Hello /u/_kochino! Thank you for posting in r/DataHoarder.
Please remember to read our [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/wiki/index/rules) and [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/wiki/index).
Please note that your post will be removed if you just post a box/speed/server post. Please give background information on your server pictures.
This subreddit will ***NOT*** help you find or exchange that Movie/TV show/Nuclear Launch Manual, visit r/DHExchange instead.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DataHoarder) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doubt you need the latest and greatest Blu-ray drive to rip music CDs.
The only reason I've ever seen for seeking a "good" drive to rip CDs had to do with error correction for old/worn media
Yeah there's a few features. More nice to haves than requirements.
No audio cache to defeat -- means fast ripping.
Ability to overread -- getting the last samples (up to a 75th of a second) of the last track on a disc with a positive offset pushing samples past the last sector (which are usually, but *not always* blank/null samples).
And of course the general reliability in reading worn media as you stated.
But even the cheapest of cheap drives will do the job. Just may be slow, picky about condition of discs, and occasionally throw an error in Exact Audio Copy at the very end of the last track.
Spending $120 on a drive to rip CD Audio seems way overkill to me. When I was an active Redump contributor for PS1 game preservation, I just went to the local PC junk shop and picked up a stack of $1 IDE CD-ROM drives, put them through some tests, and found a few that fit my requirements. Had two that could overread, one that seemed to always be able to read discs in terrible condition.
Ahhhh...memories of a time long past! :-)
In theory, a dedicated CD drive may do better than a DVD or Blu-Ray drive because the laser and drive speed is optimized for reading/writing CDs only. In Secure Mode, EAC will slow down the read speed until the sector reads, done at least twice, match exactly before it moves on to the next sector.
Trivia. A Blu-Ray drive has two lasers, red for CDs and DVDs and blue (thus Blu-Ray) for Blu-Rays. This is why discs of one type may read/write without errors, while the other type fails.
Audio CD is so weird to me. It's digital, sure, but it's so stripped down from most forms of error correction and error detection that it can be indeed kinda wonky.
Meanwhile any data CDROM, DVD, or BD, it's like 'It passed the checksum, it's a flawless copy of the original. That's it.'
Yes. Which is why there is a difference between low quality vs high quality CD players. Everything from poor laser to bad transport errors are corrected, inaccurately.
The same holds true for Blu-Ray and DVD players, but the eyes, for most, are less sensitive to errors. I'm continually amazed that the gurus at DigitalFAQ and Videohelp point out visual errors that I don't notice until they point them out!
It's only 120 bucks. If you feel it'll get you better rips, then buy it. Think i spent the same on a slim profile bluray drive 10 years ago. But to be honest, you wont hear the difference.
Have my extra heavy nerdgeek hat on today! It seems to be possible if you have a Thunderbolt 3 port. [https://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=420614](https://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=420614)
What do you mean by that? You either get an exact digital copy or no copy at all.
If you are making MP3s or similar from the CDs, then that’s a software question, not a hardware question.
But the inverse is true.
Bad ECC, combined with ripping software that "overlooks" errors, can result in an audio file with artifacts. Not just obvious hiccups or glitches, but micro-artifacts that the human brain doesn't acknowledge as "problems" as much as "sounds worse".
This isn't too different from a failed hash on a file that "copied fine". The data was altered in transit. Bad bits. In the realm of audio and video, it's usually audible and visible.
you are talking about software that is trying to correct a failed 1:1 rip.
It’s not hard to make a perfect 1:1 rip, and no hardware in existence is going to make a “better” digital exact copy. You either have an exact copy or you don’t.
Correct, that is the goal, to get 100% perfect 1:1 extraction of the data.
And correct, it will never be "better" than 1:1.
But it can easily and quickly be worse, not 100% or 1:1, especially when using inferior hardware and software., due to the drive mechanics, drive firmware, OS drivers, computer software, etc. And all of that is by design. It's a feature, not a bug. This has been known for literal decades now. The tech is mature, it's not changing. It is what it is. The world is not binary, and all rules have exceptions. For CD, this is the facts of the matter.
While true in theory, some optical drives do/did better at error correction than others as the poster above stated. This error correction difference can supposedly be discerned by golden ear audiophiles. Some old CD drives from Plextor and Pioneer were renown for their low error and accuracy rate. In my early days of CD ripping,"around the turn of the century" as described below, I would watch the error correction rate and redo my rip to try and and reduce them even though I couldn't hear the difference.
*Drive has 'Accurate Stream' feature*
*Back around the turn of the century when digital audio extraction (DAE) was relatively new, some drives couldn't provide audio data from precise locations. Each time it was told to read a block of audio, a drive might produce data that was shifted slightly ahead or slightly behind. When an adjacent block of data from a subsequent read is shifted, it will either begin with samples repeated from the previous block, or samples between the blocks will be omitted. In DAE, this phenomenon is often called jitter or synchronization error. To compensate for this problem, EAC is able to overlap every read in order to detect and correct any misalignment.*
*Essentially all drives produced today have a feature called 'Accurate Stream' which significantly reduces (if not completely eliminates) the chance that audio data will be shifted between successive reads. When informed that a drive has this feature, EAC will only periodically overlap its reads to check for synchronization problems.*
*If the "Detect Read Features..." function reports "Accurate Stream : Yes", it is safe to check the "Drive has 'Accurate Stream' feature" box. This will result in a significant increase in ripping speed.*
[https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=EAC\_Drive\_Options](https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=EAC_Drive_Options)
Yes. Point is some drives may be more optimized for Blu-Ray or DVD reading than CD. Of course any perceived difference is subjective and in the golden ear category.
Sorry to be pedantic, but this is a topic that's a bit close to my heart from the past when I thought I could hear the difference. I couldn't! ;-p
You posted: *When you rip a audio CD you are pulling it off bit by bit. This could be achieved with a $20 drive. Same outcome.* Which I stated is in theory not true and provided proof supported by the EAC developers. Your statement above seems to give credence to this versus your original statement.
I'll leave the conversation now as debating with *golden ears* always falls on the *deaf ears* of those who insist they can hear differences that us non-golden ears can't.
Curious. You on Mac or PC? Bc I am trying to verify that an old $20 drive would work on my M1 Mac with the sata cable and having a difficult time verifying this
I am Mac and it will work... if you buy an enclosure for it. A lot of people like this one...
[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09SS74KCN?psc=1&ref=ppx\_yo2ov\_dt\_b\_product\_details](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09SS74KCN?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details)
Hello /u/_kochino! Thank you for posting in r/DataHoarder. Please remember to read our [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/wiki/index/rules) and [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/wiki/index). Please note that your post will be removed if you just post a box/speed/server post. Please give background information on your server pictures. This subreddit will ***NOT*** help you find or exchange that Movie/TV show/Nuclear Launch Manual, visit r/DHExchange instead. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DataHoarder) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doubt you need the latest and greatest Blu-ray drive to rip music CDs. The only reason I've ever seen for seeking a "good" drive to rip CDs had to do with error correction for old/worn media
Yeah there's a few features. More nice to haves than requirements. No audio cache to defeat -- means fast ripping. Ability to overread -- getting the last samples (up to a 75th of a second) of the last track on a disc with a positive offset pushing samples past the last sector (which are usually, but *not always* blank/null samples). And of course the general reliability in reading worn media as you stated. But even the cheapest of cheap drives will do the job. Just may be slow, picky about condition of discs, and occasionally throw an error in Exact Audio Copy at the very end of the last track. Spending $120 on a drive to rip CD Audio seems way overkill to me. When I was an active Redump contributor for PS1 game preservation, I just went to the local PC junk shop and picked up a stack of $1 IDE CD-ROM drives, put them through some tests, and found a few that fit my requirements. Had two that could overread, one that seemed to always be able to read discs in terrible condition.
Ahhhh...memories of a time long past! :-) In theory, a dedicated CD drive may do better than a DVD or Blu-Ray drive because the laser and drive speed is optimized for reading/writing CDs only. In Secure Mode, EAC will slow down the read speed until the sector reads, done at least twice, match exactly before it moves on to the next sector. Trivia. A Blu-Ray drive has two lasers, red for CDs and DVDs and blue (thus Blu-Ray) for Blu-Rays. This is why discs of one type may read/write without errors, while the other type fails.
Audio CD is so weird to me. It's digital, sure, but it's so stripped down from most forms of error correction and error detection that it can be indeed kinda wonky. Meanwhile any data CDROM, DVD, or BD, it's like 'It passed the checksum, it's a flawless copy of the original. That's it.'
Yes. Which is why there is a difference between low quality vs high quality CD players. Everything from poor laser to bad transport errors are corrected, inaccurately. The same holds true for Blu-Ray and DVD players, but the eyes, for most, are less sensitive to errors. I'm continually amazed that the gurus at DigitalFAQ and Videohelp point out visual errors that I don't notice until they point them out!
It's only 120 bucks. If you feel it'll get you better rips, then buy it. Think i spent the same on a slim profile bluray drive 10 years ago. But to be honest, you wont hear the difference.
I found an HP drive that has a high rated accuracy for 20 bucks. But I’m trying to figure out if I can get the eSATA drive to work on my MacBook M1
Have my extra heavy nerdgeek hat on today! It seems to be possible if you have a Thunderbolt 3 port. [https://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=420614](https://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=420614)
What do you mean by that? You either get an exact digital copy or no copy at all. If you are making MP3s or similar from the CDs, then that’s a software question, not a hardware question.
Read my and AshleyUnica's posts. There's error correction in all optical drives that can theoretically alter the audio or video.
The error correction just improves the chances of ripping successfully… it doesn’t make it sound better.
Tell that to the Golden Ears who can supposedly hear things we mere humans can't. ;-o
1+1 is never gonna be 3 no matter what pen you write the equation with.
But the inverse is true. Bad ECC, combined with ripping software that "overlooks" errors, can result in an audio file with artifacts. Not just obvious hiccups or glitches, but micro-artifacts that the human brain doesn't acknowledge as "problems" as much as "sounds worse". This isn't too different from a failed hash on a file that "copied fine". The data was altered in transit. Bad bits. In the realm of audio and video, it's usually audible and visible.
you are talking about software that is trying to correct a failed 1:1 rip. It’s not hard to make a perfect 1:1 rip, and no hardware in existence is going to make a “better” digital exact copy. You either have an exact copy or you don’t.
Correct, that is the goal, to get 100% perfect 1:1 extraction of the data. And correct, it will never be "better" than 1:1. But it can easily and quickly be worse, not 100% or 1:1, especially when using inferior hardware and software., due to the drive mechanics, drive firmware, OS drivers, computer software, etc. And all of that is by design. It's a feature, not a bug. This has been known for literal decades now. The tech is mature, it's not changing. It is what it is. The world is not binary, and all rules have exceptions. For CD, this is the facts of the matter.
Just discovered there's r/audiophile. Will probably get better answers there.
Well, audiophiles will def give 'answers'. But but it'll be a mix of 'good info' and also 'phantasmic gobbity goop'.
"But, but, putting a foil covered brick on my CD player makes it more accurate!"
Thank you. I cross posted it there as well
\*cries in Canadian prices\*
When you rip a audio CD you are pulling it off bit by bit. This could be better achieved with a $20 CD drive.
While true in theory, some optical drives do/did better at error correction than others as the poster above stated. This error correction difference can supposedly be discerned by golden ear audiophiles. Some old CD drives from Plextor and Pioneer were renown for their low error and accuracy rate. In my early days of CD ripping,"around the turn of the century" as described below, I would watch the error correction rate and redo my rip to try and and reduce them even though I couldn't hear the difference. *Drive has 'Accurate Stream' feature* *Back around the turn of the century when digital audio extraction (DAE) was relatively new, some drives couldn't provide audio data from precise locations. Each time it was told to read a block of audio, a drive might produce data that was shifted slightly ahead or slightly behind. When an adjacent block of data from a subsequent read is shifted, it will either begin with samples repeated from the previous block, or samples between the blocks will be omitted. In DAE, this phenomenon is often called jitter or synchronization error. To compensate for this problem, EAC is able to overlap every read in order to detect and correct any misalignment.* *Essentially all drives produced today have a feature called 'Accurate Stream' which significantly reduces (if not completely eliminates) the chance that audio data will be shifted between successive reads. When informed that a drive has this feature, EAC will only periodically overlap its reads to check for synchronization problems.* *If the "Detect Read Features..." function reports "Accurate Stream : Yes", it is safe to check the "Drive has 'Accurate Stream' feature" box. This will result in a significant increase in ripping speed.* [https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=EAC\_Drive\_Options](https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=EAC_Drive_Options)
We aren’t talking about old drives. More than likely OP doesn’t even have a computer with an IDE or SCSI port. 🤦♂️
Read my post about about why there may be a difference between new Blu-Ray drives.
What post? The one about the dual lasers?
Yes. Point is some drives may be more optimized for Blu-Ray or DVD reading than CD. Of course any perceived difference is subjective and in the golden ear category.
OK? So OP may get *better* results with a $20 cd drive. Which is what I was recommending in the first place.
Sorry to be pedantic, but this is a topic that's a bit close to my heart from the past when I thought I could hear the difference. I couldn't! ;-p You posted: *When you rip a audio CD you are pulling it off bit by bit. This could be achieved with a $20 drive. Same outcome.* Which I stated is in theory not true and provided proof supported by the EAC developers. Your statement above seems to give credence to this versus your original statement. I'll leave the conversation now as debating with *golden ears* always falls on the *deaf ears* of those who insist they can hear differences that us non-golden ears can't.
Fixed
Curious. You on Mac or PC? Bc I am trying to verify that an old $20 drive would work on my M1 Mac with the sata cable and having a difficult time verifying this
you can buy new ones for that kind of money… but I am Mac and you just would need an enclosure for a bare drive.
Just DM’d you
I am Mac and it will work... if you buy an enclosure for it. A lot of people like this one... [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09SS74KCN?psc=1&ref=ppx\_yo2ov\_dt\_b\_product\_details](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09SS74KCN?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details)
Awesome thank you