Re: Relation to tosec.org

I think you went back 149 sectors only, instead of 150 when searching for data track end.

Re: Relation to tosec.org

2Eidolon:

Didn't want to make any comments - I thought you would understand that your method is wrong after a couple of answers from our dumpers. Looks like I've been mistaken...

I see absolutely no point in using Cdrwin. It offers no benefits comparing to the current method. Dumping using EAC takes less time and is more accurate. And Cdrwin can't even properly dump audio - this should be quite enough to stop anyone from using it in attempt to make perfect dumps. It is just a waste of time and efforts.

Re: Relation to tosec.org

Dremora wrote:

2Eidolon:
Didn't want to make any comments - I thought you would understand that your method is wrong after a couple of answers from our dumpers. Looks like I've been mistaken...
I see absolutely no point in using Cdrwin. It offers no benefits comparing to the current method. Dumping using EAC takes less time and is more accurate. And Cdrwin can't even properly dump audio - this should be quite enough to stop anyone from using it in attempt to make perfect dumps. It is just a waste of time and efforts.

I disagree. Even on a "bad drive" as I seem to have, CDRWIN dumps give you EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS and EXACTLY THE SAME METADATA (write offset value) as the redump method. Of course, only for the unproblematic discs (the ones where the last audio track doesn't run into the lead-out).

Moreover, in your process you're forgetting to run the data tracks through CDMage to confirm correctness - something which wouldn't be necessary at all if you only dumped the MODE1/2048 user data.

Also, none of your dumpers have proven to me that EAC is "more accurate" than CDRWIN (see my Burai ripping experience - EAC was even less accurate with my bad drive).

But as a conclusion:

Apart from bad discs (as Snake said, easily identifiable through their non-zero data at the end of the resulting BIN file), there is no reason at all to use the complicated ISObuster+EAC method outlined in the redump guide!

You can simply dump the CD twice with CDRWIN, and if the resulting BIN files match you can be reasonably sure that it is a good dump.
After that, you check if the resulting dump contains an ample amount of 00's at the end. If it does, you have a good dump.

Re: Relation to tosec.org

Eidolon wrote:

I disagree. Even on a "bad drive" as I seem to have, CDRWIN dumps give you EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS and EXACTLY THE SAME METADATA (write offset value) as the redump method. Of course, only for the unproblematic discs (the ones where the last audio track doesn't run into the lead-out).

Moreover, in your process you're forgetting to run the data tracks through CDMage to confirm correctness - something which wouldn't be necessary at all if you only dumped the MODE1/2048 user data.

Also, none of your dumpers have proven to me that EAC is "more accurate" than CDRWIN (see my Burai ripping experience - EAC was even less accurate with my bad drive).

But as a conclusion:

Apart from bad discs (as Snake said, easily identifiable through their non-zero data at the end of the resulting BIN file), there is no reason at all to use the complicated ISObuster+EAC method outlined in the redump guide!

You can simply dump the CD twice with CDRWIN, and if the resulting BIN files match you can be reasonably sure that it is a good dump.
After that, you check if the resulting dump contains an ample amount of 00's at the end. If it does, you have a good dump.

Concluding:
-you can dump the way you like smile
-we care about offsets and having full audio
-we won't change our dumping method
-we think our dumping method is better
-everybody is happy

Basically, we're at the same point we were 3 days and 60 posts ago. Good luck with your work smile

Now the thread can be closed. It should be linked to whomever comes here in the future and asks why we don't want CDRWin big_smile

Re: Relation to tosec.org

gigadeath wrote:

Now the thread can be closed.

You read my thoughts. This discussion is getting out of hand.

I respect Eidolon's/Snake's input to this matter. We should all wait until they come with a tool to postprocess the cdrwin output data before we can do any real comparisons between both methods. I hope they can also let this tool check if the last audio sectors indicate if the data is cut off.

Because there is no such tool yet, my current conclusion is that our method is still the most reliable one, because EAC will warn you when there is a problem and data is cut off. CDRWin doesn't do this, and there is no supplementary tool yet that does. And this has to be automated, because you can't expect people to manually check each disc to see if there's any data cut off. Also, keep in mind that if a drive doesn't support overreading, the dump should at least be verified using 2 drives. I'm not sure if at the end the CDRWin method will be any faster. I'm looking forward to the results.

Topic closed.

Re: Relation to tosec.org

Eidolon wrote:

Moreover, in your process you're forgetting to run the data tracks through CDMage to confirm correctness - something which wouldn't be necessary at all if you only dumped the MODE1/2048 user data.

We are not forgetting anything - some discs have mastering EDC/ECC errors which shouldn't be fixed (either accidental or intentionally made by the developers). Not only PSX, but even some Sega CD discs have these errors, so by ripping data tracks in cooked mode or fixing them with CDmage you'll lose data.