Topic: Important CD Ripping Bugs v10 (Read 2703 times)

Sauzee · « **on:** June 24, 2004, 09:54:38 pm »

I don't think v10 is ripping properly in secure mode.

I've noticed a couple of problems [clicks] with recent rips of scratched CD's where no problems were reported by the secure ripping log. On one occasion the log highlighted problems but the sections where I could hear an imperfect rip weren't highlighted in the log.

I've posted in the past about how good MC's secure ripping performance was.
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=15912;start=msg107672#msg107672.

I'm afraid I don't have quite the same confidence in MC's current ripping performance. JohnT, you may want to do some detailed checking of secure ripping in MC.

I've had these problems on both my drives ( they both cache audio).

PS. Its a time consuming process checking for ripping errors and comparing them to the reported errors in MC ripping log(as you need to listen to what you've ripped at 1x speed - it's not so much fun, listening for problems). I spent more than 4 hours doing it.

Jakester · « **Reply #1 on:** June 25, 2004, 04:37:55 pm »

I for one would greatly appreciate an administrator chiming in on this one! MCs Secure mode, and it's relative performance to EAC, is one of the major reasons I choose MC! ?

JimH · « **Reply #2 on:** June 25, 2004, 05:22:01 pm »

I don't know of a problem and I don't think we've made changes in this area recently.

Sauzee · « **Reply #3 on:** June 25, 2004, 07:22:18 pm »

There have been a lot of changes in MC ripping between when I did my first tests [good results]and the more recent tests [poor results], eg. ripping from multiple drives, simultaneous ripping & encoding.....

I'm pretty sure the difference in results is not due to my setup as I still have exactly the same hardware setup.

What I can say for sure is that MC ripping logs cannot be relied upon with my setup. Which is a huge frustration.

Some detailed testing of ripping in secure mode seems in order to identify these problems, if they exist, and build confidence in MC's ripping capabilities.

Back to EAC for now.

JimH · « **Reply #4 on:** June 25, 2004, 07:50:17 pm »

Sauzee,
It would be nice if you didn't point a finger at MC until you know what is causing the problem.

Thanks,

Jim

Jakester · « **Reply #5 on:** June 25, 2004, 10:30:53 pm »

JimH -

It was Sauzee's original post about the quality of Media Center's ripping that made me interested in MC. I would imagine I am not alone - surely there are many folks who want quality rips without the relative hassle of EAC.

I am unaware of what, if any, changes have been made to MCs rip features. But if indeed MC has added a bunch of features - ripping from multiple drives, simultaneous ripping, etc. - then surely it is possible that Secure mode has been affected.

Please investigate Sauzee's concern.

lalittle · « **Reply #6 on:** June 26, 2004, 01:15:14 am »

This really doesn't necessarily mean anything by itself, but so far I have yet to see anything other than "100%" reports ever since moving to version 10. This could obviously be due to the specific CD's I've been ripping, but with version 9.1 it wasn't all that unusual to see some sub-100% results in the reports occasionally. Could someone confirm that the version 10 secure rip reports do indeed report results less than 100%?

Thanks,

Larry

JimH · « **Reply #7 on:** June 26, 2004, 07:35:23 am »

Jakester said:

Quote

surely it is possible that Secure mode has been affected

Yes, it is possible, but it is unlikely or we would have a flood of problems.

hit_ny · « **Reply #8 on:** June 26, 2004, 02:04:35 pm »

Here's a thought Sauzee

Rip that same CD you had problems with EAC and compare the results together.

You could use the WAV compare, of EAC to do a comparison. Also look at the report which both rippers provide.

Better still, if you got scratched CDs, try again. You did your tests in the past, repeat them with the current version of MC.

If you can show something definitive, JRiver will fix it toute suite. Will help to put this ambiguity to rest.

xen-uno · « **Reply #9 on:** June 27, 2004, 02:40:11 pm »

Surely not critical (but visually unpleasing)...

Capping of file extensions on encodes => what should read *.ogg becomes *.OGG

This bug has been around forever

10^-27

Omni · « **Reply #10 on:** June 27, 2004, 02:45:30 pm »

Yeah, using ALL CAPS is bad. This even applies to things like Action Window pane titles. (hint, hint)

hit_ny · « **Reply #11 on:** June 27, 2004, 04:16:16 pm »

Sauzee, I reread your initial post[/u] regarding how MC did better than EAC.

It struck me that in *ONLY* 1 case did MC do better (in secure mode), namely a dodgy CD. Which by definition could go either way. Reading a bit further kiwi says the same

I'm no statistician but isn't that rather a small sample. Therefore it does not come as a surprise that you could conversely find an instance where MC did not do as well as EAC. If some one could show out of (say 10 dodgy CDs), MC consistantly came out better....well we could be more confident.

As things stand i'm under the impression both perform comparably, unless some one wants to show otherwise. Which should give people that want to use MC the confidence to continue doing so. If MC hiccups (try EAC) for the majority of cases MC in secure mode should be fine. Chances are it might or not rip properly with either.

Kiwi's test comes to the same conclusion.

Quote from: kiwi on November 27, 2003, 06:13:27 pm

Just figured I'd post an update.

I performed the tests, but was not able to get either to complete. I'm going to try again with a slightly less mangled CD.

So far, I can't say whether one is better than the other. But also can't say that either is worse.

kiwi

We still don't know whether there is any difference (if at all) between ripping security wth MC now compared to v9.1

JimH · « **Reply #12 on:** June 27, 2004, 07:46:44 pm »

There is a such a thing as "an act of God", meaning a cosmic ray struck, for example.

One pop does not tell a complete story.

Jakester · « **Reply #13 on:** June 29, 2004, 05:52:43 pm »

lalittle -

Ever seen a report less than 100% yet? MC's capabilities relative to EAC when ripping in Secure-mode and it's support of lossless codecs are two of the main reasons (along with ASIO support and it's Client-Server capabilities) I am about to purchase it to rip and maintain my 800+ CDs. Now, however, there is this post questioning it's Secure mode and another thread showing that WMA Lossless is not lossless when using MC. Lack of regression testing with this package?

LonWar · « **Reply #14 on:** June 29, 2004, 06:16:35 pm »

Well I can confirm that MC will show something less then 100%...

I got me a 15% track.....

Omni · « **Reply #15 on:** June 29, 2004, 06:24:06 pm »

Also know the problem can be in the source data.

In other words, is not always safe to assume the scratches are the source of the click/pop you hear. It could've happened in the mastering process (or somewhere down the line). That's happened to me before.

lalittle · « **Reply #16 on:** June 29, 2004, 06:56:08 pm »

Quote from: Jakester on June 29, 2004, 05:52:43 pm

lalittle -

Ever seen a report less than 100% yet?

This was a very unscientific observation on my part, and now that imjustagamer posted confirming that he has in fact seen sub-100% results, this is apparently not an issue.

My problems with MC 10's ripping have nothing to do with quality -- MC seems to work fine in this regard as far as I can tell (although I haven't tested lossless, so I can't weigh in on this one.) My issues are with a couple specific aspects of the actual rip workflow (see http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=20443.) Ironically, the version 9.1 workflow was really nice and didn't have any of the issues that currently bother me.

Larry

Jakester · « **Reply #17 on:** June 29, 2004, 10:11:40 pm »

lalittle -

~~Willing to provide a little insight into the rip workflow issues? I am new to MC and would like your take.~~

Disregard - I found the work flow thread and most definitely agree with you!!!!!

Thanks.

Sauzee · « **Reply #18 on:** July 02, 2004, 03:52:19 am »

OK, maybe I should make myself clearer.

I ripped 2 old CD's which were not in the best condition.

I ripped each CD in both my CD drives - so a total of 4 rips. I ripped one CD at a time - ripping was in secure mode.

For each rip MC produced a secure rip log. I listened to the entire CD rip and compared the glitches I found to the rip log.

I discovered that the rip log reported NONE of the audible glitches. The rip log did report errors but not where I could hear problems.

The whole point of ripping in secure mode if that if you don't get a perfect rip then at least the rip log informs you of this. MC's ripping logs are incorrect, at least with my setup.

I am not saying that the ripping performance of MC is poor [as EAC can also have problems with damaged CDs]. I'm saying that the logs don't reliably report errors.

It is quite possible that this is a bug which hasn't been discovered by anyone else. It took 2 scratched CD's and 4 hours meticulous listening, with the ripping logs in front of me, to discover the extent of this ripping log bug. How many users have tried this?

It would be great if J River could spend the time to do some more testing in this area. Unfortunately it is very time consuming.

lalittle · « **Reply #19 on:** July 02, 2004, 04:00:45 am »

I may be mixing this up with another app, but didn't MC used to offer the ability to let you play the specific sections that were potentially damaged?

Thanks,

Larry

Sauzee · « **Reply #20 on:** July 02, 2004, 05:15:30 am »

Quote from: lalittle on July 02, 2004, 04:00:45 am

I may be mixing this up with another app, but didn't MC used to offer the ability to let you play the specific sections that were potentially damaged?

Thanks,

Larry

Yes it does. However if MC doesn't report the problem areas of the rip correctly, this facility is of limited value.

lalittle · « **Reply #21 on:** July 02, 2004, 03:07:13 pm »

Quote

Yes it does. However if MC doesn't report the problem areas of the rip correctly, this facility is of limited value.

Are you saying it still "does" this, or that it used to do this? I understand that it's value is limited if it isn't correctly identifying errors, but don't see this option anymore at all.

Thanks,

Larry

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: Important CD Ripping Bugs v10 (Read 2703 times)