[QUOTE=Matth;2759309]The other drive feature that is a source of debate … C2 errors.
If the drive supports C2 reporting, and does it accurately, then ripping can be VERY fast, as the C2 status is used instead of double read checking.
If they are VERY VERY accurate, then applying correction may be possible.
See EAC’s other project, DAE quality, for more info[/QUOTE]
It is worth mentioning that C2 errors are an event experienced by the drive (an uncorrectable E32 error), not a feature on the disc. A scratch may cause a drive to experience an C2 error, but it is not itself a C2 error. There is a lot of misinformation out there.
Take an audio CD and deliberately deface it by drawing a thick black radial line. This should cause every drive to experience C2 errors. If a drive doesn’t report any errors then it doesn’t support C2 reporting, even if it tells the software that it does. (Or something is interfering with the process, such as a USB bridge or other software.)
But what if drive A reports 1000 C2 errors and drive B reports only 990? Does that mean that drive B is only 99% accurate? That is what many people have concluded, but it is incorrect.
While it is possible that drive B has not reported all of the C2 errors it experienced, it is also possible that drive B is a better reader and has encountered fewer C2 errors. The only way to confirm that a drive has actually failed to report all of the C2 errors is to compare the data read by the drive against a known good copy of the data or checksum.
Consider this scenario. You extract an entire audio CD using EAC or dBpowerAMP (with C2 pointers) and all tracks are verified OK by Accuraterip (with high confidence), except for one which is only marked as secure. In this case you could reasonably conclude that error(s) have gone unreported by the drive.
(Although not necessarily that the drive has failed to report a C2 error it experienced. In certain rare circumstances, erroneous data can be read without the drive actually experiencing an error.)
There is widespread, long-established opinion on the internet that re-reading is more accurate. This appears to date back to the earliest days of EAC when people were mostly using CD/DVD-Rom drives.
In my experience very few read only drives report C2 errors reliably. But writers are normally very reliable. Of the drives in my collection, all of the writers which claim to support C2 pointer do so very reliably. And for me, using C2 pointers on discs with significant damage has always resulted in far fewer unreported errors than the re-reading method.
But why be forced to chose one method or the other when dBpowerAMP can do both in Ultra Secure mode, with as many passes as you like? Although if you are a die-hard EAC fan you can use C2 pointers, then re-rip the disc and manually compare the checksums.