Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Slashdot Asks: SATA DVD Drives That Don't Suck for CD Ripping?

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the god-save-the-cd dept.

Music 330

I recently retired my ancient AthlonMP rig for something a bit more modern, and in the upgrade got a new DVD±RW drive. Since I have the new rig and a lot more disk space, the time has come to re-rip my ~450 disc CD collection into FLAC (I trust active storage more than optical discs that may or may not last another twenty years). The optical drive I had in my old rig was one recommended by Hydrogen Audio or somewhere similar for ripping CDs, and can grab an hour long album in about five minutes. My new drive, unfortunately, takes about fifteen to do the same. With the number of discs I have to churn through and the near-instaneous encoding, it's somewhat annoying. After searching the Internet high and low for advice I came up empty handed, and so I ask Slashdot: are there any SATA DVD burners that don't suck at ripping CDs? Read on for more details if you wish.

To work around the problem, I've temporarily yanked an old Promise IDE card I had in an ancient K6-2 rig (timothy found parts of it in a dumpster even) and am using the old drive, but it's approaching a decade and was pretty heavily used. What with having lots of moving parts and a laser or three, I don't see it lasting another decade, and I'd like to have a drive usable with a bus that hasn't been deprecated for almost as long. I'd also like to avoid anything that can read/write Bluray, because the hardware implemented DRM is pretty heinous.

For those interested in the gory details of the hardware I ran cdparanoia -A on both drives: ide drive, sata drive. As you can see, the old drive is way faster, and it looks like the primary difference is that it also has a cache that works with non-linear access, but that behaves "correctly." If you own a drive you want to recommend and can analyze it with cdparanoia, I'm interested in seeing the output.

A note on software suggestions: it has to be FSF-definition Free Software, and GNU/Linux is the only operating system in my house. That basically leaves... cdparanoia. I'm a bit uptight when it comes to tagging (mostly because: once I've done this, will I ever have the stamina to re-tag? Nope), but I'm not trying to start a pirate CD factory and don't really care about getting 100% frame-accuarate rips, just error-free ones.

cancel ×

330 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

HP DVD Drives (5, Informative)

jnelson4765 (845296) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162943)

I work in the entertainment industry, and we have to rip about 100 albums a month at work for online promotions of various sorts. The HP DVD drives work pretty well.

Re:HP DVD Drives (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163021)

I work in the entertainment industry, and we have to rip about 100 albums a month at work for online promotions of various sorts.

So, that's what you tell the judges?! And they believe it?!

"Well, your honor, I'm not a pirate! I'm doing this for promotional purposes for these movies and bands. Torrents? Oh! That's how we get our promotional copies. It's really efficient!"

Re:HP DVD Drives (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163157)

I'm sooooo over slashdot. any time i take the time to write a thoughtful reply, it gets either ignored or modded down. then i flame or troll and get bad karma. then i can only post once a day. the slashdot mentality is so not worth my time.

Re:HP DVD Drives (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163255)

You are a colossal faggot.

Re:HP DVD Drives (-1, Offtopic)

xski (113281) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163375)

And someone steps up to demonstrate the point. Thats why I keep coming back.

Re:HP DVD Drives (4, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163441)

If there isn't a requirement to put both types of drive in the same slot, I'd suggest you get a good ripper (read only) to rip (for mounting in your rig), and use a separate external burner (USB) for burning. You could never saturate a basic USB while for burning and the lighter heads (Read Only) for ripping will give you a longer life on your DVD-Rom.

For drives, LiteOn used to be a great brand, but I think these days they only do OEM hardware. Dig around and see if you can find any and you should be golden.

Re:HP DVD Drives (1)

RMingin (985478) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163567)

So you didn't look at the links, eh? The new drive that he hates is an iHAS.... AKA a recent Liteon DVDRW.

Online storage?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42162953)

You trust online storage more than your CDs? Are you insane?

Re:Online storage?! (5, Insightful)

Unknown Lamer (78415) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163095)

Online, as in actively spinning media inside of my computer, that I have RAIDed and backed up. I've disambiguated the text.

Re:Online storage?! (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163269)

what? the grandparent has a point.. pressed cds theoretically could last centuries if reasonably cared for. It's CD-Rs that decay...and even quality CD-Rs can outlive most humans if well cared for. I can see the convenience of having them on a hd but the pressed disc is still going to last longer than a complicated 'active' device that depends on the existence of complex protocols and interfaces to function. It's not just the media, it's the support electronics as well. In contrast, a cd reader is very simple and well understood. We will still be reading cds 100 years from now in some form or other, just not like we do today nor with as much ubiquity (historians perhaps, or music collectors).

Keep your cds in a box somewhere as a catastrophic recovery, and have one duplicate of your ripped files offline somewhere.

Re:Online storage?! (3, Funny)

PCM2 (4486) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163357)

Keep your cds in a box somewhere as a catastrophic recovery, and have one duplicate of your ripped files offline somewhere.

So glad you told him this. Too bad that he had already thrown half of his CDs into the furnace before he heard your advice.

Re:Online storage?! (2)

osu-neko (2604) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163407)

what? the grandparent has a point.. pressed cds theoretically could last centuries if reasonably cared for.

Anything on my hard drive is far more likely to outlive anything on pressed CD. It has nothing to do with the lifespan of the media, but the lifespan of the data. When a pressed CD dies, that's the end of its data. Some of the data on my hard drive, on the other hand, has been with me across half a dozen hard drives. It's more than convenience, it's the security that comes from a medium that is convenient to backup regularly. Anything not on my hard drive is far more likely to be lost to me, regardless of how durable the medium it's on. Nothing on my hard drive can be lost short of a fairly cataclysmic event that would simultaneous destroy all copies in existence, and frankly I'd probably be dead then too, so what would I care?

Keep your cds in a box somewhere as a catastrophic recovery, and have one duplicate of your ripped files offline somewhere.

No point keeping the CDs once the data is ripped. Even if the copies on my HD-stored music library are lost, pulling them from one of my backups is going to be far quicker than reripping the CDs. They're not even a good backup medium, really, despite the durability...

Online Storage? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42162957)

" (I trust online storage more than optical discs that may or may not last another twenty years)" Seriously? those discs will be around far longer than those online storage companies.

Re:Online Storage? (1)

boysenberry (2029114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163107)

The thing is it's trivially easy to move/copy your data from one digital locker to another. Can't say the same about physical storage.

Re:Online Storage? (3, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163297)

That's if the digital 'locker' doesn't decide to change its policies and then wipe your files, or your internet connection goes down, or you run out of bandwidth for the month... It's still better to have a local copy and pressed cds are about the most reliable backup option there is. They'll outlive any human for sure if well taken care of. hard drives require IO ports that are constantly changing and take the media with them when they die. when the cdrom reader dies, just throw it away and get another. your data is still safe.

Re:Online Storage? (2)

boysenberry (2029114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163539)

What kind of moron would store their digital data in only one location? Of course that's not what I was suggesting. Store X amount of copies locally and X amount in online/remote places. Adjust X based on your level of concern. No single backup, no matter how reliable, is more reliable than multiple copies. It's not really about digital vs physical, but given that digital makes it so easy to make those multiple copies, it seems a no-brainer to me. Keep those physical CDs if you like for whatever reasons, but it's not the best way to preserve your music library for the rest of your life. Once it's digital, the data is abstracted from the storage medium and easily transferred and duplicated as much as you like, and you are no longer prey to any of the issues associated with all physical media (including hard drives): failure, obsolescence, theft, destruction, loss, etc.

Re:Online Storage? (1)

osu-neko (2604) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163443)

" (I trust online storage more than optical discs that may or may not last another twenty years)" Seriously? those discs will be around far longer than those online storage companies.

Irrelevant. The data I currently store will outlive the media it's stored on, and probably the companies that made or hosted it. The discs will be around only as long as the disc lives. The data will be around forever, assuming I'm not stupid enough to leave it on the disc. Well managed data outlives the media it's on, and is more likely to do so based not on the durability of the media but on its convenience to copy.

Re:Online Storage? (1)

osu-neko (2604) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163463)

I should note that by "forever" I of course mean for the rest of my life, which has the same meaning as "until the end of time" for practical purposes.

Who cares? (0, Flamebait)

DogDude (805747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162967)

Why would you care how long a drive takes to rip a CD/DVD? Do you sit and watch and wait for each one to be ripped? Are you using some strange OS that only lets you do one thing at a time? I did the same thing a few years ago. I just had a big stack next to my primary computers, and just swapped them out while I was working on them. How long each one took wasn't relevant.

Re:Who cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163079)

Maybe he has things to do other than sitting on his butt in front of his computer all day long? Perhaps he doesn't want this task to go on for weeks?

Maybe you should shave that neckbeard, man, I think it's impairing your thinking!

Re:Who cares? (3, Insightful)

tysonedwards (969693) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163083)

I take it that you did not read the question. It was regarding quantity to transfer immediately, not performing one-off copies.

With the drive that the poster already has, it will take 112h30m of continuous time in front of his computer to simply swap the discs. By comparison, the faster drive mentioned would result in a completion time of 37h30m.

Re:Who cares? (-1, Offtopic)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163125)

Yes It seems that most have to sit there staring at it pining away. I dont care if it takes an hour ro rip it. It takes 3.4 seconds of my time, and when I wander by the ripper and I see the drive open, I drop in a new disk and close it, ripping starts automatically.

Unless he has a garbage OS that will not let him script a process like that. Linux and OSX both let me do full automation for CD ripping. I have hear that Windows may be very limited in that capability, but I cant believe it would be that backward after this may years...

Re:Who cares? (4, Informative)

ranulf (182665) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163249)

The OP states he only has linux in the house. I did this exact same thing a few years back, using abcde which is an interface to cdparanoia and cddb.

I set up an automounter script that automatically ran abcde when a CD disc is inserted. It reads the TOC in a couple of seconds and asks you to confirm the CDDB entries, which in most cases is just pressing enter twice. When it's finished it can even eject the disc for you. I'd literally just pop to the computer room every 10 minutes or so and just swap the disc and let it carry on. Probably about 10 seconds per disc.

Re:Who cares? (1)

cynyr (703126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163525)

i wrote a similar thing for mencoder when i ripped all of my DVDs. I was a bit lazier though. It trusts the disk name in the TOC and handled collisions by adding a time stamp.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163135)

Why would you care how long a drive takes to rip a CD/DVD? Do you sit and watch and wait for each one to be ripped? Are you using some strange OS that only lets you do one thing at a time? I did the same thing a few years ago. I just had a big stack next to my primary computers, and just swapped them out while I was working on them. How long each one took wasn't relevant.

Now I don't know what you do at your computer, but no matter if it's watching a movie or playing a game or studying or coding or whatever, interrupting myself all the time is rather annoying and detrimental to my enjoyment/performance. Been there, done that and I for sure cared how fast I could get it over with. These days I have double hard drives, it's as good a backups as the discs were since they were on-site anyway or I could get an external HDD for the same security as off-site discs. I only restored from them once, you know what the worst part was? Discs that had slight reading problems, they'd eventually finish but it could take up to an hour to read one disc. If you want to spend a week of your life swapping discs in case of a disk crash, optical media is a great backup. Otherwise I'd only take backup to another disk or online.

Re:Who cares? (2)

PNutts (199112) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163219)

Why would you care how long a drive takes to rip a CD/DVD? Do you sit and watch and wait for each one to be ripped? Are you using some strange OS that only lets you do one thing at a time? I did the same thing a few years ago. I just had a big stack next to my primary computers, and just swapped them out while I was working on them. How long each one took wasn't relevant.

Now I don't know what you do at your computer, but no matter if it's watching a movie or playing a game or studying or coding or whatever, interrupting myself all the time is rather annoying and detrimental to my enjoyment/performance. Been there, done that and I for sure cared how fast I could get it over with. These days I have double hard drives, it's as good a backups as the discs were since they were on-site anyway or I could get an external HDD for the same security as off-site discs. I only restored from them once, you know what the worst part was? Discs that had slight reading problems, they'd eventually finish but it could take up to an hour to read one disc. If you want to spend a week of your life swapping discs in case of a disk crash, optical media is a great backup. Otherwise I'd only take backup to another disk or online.

It's the same number of disks, the same number of interruptions. The difference is the faster drive will interrupt you more often for a given period of time, so if you want less interruptions per session you would go with the slower drive. If I'm watching a movie I'd rather be interrupted only six times instead of 18.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Unknown Lamer (78415) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163349)

In my case, I sit in front of the machine while ripping. I've got a lot of weird metal albums that aren't in Musicbrainz at all, have somewhat inaccurate information, or aren't titlecased properly (mostly poor titlecasing / ignoring the case used on the album where the case is actually significant). With sub five minute rips it's a quick process of pop the disk in, make sure the tag data is looking OK, and then pop the next disc in (well, at least once I finish beating abcde into submission and make the ripping part parallelizable like every other task is). And then comes the weird stuff, like multi-part songs that I want to tag this time around e.g. Gettysburg [musicbrainz.org] where each track should be marked PART="Gettysburg (1863)" (seemingly useless now, but with the data stored it'd be not-too-difficult to make something like xbmc pick the entire "movement" instead of just one part).

Since I'm going to be spending some time each week on this for months...

Re:Who cares? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163307)

It's quite relevant.. if one drive takes 3x the time the other does, that means the whole job takes 3x longer. If he has 20 cds, you're right, who cares. If he has 300 or 3000, that's a big deal.

Why not use old drive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42162971)

It worked much better... Keep it around.

I agree it's silly that newer drives don't improve things.

Re:Why not use old drive? (1)

Rhywden (1940872) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163071)

Unless he buys a PATA-Controller, he most likely won't have the connectors. My own new motherboard only has SATA connectors.

Re:Why not use old drive? (2)

timeOday (582209) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163195)

How about a USB enclosure for PATA drives [amazon.com] . Granted $25 seems a lot to pay for an enclosure for a $40 dvd drive, but the real benefit is he gets to use his old drive that he knows works.

Re:Why not use old drive? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163549)

Think again. [amazon.com]

Re:Why not use old drive? (1)

Lennie (16154) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163565)

What I don't get is, he can do it now with an old drive.

But when he's done with this large number of cds he has, he'll have his collection in digital form.

Why does he worry about not having this old drive in a couple of years ?

By that time if he gets an new CD he only has one or very few CDs to do, so the time it takes to do is (almost) irrelevant, right ?

So let's stop talking about the time here.

The DRM issue is a real issue. How do you do that in a couple of years, when your old drive has died. Will you still be able to rip it so you can have a backup copy ?

Accuraterip accuracy list (4, Informative)

Aggrajag (716041) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162973)

You might find the following list very useful. It was made by the author of Accuraterip:

http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?25782-CD-DVD-Drive-Accuracy-List-2012 [dbpoweramp.com]

Re:Accuraterip accuracy list (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42162993)

Accuraterip failure most likely means the rip is not from the original CD (most like a transcode from a lower bitrate (people do not understand lossy encoding))

Re:Accuraterip accuracy list (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163335)

or a repress/remaster, or a bad reader, or a misconfigured offset in the software, etc..

Re:Accuraterip accuracy list (5, Informative)

jbridges (70118) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163205)

That Accuraterip list is horribly outdated for new purchases.

Almost none of the models that do well in their stats are for sale anymore.

Most are IDE as well.

Re:Accuraterip accuracy list (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163351)

accuraterip grabs hashes of track data.. as long as you get the right number, you know (reasonably) that you have a good copy. The drive db is outdated, but all that's needed is to configure the read offset in the software for your drive. each is different.

Why does the drive have to last another decade? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42162977)

Rip the CDs at a rate of say 10 a day, and you'll be done in 45 days. I did this years ago, and my CDs sit untouched while I make use of the FLAC and files made from the FLACs. If you buy new CDs, the longer time required is likely not a big deal as you aren't doing a huge batch.

Sound level.. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163003)

Most new drives come with a control for the sound level, which will intentionally keep them running slower so that they don't sound like they're going to take off.

http://hektor.umcs.lublin.pl/~mikosmul/computing/tips/cd-rom-speed.html

Re:Sound level.. (0)

Unknown Lamer (78415) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163381)

You gave me some hope there for a minute, but no dice: eject -X reports that the drive only supports one speed, and I tried eject -x 0 with no effect. Thanks for the suggestion, I didn't even realize drives had max speed control nowadays.

The poster is forgetting something. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163007)

Buy more than one ya git! Rip em in parallel not serial.

Exact Audio Copy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163009)

From what I remember, (I haven't been following hydrogenaudio for at least 5 years) Exact Audio Copy was the ripper of choice. Paranoia would do things that were shown to be not necessary, and with accuraterip, you don't have to be paranoid about anything. Have you tested the ripping times for each program?

Re:Exact Audio Copy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163085)

EAC with secure rip and test and copy (with accuraterip and cddb) would be my choice too. But, it is extremely slow, and takes about an hour to rip. I wouldnt recommend it to anyone not looking for 100.00% perfection.

Re:Exact Audio Copy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163147)

I'm puzzled as to why you'd want to go to the ridiculous trouble - by comparison to other solutions - of actually ripping your CD collection anymore, if you were willing to settle for anything less than the absolute minimum chance of reproducing undetected errors.

Re:Exact Audio Copy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163331)

I used EAC for years, too, with my ~2000 CD collection, but was frustrated by quite a few things. dBpoweramp does everything EAC does, but is simpler to use and set up, and handles compilations the way a CD ripper should. I use an LG GH22NS DVD-R/W drive and rip CDs in secure mode to 320bps MP3 and/or FLAC high compression in around 5-7 minutes. A $40 DVD drive isn't going to perform as well as a $100 Plextor CD-only drive, but you got to take what you can get these days.

Re:Exact Audio Copy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163485)

Did you also disable cache? You could miss errors if you did not. There is no way a cd could be ripped in 5-7 minutes with cache disabled and secure rip enabled. I can guarantee that. Also an hour is with test and copy (the CD is read twice), with just copy, it would take 30 minutes or so.

USB CD rom (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163015)

Buy a collection of USB CD roms, so you can rip many discs at once. Then you aren't pulling apart your computer to add these drives, and they have a lifetime beyond your current computer.

Re:USB CD rom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163145)

This is the way to go. EAC already checks rips against accuraterip so you'll know if you're getting ripping errors.

Instead of spending all of your time finding the "one perfect ripper" that rips 2x faster, just get 2x drives and forget the problem existed. The other advantage of 2+ drives is they tend to stagger, so you have less time sitting there doing nothing, and more time changing discs and getting the job done.

Fitting AC captcha check: "reruns"

Re:USB CD rom (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163161)

There are problems with this proposal. IIRC, the accurate rippers need direct access to the hardware, or at least drives that do not buffer reads. I don't think there are USB bridges that will let this happen. Things could certainly have changed - I finished converting my CDs years ago.

Re:USB CD rom (5, Informative)

greg1104 (461138) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163431)

If you care enough about quality that you're using AccurateRip and need to check how the drive is caching, a USB interface might not work. The sort of USB->SATA chipsets used in USB CD-ROMs, which are universally cheap devices nowadays, will likely not pass data through faithfully enough to be useful for accurate CD ripping.

That said, it is possible to find useful models if you test carefully. The external drive I'm using is a LG "Portable Super Multi Drive", model GP10NB20. LG makes many of the best CD ripping DVD drives available, and the USB chipset in this model is transparent enough for accurate ripping. At around $35, it's not the cheapest model on the market, but it's not like that's expensive.

Re:USB CD rom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163479)

There are problems with this proposal. IIRC, the accurate rippers need direct access to the hardware, or at least drives that do not buffer reads. I don't think there are USB bridges that will let this happen. Things could certainly have changed - I finished converting my CDs years ago.

Morons on /. keep reminding us that USB "beat" FireWire. Go ask them for recommendations I guess.

Re:USB CD rom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163163)

I'd be careful with that. I've yet to see an USB optical drive which doesn't violate the USB standard in regards to power consumption. I have some supposedly power efficient Samsung DVD-R drive and there says "> 1.4 A" on the box in the power requirements section while the USB specification allows for 0.5 A max. Unless you hook these up through an active USB hub with some bad-ass power supply capable of delivering high current reliably, you can expect all sorts of weird behavior on your USB bus, borking of the USB controller included.

Re:USB CD rom (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163389)

every usb drive I"ve seen has a power brick..

and over load the slow usb bus (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163185)

and over load the slow usb bus

firewire and e-sata are better then that.

Re:and over load the slow usb bus (1)

imsabbel (611519) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163233)

USB is plenty much faster than any drive on the planet can read CD-Roms

Re:USB CD rom (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163191)

You could buy like ten, rip all of your CDs, and then return them to the store

Add USB 3.0 in there too. (1)

IBitOBear (410965) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163311)

I do a lot of movement onto and off of compact flash media and such. I recently got a USB 3.0 card reader and woo-doggy is it faster.

Similarly I would expect that paying the tiny extra sum for 3.0 drives would let you stack a couple CD/DVD read/write devices onto your system a lot more efficently.

You really can bump your head into the 2.0 data limits pretty easily at times.

Re:USB CD rom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163327)

Buy a collection of USB CD roms, so you can rip many discs at once. Then you aren't pulling apart your computer to add these drives, and they have a lifetime beyond your current computer.

why usb? why not sata, they are faster and cheaper??????

Re:USB CD rom (1)

jibjibjib (889679) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163413)

Because (if you read the post you're replying to) USB makes it easier to add the drives and upgrade, and it means you can connect a large number of drives at once.

What? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163049)

Who uses cd's anymore...

Sounds like you're far too anal and you might as well just start reading the bits 1 by 1 with a microscope.

Re:What? (2)

bjwest (14070) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163243)

Who uses cd's anymore...

How about people who enjoy better quality music and/or those with better hearing?

They said the same thing about CD's and albums/tape back in the day and despite any arguments to the contrary, there is a great difference between digital and analog music. Just because you can't hear it (I can't either by the way, but I know it's real) doesn’t make it unperceivable to people with better hearing. Most of todays "pop" crap is designed with low quality digital files in mind and people who don't have an ear for music.

Re:What? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163425)

People who don't just want to listen to badly encoded 'web mastered' (yeah that's what some idiots call it now) mpeg files on their beats by dre headphones. screeching caused by file corruption is fucking irritating and when you rip 500 cds, you don't want to have to check each track by ear.

Please, dont "encode" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163055)

Raw wavs.

Re:Please, dont "encode" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163127)

Why not, do you know something about FLAC, the rest of us dont. Does it add some noise to the encoding without our knowledge?

Re:Please, dont "encode" (3)

boysenberry (2029114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163129)

Look up flac and then please explain why wav.

Re:Please, dont "encode" (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163317)

Nonsense! Encode at 128k to save a ton of space on your drive, then convert the files to FLAC whenever you need higher fidelity. Win-win!

Re:Please, dont "encode" (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163433)

flac is lossless, like zip files are lossless. The original data is recovered on decode.

General Consensus (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163067)

Plextors are generally regarded as the fastest/most accurate although they really don't make them anymore (they do but they are just rebranded Lite-Ons).

Heres a pretty good chart comparing drive accuracy: http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?25782-CD-DVD-Drive-Accuracy-List-2012

What ever you get, get two or more. Having multiple decent speed drives will be much faster than just having one really fast drive. Also, pay a neighbor kid or some kid related to you to rip your cds. Show them how to do it and setup some sort of batch ripping script so all them have to do is just swap discs for you. Child labor is much better.

Re:General Consensus (2)

nabsltd (1313397) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163535)

Plextors are generally regarded as the fastest/most accurate although they really don't make them anymore (they do but they are just rebranded Lite-Ons).

I've had good luck with both Lite-On and LG optical disk writers (there's no savings in getting just a reader, and the writers are generally more forgiving).

I just tested, and my Lite-On Blu-Ray writer [newegg.com] took 2:10 to rip a 66 minute CD to WAV, while the LG DVD writer [newegg.com] took 2:33 for the same disc. I had to do a re-rip of my 500 disc collection a while back, and these times agree with my memory that by using both drives, I didn't really have time to get up to do anything...I just sat there feeding discs to alternating drives.

Consider using EAC in burst mode. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163111)

If you can't find a drive that you like, you might want to consider using EAC to do the ripping. With EAC, you can put it in "burst" mode and disable all the error correction algorithms which are what cause the caching issues. EAC will still use AccurateRip in burst mode to verify that the rips were good. So you'll know which tracks have a problem and need to be reripped with error correction enabled.

IIRC, my el-cheapo Memorex SATA drive can do a "burst-mode" rip in less than four minutes.

Advice from a DAE veteran (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163123)

1. Stop using cdparanoia - it isn't very good, at all. It tests poorly, we're sad to say. The software you actually want to use is Exact Audio Copy. You want to use Secure Mode with NO C2, accurate stream, disable cache. Yes, we said DISABLE cache. Trust us on this. We checked. Very very extensively. Yes, we know it runs slowly: that is because it actually does need to physically read every sector at the very least twice - that's the POINT. Sadly EAC isn't open-source (and despite many years passing, there still is no open-source software that does a Secure Mode), and runs under Windows (although it will function in a virtual machine if the drive is passed through well, such as VMware).

2. Use AccurateRip in that if you can. Matching the read offset is strongly-recommended-to-required - ideally, find one of the few drives that can overread into lead-in AND lead-out. You won't hear it on many discs, until you come across That One Disc that has the track transitions exactly just so and thoroughly audible if they're off (despite the Red Book standard having a truly ridiculous amount of defined leeway either way).

3. Hardware time.
a) Best case scenario: The Plextor Premium, which does have a (rare) SATA version as well as the IDE version. That is the best CD drive ever made, and it is the highest quality DAE drive ever made, by far. That, and the above software (especially if you set the drive to "first session mode", or use AnyDVD), will rip clean through any "Copy Controlled" discs you may have in your collection too, by virtue of sheer quality. Be warned: that drive is no longer made, and REALLY sought-after. It will cost hundreds of dollars to find one new, and any used ones will be totally clapped-out by a lifetime of ripping and burning discs in professional CD-R duplication towers, or poorly refurbished.
b) Can't get that? The Plextor PX-716SA will do the best job of any DVD drive. If you can find one easily, grab it.
c) OK, plan C: something else. You'll need to check up on DAE quality. Check the offset tables on AccurateRip, which might give you a few clues. Lite-ON are way, way more reasonably priced, and some models work well at this; check them. So do a few LG drives. If you get lucky, you may have some good hardware already. Be warned, however, that you may NEED AnyDVD to rip any "Copy Controlled" discs that you may have correctly if you don't use one of the few drives that are out there that can do the job.

4. Destination: Rip it to FLAC --best. Really, you're making an archival copy, and you are probably talking about terabytes of storage to play with - why WOULDN'T you use a lossless codec that is suitable for archival, well-known, free and open source, contains an internal MD5 checksum, supported by damn near every toolchain, supports all the metadata you need, and is absolutely guaranteed to not leave you with any possible transcoding issues if you ever want to transcode to a lossy codec for portable or streaming usage at any bitrate in any codec you want in the future?

5. No online storage is even close to trustworthy enough for archival purposes. By all means, if you want, for convenience: but buy a couple of hard drives and put it on there too, and put them away. OK, they might not work after a long time on the shelf - that is a risk. But it is still A safety-net that is less likely to fail than an online storage company which bears a multitude of risks (many of them legal ones, if they are storing people's music files for them in any useful manner).

Re:Advice from a DAE veteran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163271)

Oh, and I should add: spend time on your metadata, too. Make sure it's consistent, spelled correctly, everything like that. You will find http://www.discogs.com/ an invaluable source, along with http://www.allmusic.com/ to some extent as well.

You will also very probably want album art. And, importantly, high quality album art. This is surprisingly hard to come by. Most people on the internet could not scan their way out of a paper bag. Many online sources like Amazon, etcetera, do equally poorly, and have no real incentive to higher quality.

Note that even big sources like iTunes, Amazon and other legal online MP3 stores often exhibit poor scans, poor metadata, and bad DAE, even including obvious burst-mode artifacts. I've encountered several issues getting music that was only released in Copy-Controlled CD form from iTunes or Amazon in one piece. I'll be honest: pirates have often actually been better at that on occasion (though they are seldom consistent). The legal stores just don't have the time, or certainly have no incentive to take the time.

Exceptions exist. Take a look at http://www.albumartexchange.com/ for one of the only really high-quality exhibitions of decent album art scans out there. For all the stuff that's not on there? Pick up a reasonable scanner and Photoshop or the GIMP (depending on which you're more comfortable working with), and do it yourself - to the same standard as AlbumArtExchange, if you know a good thing when you see one, as they have a really nice, consistent, high-quality standard there. It's time-consuming, yes, but if done right, this is a process you only have to do once.

Re:Advice from a DAE veteran (0)

Unknown Lamer (78415) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163447)

I'm actually scanning my album artwork too! I made a jig earlier today to scan the back-of-album artwork easily (SANE's command line tools to batch scan a dozen or two albums per run + a gimp script to automatically divide and deskew the scans, followed up by quick re-crop / color balancing / rename by hand... and the entire process is still faster than extracting the discs right now, ugh). Although whether my scans would be considered high quality... I lost my really great SCSI scanner during some move (got it for free since Windows XP stopped supporting it, and hey I use GNU/Linux thanks for the fancy scanner) and am left with an old HP usb scanner that isn't exactly the best, but seems to get the job done.

This is what happens when you discover that xbmc lets you browse albums as a gigantic wall of art, and all of the ? images start bothering you.

Re:Advice from a DAE veteran (-1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163371)

The software you actually want to use is Exact Audio Copy. [...] Sadly EAC isn't open-source (and despite many years passing, there still is no open-source software that does a Secure Mode), and runs under Windows...

Okay, so run a binary-only proprietary application recommended by an AC on a binary-only proprietary OS, for something that several large organisations would like to consider illegal?

Get the kettle on, the RIAA goons will be at your door in a couple of minutes.

Re:Advice from a DAE veteran (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163453)

Were the Plextor Premium drives still made by Plextor themselves? I purposely keep all my older Plextor SCSI CD-ROM and CD-RW drives laying around. The Ultraplex 32X and 40X can read just about everything written onto a CD. I always thought they were sellouts when they decided to release ATAPI CD recorders. The Plexwriter 8/20X was notorious for being able to master Playstation game CDs and other copy protected crap with ease. I also used it to create masters for a friend's album that he sent out to be pressed.

Re:Advice from a DAE veteran (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163465)

1. Stop using cdparanoia - it isn't very good, at all. It tests poorly, we're sad to say. The software you actually want to use is Exact Audio Copy. You want to use Secure Mode with NO C2, accurate stream, disable cache. Yes, we said DISABLE cache. Trust us on this. We checked. Very very extensively. Yes, we know it runs slowly: that is because it actually does need to physically read every sector at the very least twice - that's the POINT. Sadly EAC isn't open-source (and despite many years passing, there still is no open-source software that does a Secure Mode), and runs under Windows (although it will function in a virtual machine if the drive is passed through well, such as VMware).

Doesn't CUERipper have a secure mode? It also has native support not only for AccurateRip but also for CTDB, which I''ve found to be much more useful because it not only checks for errors but also contains parity information to *correct* errors, though CTDB isn't as old or complete yet.

I've found CUERipper to also be substantially better for metadata since it makes use of MusicBrainz which has a much, much better set of style standards than the default databases EAC uses.

CUERipper includes FLAKE by default as well, which gives better compression results than the traditional FLAC encoder (though still lossless, obviously).

CUERipper makes saving cue sheets along with the discs a lot easier than it is with EAC. It's done automatically instead of having to click to scan the gaps and then go through saving the sheet like with EAC (though I haven't used EAC in a long time so this could have changed).

CUERipper is also open source, though it's written in C# and may or may not work correctly in mono, depending on the version.

Personally, once I found out about CUERipper, I quit using EAC.

http://www.cuetools.net/wiki/CUERipper

Does long-term really matter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163139)

You said you're ripping to FLAC this time, i.e. lossless. Once you're done ripping, will you ever have to re-rip from these discs en-masse again? Probably not, so the longevity of your magic drive is actually not an issue.

Why change optical drives? (1)

nuckfuts (690967) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163153)

If you're happy with the performance of the optical drive from your old rig, why don't you just install that drive in your new rig and continue using it?

Re:Why change optical drives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163193)

RTFS.

"To work around the problem, I've temporarily yanked an old Promise IDE card I had in an ancient K6-2 rig (timothy found parts of it in a dumpster even) and am using the old drive, but it's approaching a decade and was pretty heavily used. What with having lots of moving parts and a laser or three, I don't see it lasting another decade, "

Re:Why change optical drives? (2)

imsabbel (611519) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163251)

Why would he want it to last a decade?

He wants to rip his collection NOW. If it fails in 3 years it would not matter, especially since he will never let such a huge queue of to-be-ripped discs pile up (making the ripping speed of any replacement less important)

Re:Why change optical drives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163273)

So why doesn't he use the old drive to do the ripping, then toss it?

download (2)

boysenberry (2029114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163155)

Save youself the hassle and download from online "sources". I don't think it's even illegal in most places, if you own the CD.

Alternative approaches: multi-CD, services, arrr! (5, Informative)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163173)

Just throwing some other approaches out there - I'm sure people will point to SATA drives that rip plenty fast (myce.com is sure to have some recommendations, for what it's worth).

Alternative A: Why just 1 drive? Get multiple. They're cheap (sub-$15 for an external CD drive that'll happily do DVD as well. And burn them. Sell them on when you're done.)

Alternative B: Better yet, since you have so many discs, get a (semi-)automatic CD changer system. Sit back, let it rip a bunch at a time. Sell system on when done.

Alternative C: Why even bother with it yourself at all? Go find a CD ripping service. I have no experience with these guys - http://musicshifter.com/ [musicshifter.com] - but at less than $1/CD and the option to have them rip lossless (yes, including FLAC) and send them a drive to put it on, perhaps it's worth it to let them deal with it and use your time and effort elsewhere. I know it's not much effort (I just digitized every single Stargate DVD between working on things, just swapping out the DVDs - each taking about half an hour), but the option is out there anyway.

Alternative D: Piracy! Well, it's not really piracy since you already have the CDs. There's some sites out there that will happily let you submit your CD's code (either the simple code used by e.g. Windows 95's media player or a more complex one) and spit out links for getting digitized versions. I'll let you do the Googling there.

Alternative E: Buy them. Certainly a lot (understatement, seriously) more expensive than the other options, but on the up side you should get perfect metadata, album art, etc. included.

Re:Alternative approaches: multi-CD, services, arr (3, Interesting)

PNutts (199112) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163313)

The OP didn't mention why the need to re-rip and why he's going with FLAC (other than the obvious FLAC benefits and a concern over media longevity), but if he has the CDs and is concerned about the time to rip, go lossy! And if so I'll add one more alternative that will save even more time:

Alternative F: Purchase one year of iTunes Match ($25 US) and you probably won't need to rip most of your CDs at all. Depending on what you have now the downloaded iTunes versions may be of better quality. I'm making the assumption he doesn't already have them in FLAC format because if so why re-rip?

Mass ripping (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163211)

The problem isn't the drive speed, but the amount of manual labor involved in placing hundreds of drives, sorting out the ones that have failed to be retried, and then restocking them. There are multiple optical disk loaders out there, but they aren't intended for transient use and usually require a painful data entry step at the beginning before the drive can locate them.

I have a similar problem, but for a collection of over a thousand mixed-media items. What I've settled on is building a three-spindle set and using a robotic arm with a vaccum sucker to life each item off the spindle and set it into the drive. The spindles are incoming, complete, and failed. The arm is controlled by a simple microcontroller and a couple of sensors to track position and success of each pickup, and connected by USB to custom software. The software alarms if there's a failure, and stepper motors for precise location. The arm "free-falls" from the top of the platter (on a gas piston to reduce contact shock) and a pressure sensor to detect when contact with the next item has been made. It also controls the drive eject/load and the ripping software is triggered using auto-it scripts. Any failure is detected the same way, by watching window titles, and then signalling pickup of the optical media after. There is also a webcam placed directly over the optical drive insert with a bright LED, and a picture is taken of the 'top' of each inserted media at high quality (in case the title is only printed on the inner track). The picture is placed in the same directory as the ripped ISO, and each directory labelled sequentially.

All of this makes post-processing a lot easier; The system can be loaded once a day (before I go to work), and when I get home, it will have ripped about 13 bluray discs. It only takes me a few minutes to rename each ISO to match the disk title from the image, after which it's placed in the pending folder which the ripper autoloads periodically.

But this setup requires knowledge of basic programming and some basic understanding of how robotic tasks are performed; And a significant understanding of electronics and assembly. Any of the homebrew microprocessor kits out there can perform the interface tasks as long as they have GPIO pins. Arduino, for example, has pre-built shields for controlling stepper motors to further simplify this process. The hardest part for me was building the actual robot arm; For that, I looked to how 3D printers are assembled as they've largely solved the problem of using stepper motors and precise placement within a 3D space without significant feedback.

Just make sure your robot's "sucker" can reliably release the optical media and not drag it; it only takes a little bit of moisture or stickiness to lift the optical media slightly and misposition it in the tray, and once the LOAD command is sent, your drive will eat the disc, permanently damaging it. It's also difficult to detect this in software -- the only indication of fault will be an unreadable disk and drive being unresponsive to load/eject commands. Make sure your apparatus fails safe, and I suggest testing all possible failure modes with throw-away media before using on production material.

Re:Mass ripping (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163551)

Just make sure your robot's "sucker" can reliably release the optical media and not drag it; it only takes a little bit of moisture or stickiness to lift the optical media slightly and misposition it in the tray

Well... yuck. Why would you use drives with trays?

I'm sure you're clever enough to build a picker that would work with slot-loading drives.

SCSI Plextor (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163221)

I know you said SATA, but I still use my SCSI Plextor drives under Linux for ripping. They're fast and accurate.

A pair of them in a low power purpose built machine, with a local copy of the CDDB, will do a disc every 30 seconds or so.

They're even cheap on ebay.

RIP it good!

Re:SCSI Plextor (1)

rjforster (2130) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163363)

Similar story here. My old (as in 3 PCs ago) yamaha scsi cdrw was the best audio cd ripper I have owned. Much better than the IDE or SATA DVD drives I have had since.
Problem was the scsi card I used was very cheap, but it worked just fine until support was dropped in the kernel. So one day I did an update, rebooted, and swore a lot.

IDE to USB.. (1)

bjwest (14070) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163299)

I know it's a bit late now, but instead of voiding the warranty on your new shiny, you could've just gotten an IDE to USB adapter. A raw CDRom drive may not be the prettiest thing sitting on the desk, but once you get all your CDs ripped, you won't be needing it again until you buy a new CD, if even then. 15 min. to rip a CD isn't much when you only have one. You can rip that out while catching up on the days /. and email.

What is CD? (0)

alexmin (938677) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163323)

Never heard of it.

Wrong solution. Think parallelism. (4, Interesting)

aussersterne (212916) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163325)

Years ago when I had to rip all of my CDs to MP3s, I had about 500 to go through. I was a Linux user, so take this with a grain of salt if you're not one, but I simply went to the local university surplus yard, picked up 12 2x SCSI CDs for about $5 each, and connected them to some spare SCSI adapters and powered them with junk PC power supplies and 4-pin Y-cables. I'm sure you could cook up something similar these days with SATA or even USB and cheap eBay bare-board SATA->USB adapters. You could probably piece together at least a 4-6 drive solution for less than $100.

Then, I wrote a shell script that leveraged some basic shell tools. I don't remember what they were (I haven't done this for years), but one was cddb-something (queried online CD databases) and of course cdparanoia and lame and I think one called id3tag.

I scripted things up with the following logic, run on all drives simultaneously:

While (forever):
Poll drive for inserted CD.
If one is in, query cddb, save names in shell variables.
Rip using cdparanoia and default filenames, encode with lame.
Rename all files using track names in shell variables and folder using album and artist in shell variables.
Use id3tag to tag MP3 files according to file and folder names.
Eject disc.
End while.

Ran this on all 12 drives simultaneously in a terminal. Whenever a tray popped out, I took out the CD that had just been ripped and tossed it in the "done, recycle plastic medium" pile, and then stuck in the next CD in the queue and closed the tray.

With all drives cranking, it took no more than a couple days' intermittent CD-inserting (in the midst of doing whatever else I was working on--browsing the web, writing, studying, etc.) to move through the queue. And then I was done.

When I was done, I stuck all of the basically valueless drives in the garage, and I think years later they ended up at the dump.

If I'd had to nurse along a single drive, I don't think I'd be done to this day. Too big a PITA. 12 slow drives with an automated script > 1 fast drive by hand.

Wrong approach (5, Funny)

turkeyfeathers (843622) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163345)

Using a CD-ripper is so 1990s. What you want to do is buy a good quality scanner and scan your CDs using high-resolution mode -- should take about 20 seconds per disk. Then use any of the usual conversion programs to convert the scanned images into whatever audio format you prefer.

Re:Wrong approach (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163547)

Hey, it works well for LPs

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~springer/DigitalNeedle/

ASUS DRW-24B1ST (2)

eldepeche (854916) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163359)

Never had a single problem with this drive. Available here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827135204 [newegg.com]

Seek/read timing:
                [53:27.17]: 18ms seek, 0.30ms/sec read [45.0x]
                [50:00.32]: 17ms seek, 0.30ms/sec read [45.0x]
                [40:00.32]: 20ms seek, 0.33ms/sec read [40.0x]
                [30:00.32]: 16ms seek, 0.37ms/sec read [36.0x]
                [20:00.32]: 21ms seek, 0.41ms/sec read [32.7x]
                [10:00.32]: 25ms seek, 0.48ms/sec read [27.7x]
                [00:00.32]: 50ms seek, 0.63ms/sec read [21.2x]

Re:ASUS DRW-24B1ST (0)

Unknown Lamer (78415) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163505)

Can you post the cache behavior thing? The main thing, afaict, is that seeking backward flushes the cache so that cdparanoia can actually re-read sectors.

And to think, that was almost the drive that I bought. Just had to go for the Lite-On, thinking "my current drive is a rebadged Lite-On..."

Use a more modern ripper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163491)

I'd suggest dBpoweramp. The dev (Spoon) is a frequenter over at the Hydrogen Audio forums and knows his stuff. Although you'll have to fork out some cash for the software, it is at least as accurate as EAC and much faster on undamaged discs. Try it yourself and see (there's a trial), and if you're not happy then you've still got EAC...

LG HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GH24LS50 YP01 (2)

TheRealGrogan (1660825) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163513)

I have a cheap, bog standard LG brand SATA drive that seems to do OK. I don't rip audio CDs very often, but last time I did (I just do "cdparanoia -B") it didn't seem to take long.

Here's my output of "cdparanoia -A" (I did this three times with similar result)

This is on Linux 3.6.5 on x86_64.

grogan@getstuffed:~$ cdparanoia -A
cdparanoia III release 10.2 (September 11, 2008)

Using cdda library version: 10.2
Using paranoia library version: 10.2
Checking /dev/cdrom for cdrom...
                Testing /dev/cdrom for SCSI/MMC interface
                                SG_IO device: /dev/sr0

CDROM model sensed sensed: HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GH24LS50 YP01

Checking for SCSI emulation...
                Drive is ATAPI (using SG_IO host adaptor emulation)

Checking for MMC style command set...
                Drive is MMC style
                DMA scatter/gather table entries: 1
                table entry size: 524288 bytes
                maximum theoretical transfer: 222 sectors
                Setting default read size to 27 sectors (63504 bytes).

Verifying CDDA command set...
                Expected command set reads OK.

Attempting to set cdrom to full speed...
                drive returned OK.

=================== Checking drive cache/timing behavior ===================

Seek/read timing:
                [74:21.35]: 62ms seek, 0.32ms/sec read [41.8x]
                [70:00.32]: 56ms seek, 0.32ms/sec read [41.5x]
                [60:00.32]: 57ms seek, 0.35ms/sec read [37.9x]
                [50:00.32]: 61ms seek, 0.37ms/sec read [35.7x]
                [40:00.32]: 58ms seek, 0.41ms/sec read [32.8x]
                [30:00.32]: 61ms seek, 0.45ms/sec read [29.7x]
                [20:00.32]: 62ms seek, 0.51ms/sec read [26.2x]
                [10:00.32]: 73ms seek, 0.58ms/sec read [22.9x]
                [00:00.32]: 71ms seek, 0.74ms/sec read [18.1x]

Analyzing cache behavior...
                Approximate random access cache size: 16 sector(s)
                Drive cache tests as contiguous
                Drive readahead past read cursor: 234 sector(s)
                Cache tail cursor tied to read cursor
                Cache tail granularity: 1 sector(s)
                                Cache read speed: 0.14ms/sector [94x]
                                Access speed after backseek: 0.71ms/sector [18x]
                Backseek flushes the cache as expected

Drive tests OK with Paranoia.

paralellize (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42163533)

Get multiple drives and rip multiple discs at the same time.

Or if that's not possible, get multiple machines, and rip multiple discs at the same time that way.

Since this is just a single project to get through all your CDs as quickly as possible, forget about what's logical long-term.

I'm impressed (4, Interesting)

AnotherAnonymousUser (972204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163553)

There's been a trend on Slashdot to shoot down questions like this without due consideration of what the submitter is asking, or just posting some obvious answers and consider the issue resolved. It was really nice to see this thread put forth a lot of information from the community. I didn't realize that there were 1) issues with SATA drives having issues on things like this 2) that there were people who cared about this kind of thing enough to have done the homework and the research behind it. It's called to my attention that there's a sub-genre of people for whom this matters, a lot. I've ripped scores of CDs in the last decade, but never paid enough mind to have it as more than a rarely-used utility. Thanks for the information, and you go, geeks =)!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>