The Flying Cow
05-01-2009, 09:48 PM
Why do people spit on Burst rips?
Here's my story:
Was ripping with EAC Secure with all the ideal presets (http://xs.vc/eac/) but my albums invariably had at least 1 Sync Error when I ripped them on my brand new LiteON external burner.
Strange too considering one particular disc was unscatched, as far as the eye could see, yet it had 2 Sync Errors.
I was only able to make 1 Secure Rip 100% with success and no Sync crap.
Eventually I got fed up and went for Burst, as I couldn't fix this Sync Error business. Bursting my way through the stuff was faster, and more problem-free.
According to the aforementioned guide (http://xs.vc/eac/Setup/setup5.html): "However, it can be argued that all the re-reads that EAC performs in secure mode are not really necessary for CDs that are in good condition. In burst mode, EAC just reads the track once, which makes burst rips go faster than secure rips. Now, just one read is of course not reliable, but if you combine it with the option to "test and copy" the tracks, and use AccurateRip to boot, I believe that you can trust that your rip is as perfect a copy as it is possible to get."
So what are purists complaining about?
Here's my story:
Was ripping with EAC Secure with all the ideal presets (http://xs.vc/eac/) but my albums invariably had at least 1 Sync Error when I ripped them on my brand new LiteON external burner.
Strange too considering one particular disc was unscatched, as far as the eye could see, yet it had 2 Sync Errors.
I was only able to make 1 Secure Rip 100% with success and no Sync crap.
Eventually I got fed up and went for Burst, as I couldn't fix this Sync Error business. Bursting my way through the stuff was faster, and more problem-free.
According to the aforementioned guide (http://xs.vc/eac/Setup/setup5.html): "However, it can be argued that all the re-reads that EAC performs in secure mode are not really necessary for CDs that are in good condition. In burst mode, EAC just reads the track once, which makes burst rips go faster than secure rips. Now, just one read is of course not reliable, but if you combine it with the option to "test and copy" the tracks, and use AccurateRip to boot, I believe that you can trust that your rip is as perfect a copy as it is possible to get."
So what are purists complaining about?