2 sectors could be either read worse than the rest due to some light scratch/dirt/dust
I've already said the entire game, every part of it, is mint condition :S Case, booklet, obi, disc; it looks like I removed it from the shrinkwrap myself.
or read properly, but incorrectly "fixed" afterwards by the old subchannels-fixing algorithm.
An algorithm that incorrectly "fixes" pregaps... when it wants to? If it's an algorithm, why doesn't it happen all the time? If the program is coded to behave this way with pregaps between data and audio sessions (tracks 1&2), then how do you explain that every other type of this CD I've ever dumped with this version never did that? If this algorithm is coded to work this way and the dumps for those CDs came out correctly, then the Ridge Racer CD must have also turned out correctly, because that's the way this algorithm works.
Anyway, I downloaded subdump, but have no idea how to use it. Does it want a disc, or does it want a file? And if so, which file? Do I give it a full image dump? And if so, which image? DIC creates multiple full image dumps, I believe 2 of them that are both the same size but have different file extensions.
]]>Is there something mystically different about the pregap on only Ridge Racer Japan discs? This "bug somewhere" only affected this multi-track, multi-session disc and not allllllll the others I've done? It's hard to believe.
Yes, why not? 2 sectors could be either read worse than the rest due to some light scratch/dirt/dust or read properly, but incorrectly "fixed" afterwards by the old subchannels-fixing algorithm.
http://forum.redump.org/topic/14725/subdump/ -- use this to dump the subs, clonecd and alcohol usually produce incorrect subs with certain sectors missing and certain sectors doubled. You can add the "-quick" parameter to make a "fast" copy without rereadings.
]]>I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentative and I apologize if I am, I just really don't understand. I don't want to get results and not understand them, or else I'm just doing what I'm told and not knowing if it's a good rip or not. This. Just. Doesn't. Make. Sense.
]]>Should be audio, not data. That explains shifted tracks. There must be a bug somewhere. Always use the newest build...
]]>And even at that rate, it's an incredibly bizarre bug because it only happened on one multi-track CD in the history of my CD dumping years, which has seen quite a few CDs, so... *shrug*
To be honest, this has kind of left me wondering if the results I got this time are more "correct" than my previous results. I mean, honestly, that version never went wrong with anything and it was a newer version than anybody who did the rips before me could have used. So, why should I believe these results over the ones I got with a version that had proven itself 100% reliable over years of usage? That version wasn't spitting out random results—I got the same exact results over two passes of ripping the same CD, so... =/ it just seems kinda weird to me.
]]>LBA[184567, 0x2d0f7], Audio, 2ch, Copy NG, Pre-emphasis No, Track[13], Idx[01], RelTime[02:28:63], AbsTime[41:02:67], RtoW[Zero, Zero, Zero, Zero]
Various things will change, but it's always [Zero, Zero, Zero, Zero]. I know because I did Replace to that, and every single line ended up with nothing left in that area. It's 26.0MB so I can't really paste it here, I don't think. Assuming I'm looking at the correct log though, do you want me to upload it as a txt file or something? I still have the one from the dumps done with the old DIC.
]]>I had another decent idea and I downloaded the newest version of DIC. Ripped the Ridge Racer disc with it and bam, my results match the database, first time. What bothered me, though, is that I was using a version of DIC that dated back to 2015. The Ridge Racer entry was created on Redump in 2008, and only last modified in 2014. That's a whole year before I got DIC, so it's impossible for anybody to have been using a version that was newer than mine. If that's the case... why would I need to update to get the same results as people using versions that could have only possibly been older than mine? Why would they get better results with older versions, yet I get the same results only when I get a newer one? The impossibility of it is rather mind-boggling.
]]>