very quickly and moves on.

The new system is a 3GHz Core 2 Duo (E8400), with 1333 FSB, and 1333MHz DDR3 RAM.  The old system was a Dual Proc P3 1GHz (i.e. MUCH slower.)  The drive is one of the newer ones from Pioneer (DVR112), and is using the newest firmware from Pioneer.  There is no indication that there are ANY issues with using this drive on the latest, fastest systems, and it's important to note that everything works perfectly except for this issue of problem discs being more "stubborn" when ripping in MC.  Note also that "most" discs (which are not scratched) are not a problem at all.

I've never tried ripping the discs with any other program -- I use MC exclusively for this, and I always use the "Secure" mode since this is the only way to verify that any problems occurred.  If I don't rip in Secure mode, the rip will finish with no apparent issues other than the drive slowing somewhat when it hits the problem spots.  The result will of course have skips and/or repeats at the problem spots.

It "seems" like the key to solving this issue would be to somehow "trick" the drive into slowing down more during the rip (since MC apparently can't control the speed via it's normal speed settings.)

Thanks again for the feedback here,

Larry

[hit_ny]

Is it possible that the faster system is processing the "re-try decisions" so fast that the disc does not have a chance to fully slow down before all 16 tries have been done?  I really don't know how it works, but it doesn't really matter since the real question is what can be done to get the overall system (i.e. MC12 with a given drive and a given Mobo/CPU) to get an accurate read.  At the moment, with modern systems using fast drives, the drive never slows down enough to get a reliable read before 16 tries are done.  Is there any way to address this?

Then something in the chain is not keeping in step.

Aren't your optic drives IDE based ?

Does your mobo have an IDE port or are you running the drives off some PCI card ?

Is the drive connected directly to the mobo or via an intermediary

[dgoodrie]

Have to tried the "old" trick of using a green magic marker on the edge of the marginal CDs?   I remember that recommendation from a magazine some 20+ years ago. 

The error recovery routines should be the same if you are using the same OS.  That would leave us with the drive manufacturer perhaps not testing sufficiently with marginal media on faster PCs but then they can't test for every situation.  Have you tried a different drive in your new PC?

[lalittle]

Then something in the chain is not keeping in step.

Aren't your optic drives IDE based ?

Does your mobo have an IDE port or are you running the drives off some PCI card ?

Is the drive connected directly to the mobo or via an intermediary

I think there may still be a misunderstanding about what is happening here.  I don't think it's an issue with something in the chain not "keeping in step."  There is no problem with data corruption -- there is simply an issue where on the faster system, scratched discs are more likely to go through all 16 re-tries and still not get a good read.  On a slower system, the drive spins a bit slower, and the more difficult to read sections can be read more reliably.  Again, I'm pretty convinced that the issue would be solved if I could just get the drive to spin more slowly.  Unfortunately, it appears that with most drives these days, the traditional software speed adjustments no longer work.

Is there any possibility that a different method of slowing down the drive could be used in MC?  If not, what about simply having it do more re-tries?

The drive is IDE, and is connected directly to the motherboard controller.

Thanks,

Larry

[lalittle]

Have to tried the "old" trick of using a green magic marker on the edge of the marginal CDs?   I remember that recommendation from a magazine some 20+ years ago. 

No -- I just don't believe that that does anything.

The error recovery routines should be the same if you are using the same OS.  That would leave us with the drive manufacturer perhaps not testing sufficiently with marginal media on faster PCs but then they can't test for every situation.  Have you tried a different drive in your new PC?

That's probably the issue -- perhaps the manfacturers are too agressive with wanting to keep the speed higher, and are not considering that this will lead to problems with discs that are somewhat damaged.

I haven't tried a new drive on this particular system.  I was hoping that some method of getting the drive to spin slower on MC rips would come to light.

Larry

[dgoodrie]

Larry,

Sounds like you are not willing to try different suggestions.  Worse case if you want perfect rips, then replace the marginal CDs with perfect CDs.  Perhaps you should look around for a ripping package that has jitter correction for read errors.  I don't know is MC 12 has jitter correction capabilities or just rereads the track up to 16 times.

[Alex B]

Larry, do you still have the old PC around? It might help if you could post the system info reports from both PCs. If that is not possible could you describe the differences in your own words: CPU, memory, motherboard and its IDE controller, BIOS settings for the IDE channel, possibly installed ASPI driver etc.

In general, are you really constantly experiencing problems with new CDs or are you going through a massive reripping process or something like that? The last time I had a problem with a new CD was several years ago. I returned that particular CD to the shop.

[lalittle]

Larry,

Sounds like you are not willing to try different suggestions.

I'm not clear why you say that.  The only thing I didn't try was the green marker trick, which I firmly believe to be a meaningless exercise based on my knowledge of optics, along with the countless reports that circulated over the years showing no evidence that this did anything.

I probably will try another ripping program at some point, but in the end I want to be able to use MC for all my ripping, so this is the real issue.

Worse case if you want perfect rips, then replace the marginal CDs with perfect CDs.

The "problem" cds in question are largely ones from old collections that I can no longer get (at least not easily.)

Perhaps you should look around for a ripping package that has jitter correction for read errors.  I don't know is MC 12 has jitter correction capabilities or just rereads the track up to 16 times.

Would the issue I'm describing be effected by jitter correction?  I have a strong feeling that the issue is due to an actual optical issue where the drive has trouble seeing certain sections of certain discs due to damage.  Does jitter correction have any bearing on this?

Thanks,

Larry

[JimH]

As cheap as drives are, how about trying a new one?

[lalittle]

Larry, do you still have the old PC around? It might help if you could post the system info reports from both PCs. If that is not possible could you describe the differences in your own words: CPU, memory, motherboard and its IDE controller, BIOS settings for the IDE channel, possibly installed ASPI driver etc.

Unfortunately, the old PC died.  I stripped the few things I could use from it and built the new system.

In general, are you really constantly experiencing problems with new CDs or are you going through a massive reripping process or something like that?

The reason this has come up so much lately is the fact that I've been working my way through an older collection of CDs, many of which were not treated as well as I would have liked.  I'm also doing a lot of re-ripping, but most of my own collection rips fine.  Once in a while I do run into cds that look perfect but still require re-reads, but a second pass (which, once again, spins a bit slower), generally rips with zero problems.

The last time I had a problem with a new CD was several years ago. I returned that particular CD to the shop.

I run into strange problems with brand new cds once in a while as well, and like you, I just exchange them for another copy.  With the older cds that are difficult to get, however, this isn't an option.

Thanks again for all the feedback,

Larry

[lalittle]

As cheap as drives are, how about trying a new one?

I'm definitely considering that.  The current drive, however, is only a few months old, and other than this particular ripping behavior, it seems to work perfectly.

My fear is that this issue may simply be a by-product of all the competition among manufacturers to build the "fastest" drive, which means that this is an issue that will pretty much effect any drive.  I have a feeling that this issue may actually be more common than it appears, but that most people don't use Secure ripping mode, and are therefore completely unaware that any read issues are occurring.

I'm open to any suggestions on what drives are good these days.  My experience has always been that both Plextor and Pioneer build some of the better drives, so as far as I know, the drives I'm already using are high quality.

Thanks again,

Larry

[Alex B]

Personally, I have found that my old LG CD writer/DVD reader is a clearly faster and at least as reliable "secure mode" audio ripper as either of my two newer Samsung DVD writers, so in my case more speed doesn't mean less reliability with problem discs (I have a few scratched CDs that I have used for testing drives).

Though, I have not compared the same drives on different PCs and OS versions.

(The Samsung drives are obviously better data readers/writers than the old LG drive, but audio extraction happens in a different mode.)

The drives are:

LG GCC-4480B - this is the best drive for audio CD ripping I have had, but I have no experience of Plextors.

Samsung SH-W162C - this has poor audio extraction speed, about half of LG's speed in the secure mode.

Samsung SH-S202J - This is my newest drive. It is an excellent DVD writer.and audio extraction is faster than with SH-W162C, but still somewhat slower than with LG. I have only quickly tested this with one problem CD. The results were similar with the LG drive (the same sectors were reported).

[hit_ny]

My fear is that this issue may simply be a by-product of all the competition among manufacturers to build the "fastest" drive, which means that this is an issue that will pretty much effect any drive.  I have a feeling that this issue may actually be more common than it appears, but that most people don't use Secure ripping mode, and are therefore completely unaware that any read issues are occurring.

Hmm, seems we are back to hardware again.

Of the drives you mentioned nearly all are pretty old.

I've not read any reports of ppl saying that newer drives did not rip as well as older ones.

Its curious that you say the symptoms are the same no matter which drive is chosen tho.

[dgoodrie]

Larry,

Perhaps one of your friends has a PC with MC on that you could do a rip on with one of those problem CDs.  A different drive may be able to read slower using MC's read settings and perhaps improve your ripping quality with the problem CDs.  I've used NEC drives in the past and haven't experienced any issues.  I am giving away my old PC containing two NEC drives but hopefully my newer PCs will be just as reliable for ripping.

[lalittle]

Of the drives you mentioned nearly all are pretty old.

Actually, the DVR115 is a current Pioneer model, so it's quite new.  The DVR112 is still around, and was only recently replaced by the 115.  These are the two drives in my latest systems.

I've not read any reports of ppl saying that newer drives did not rip as well as older ones.

Most people, however, don't rip in "Secure mode" so they wouldn't know there were any issues unless the problem was bad enough to become clearly audible (which is not always the case.)

Its curious that you say the symptoms are the same no matter which drive is chosen tho.

I'm basically just noting a "pattern" to the problem, which is the fact that the newest, fastest systems I use have more serious problems with "problem discs" compared to systems that are slower and/or using slower drives.  My first thought would be to chalk this up to one drive vs. another, but I recently had the unique opportunity to compare the SAME drive on two systems, and I noticed two things:  1) I noticed a distinct rise in "retry" issues, and 2) the "second pass" was using notably higher rip speeds.  I'm simply theorizing that the increase in rip speed is directly related to the increase in retry issues.

Larry

[lalittle]

Larry,

Perhaps one of your friends has a PC with MC on that you could do a rip on with one of those problem CDs.  A different drive may be able to read slower using MC's read settings and perhaps improve your ripping quality with the problem CDs.  I've used NEC drives in the past and haven't experienced any issues.  I am giving away my old PC containing two NEC drives but hopefully my newer PCs will be just as reliable for ripping.

Actually, I have already been able to get clean rips of these discs on my own slower system.  Even though the drive on that system has just as fast of a read speed as the one on the new system, both the first AND second pass of a secure rip are significantly slower, and based on all the evidence, I believe that this is why I get fewer issues with problem discs.

Larry

[dgoodrie]

Glad you solved your problem.

[lalittle]

Glad you solved your problem.

Wait... I didn't mean to imply that I solved the problem.  The "older" system will not be around for much longer, and even if it was, it's a cumbersome workaround to have to rip on a different system, then move the files to the system containing my main library and re-import them there.  To "solve" the problem would be to figure out how to get the drive on the new system to spin slow enough to get clean rips.

Thanks,

Larry

[dgoodrie]

Larry,

Are you running the same OS? 

[lalittle]

Larry,

Are you running the same OS?  Did you ever try MC's rip read speed settings on your old PC?

Yes -- it's the same OS (XP.)

Yes -- I actually did try MC's rip speed settings on the old system.  I noticed a while ago that "problem" discs would need a second pass to get a good rip, so I've always been interested to see if I could slow down the rip speed, and therefore get a clean rip on the first try.  At this point I actually can't remember if I've ever seen the MC rip speed setting work on a drive.

Larry

[KingSparta]

media May be bad, and one system may have a better read on bad media than your newer system?

maybe taking your old Drive Put it in your new system to see if it works better.

?

Just an idea

[lalittle]

media May be bad, and one system may have a better read on bad media than your newer system?

maybe taking your old Drive Put it in your new system to see if it works better.

?

Just an idea

This actually IS the drive from the previous system -- I used it on the old system before I built the new one.  That's what's so interesting -- that the same drive gives higher Secure Rip read speeds on the new system, but at the same time has more issues with re-tries and unreliable data on "problem" discs.

Larry

[KingSparta]

I would have thrown it out the window and went to best buy, and hoped that would fix the problem.

of course blue ray is a bit steep still, but burners are quite cheep now days

[Frobozz]

I wonder if it could be related to the new system using a different DMA mode or even a PIO mode for the CD drive.  Different settings in the BIOS can affect this, different capabilities of the MB chipset can affect this, as can different settings in the drivers used.

Just a wag I had.  I'm no expert on this level of system tweaking.  I'm exceeding my level of competence to explain things at that level.

I did find a general FAQ on setting DMA in Vista: http://www.audacityteam.org/wiki/index.php?title=DMA_mode