And don't be too quick to rule out different audio masterings as well - its insane sales numbers may make it an outlier, but before its first "formally announced" remastering in 1996 Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms was sold in the US as Warner Bros. It's possible that they both come from the same audio mastering, but if they have different TOCs they're from different physical masterings by definition. It's not at all unusual for a title to exist in multiple masterings with the same label, catalog number, and country of release, especially if the album came out in the early CD era (and as a 1984 release Tooth and Nail definitely qualifies). You can see this by comparing the index points in the "TOC of the extracted CD" parts of the two logs, and it's almost 100% certain that they'll have different matrix codes mastered on the disc towards the center hub. In reference to your other question, the discs have different lengths because they're different masterings. It's not clear what you mean by "disc rot" here but visible flaws on a disc won't necessarily prevent it from being ripped correctly (CD error correction is pretty robust), and a disc with no visible flaws will not necessarily be readable.
Ignore what the discs look like and use the one that AccurateRip reports as having ripped correctly. My main question here is does disc rot corrupt data in a way that neither EAC or accuraterip can detect? Which copy should I use? Quote from: The Necromancer on 17:37:32 The disc rot is only two small spots and the rest of the disc is perfect, but track 6 ripped correctly on the one with rot. The disc rot is only two small spots and the rest of the disc is perfect, but track 6 ripped correctly on the one with rot. Track 10 accurately ripped (confidence 10) (AR v2) Track 9 accurately ripped (confidence 11) (AR v2) Track 8 accurately ripped (confidence 10) (AR v2) Track 7 accurately ripped (confidence 10) (AR v2) Track 6 accurately ripped (confidence 10) (AR v2) Track 5 accurately ripped (confidence 10) (AR v2) Track 4 accurately ripped (confidence 10) (AR v2) Track 3 accurately ripped (confidence 11) (AR v2) Track 2 accurately ripped (confidence 11) (AR v2) Track 1 accurately ripped (confidence 10) (AR v2) Some tracks could not be verified as accurateĮAC extraction logfile from 3. Track 10 accurately ripped (confidence 17) (AR v2)ġ track(s) could not be verified as accurate Track 9 accurately ripped (confidence 18) (AR v2)
Track 8 accurately ripped (confidence 19) (AR v2) Track 7 accurately ripped (confidence 17) (AR v2) Track 6 cannot be verified as accurate (confidence 35), AccurateRip returned (AR v2) Track 5 accurately ripped (confidence 17) (AR v2) Track 4 accurately ripped (confidence 17) (AR v2) Track 3 accurately ripped (confidence 18) (AR v2) Track 2 accurately ripped (confidence 18) (AR v2) Track 1 accurately ripped (confidence 15) (AR v2) Track | Start | Length | Start sector | End sectorġ0 | 33:37.00 | 4:43.65 | 151275 | 172564įilename C:\EAC\Dokken - Tooth and Nail \Dokken - Tooth and Nail.
Used output format : Internal WAV Routines Used interface : Native Win32 interface for Win NT & 2000 Null samples used in CRC calculations : Yes Used drive : HL-DT-STBD-RE WH14NS40 Adapter: 3 ID: 0įill up missing offset samples with silence : Yesĭelete leading and trailing silent blocks : No August 2011ĮAC extraction logfile from 2. They both copied fine, but I'm wondering which to use because the disc with rot copied more accurately than the one without.Įxact Audio Copy V1.0 beta 3 from 29.
0 kommentar(er)
