Here's a copy of my reply in an earlier thread:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does MJ do equivalent error detection/correction to EAC?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MJ has similarities to EAC in secure mode, but it's not equivalent. If you select the recommended secure mode in EAC with C2 error checking turned off (which is recommended by it's developer), here are some comparisons:
1. Both EAC and MJ read each sector at least twice and only continue if they're identical. If there is a discrepancy, I believe EAC then does up to 16 re-reads until it gets 8 identical reads. MJ does up to 16 re-reads, until it gets two consecutive identical reads. EAC will retry the 16 re-reads up to 1, 3, or 5 times depending on user choice, so it may read the same section up to 80 times. MJ only tries 16 times.
2. When MJ encounters unreadable sectors, it skips over them and then reports their locations at the end. The user can listen to the sections to see if the track is still acceptable, if not they can delete the track at that point. I believe EAC simply fails to copy the track if unreadable sectors are encountered (but I'm not sure).
3. MJ does not do anything special with drives that "cache" data. EAC can optionally reset the drive after each read in order to empty the cache. This can be very slow to the point of being unfeasible on some cdrom drives, but it will definitely give more "secure" results. I don't know the percentage of drives on the market that do caching which affects digital extraction, but I think it's fairly low.
4. In my testing, the speed of extraction was roughly comparable between EAC and MJ.
- John T.
JRiver, Inc.
Author
Topic: EAC v MJ's Secure Digital (Read 650 times)