This is why I advise you to ALWAYS use test© function in EAC...............
If you are going to rip with either EAC or Dbpoweramp do it the proper way, for EAC use the guide in my previous post, for Dbpoweramp you have to look for yourself.
Source: http://blowfish.be/eac/Rip/rip10.html#no10f
Quote
10f. Appendix: Comments on AccurateRip Results
Quote from AccurateRip's homepage:
The philosophy behind AccurateRip is quite simple - each time an audio track is ripped (recorded by computer) it is compared with rips from other people, this allows a confidence report to be generated. The report might say that 4 other people had exactly the same results, this would guarantee your rip was without error, or the report could say that 3 other people disagree with your rip, the likely hood is that your CD has a scratch and should be cleaned.
This is an over-simplification. (The people behind AccurateRip are of course aware of that fact. They are just providing an introductory explanation of the AccurateRip concept.)
For starters, AccurateRip results can not guarantee that a rip is without error even if the confidence number should be very high. Errors may go undetected by AccurateRip in two ways, either because they happen in the first/last portions of the rip (that AccurateRip doesn't check in order to allow for different drive offsets) or because they happen in the right channel at the wrong time, see this thread at dBpoweramp's support forum.
For this reason, you should always test and copy the tracks when you rip a CD instead of relying on AccurateRip results only. To be sure, "test and copy" is no guarantee, either: a drive may happen to read an error in a consistent way so that the test and copy CRCs values match in spite of that error. If you use both AccurateRip and "test and copy", you have minimized the risk of errors going undetected, and thus increased the chance that you rip truly is perfect. It is the best we can do.
Also, AccurateRip relies on user submissions. This is a strength in that the database constantly increases with results from rips made by people using different drives. It is a weakness in that all kinds of rips are collected, both good ones and bad ones. This can have the adverse effect that a good and proper rip is made to look bad because there are bad rips in the AccurateRip database that of course do not match the good rip because they are bad. This is mainly a problem with relatively rare CDs that have only been ripped a few times before. When a CD has been ripped hundreds of times, the results from different bad rips are drowned out by the consensus of matching results from good rips.
The summary of the AccurateRip results at the end of the log file looks different depending on how the individual tracks did in the comparison with the results in the database. This is how to interpret them, and what to do (if anything):
None of the tracks are present in the AccurateRip database
This simply means what it says: nobody has submitted results for the CD to the database before. In this case, matching CRC values for test and copy are all there is. Your rip is very likely to be perfect if those values match. (But do submit your results to the database - it is after all user submissions that make the AccurateRip results more and more reliable.)
If you have another drive and want more confidence in your rip, re-rip the CD using that other drive. The small (very small!) risk that the matching CRC values hide an error that was consistently ripped by your drive is made even smaller if the same CRC values appear when you use another drive.
All tracks accurately ripped
This means that there were matches between your results and the ones stored in the database. It can mean that there was only one previous submission ("confidence 1"), or that your result matches tenths or hundreds of other results. You can tell by looking at the confidence numbers for the tracks. Once they are at or above 2, I would say that it is very very likely that your rip (with matching CRC values for test and copy to boot!) is indeed a perfect one.
Note that it is enough that a rip can be verified against at least a couple of other rips. Numbers become meaningless after a while in the sense that a rip with, say, confidence 81 is not "better" than a rip with confidence 9.
No tracks could be verified as accurate
You may have a different pressing from the one(s) in the database
This means that there are results in the database, but none of them match yours. It is indeed very likely that such a result is due to different pressings. Just as in the case with no previously submitted results, matching test and copy CRC values make it very likely that your rip is perfect all the same.
If you have another drive and want more confidence in your rip, re-rip the CD using that other drive. The small (very small!) risk that the matching CRC values hide an error that was consistently ripped by your drive is made even smaller if the same CRC values appear when you use another drive.
[x number of] track(s) accurately ripped
[x number of] track(s) could not be verified as accurate
Some tracks could not be verified as accurate
A result like this calls for further investigation. If the track(s) that could not be verified also have CRC mismatches between test and copy, it appears obvious that there was a ripping error. You need to rip the CD again, and perhaps clean and/or repair it in order to be able to get a proper rip.
If there are matching test and copy CRC values for a track, but the track can not be verified as accurate, rip the track again using a different drive (if possible). If this results in the same matching test and copy CRC values, you have created a confidence of 2, as it were, that your rip is proper in spite of the AccurateRip results.
One drive may rip an error consistently, so that you get matching test and copy CRC values in spite of the error. It is very very unlikely that an error could be consistently ripped by two (or three or four...) different drives, resulting in the same test and copy CRC values for all the rips.
Quote from AccurateRip's homepage:
The philosophy behind AccurateRip is quite simple - each time an audio track is ripped (recorded by computer) it is compared with rips from other people, this allows a confidence report to be generated. The report might say that 4 other people had exactly the same results, this would guarantee your rip was without error, or the report could say that 3 other people disagree with your rip, the likely hood is that your CD has a scratch and should be cleaned.
This is an over-simplification. (The people behind AccurateRip are of course aware of that fact. They are just providing an introductory explanation of the AccurateRip concept.)
For starters, AccurateRip results can not guarantee that a rip is without error even if the confidence number should be very high. Errors may go undetected by AccurateRip in two ways, either because they happen in the first/last portions of the rip (that AccurateRip doesn't check in order to allow for different drive offsets) or because they happen in the right channel at the wrong time, see this thread at dBpoweramp's support forum.
For this reason, you should always test and copy the tracks when you rip a CD instead of relying on AccurateRip results only. To be sure, "test and copy" is no guarantee, either: a drive may happen to read an error in a consistent way so that the test and copy CRCs values match in spite of that error. If you use both AccurateRip and "test and copy", you have minimized the risk of errors going undetected, and thus increased the chance that you rip truly is perfect. It is the best we can do.
Also, AccurateRip relies on user submissions. This is a strength in that the database constantly increases with results from rips made by people using different drives. It is a weakness in that all kinds of rips are collected, both good ones and bad ones. This can have the adverse effect that a good and proper rip is made to look bad because there are bad rips in the AccurateRip database that of course do not match the good rip because they are bad. This is mainly a problem with relatively rare CDs that have only been ripped a few times before. When a CD has been ripped hundreds of times, the results from different bad rips are drowned out by the consensus of matching results from good rips.
The summary of the AccurateRip results at the end of the log file looks different depending on how the individual tracks did in the comparison with the results in the database. This is how to interpret them, and what to do (if anything):
None of the tracks are present in the AccurateRip database
This simply means what it says: nobody has submitted results for the CD to the database before. In this case, matching CRC values for test and copy are all there is. Your rip is very likely to be perfect if those values match. (But do submit your results to the database - it is after all user submissions that make the AccurateRip results more and more reliable.)
If you have another drive and want more confidence in your rip, re-rip the CD using that other drive. The small (very small!) risk that the matching CRC values hide an error that was consistently ripped by your drive is made even smaller if the same CRC values appear when you use another drive.
All tracks accurately ripped
This means that there were matches between your results and the ones stored in the database. It can mean that there was only one previous submission ("confidence 1"), or that your result matches tenths or hundreds of other results. You can tell by looking at the confidence numbers for the tracks. Once they are at or above 2, I would say that it is very very likely that your rip (with matching CRC values for test and copy to boot!) is indeed a perfect one.
Note that it is enough that a rip can be verified against at least a couple of other rips. Numbers become meaningless after a while in the sense that a rip with, say, confidence 81 is not "better" than a rip with confidence 9.
No tracks could be verified as accurate
You may have a different pressing from the one(s) in the database
This means that there are results in the database, but none of them match yours. It is indeed very likely that such a result is due to different pressings. Just as in the case with no previously submitted results, matching test and copy CRC values make it very likely that your rip is perfect all the same.
If you have another drive and want more confidence in your rip, re-rip the CD using that other drive. The small (very small!) risk that the matching CRC values hide an error that was consistently ripped by your drive is made even smaller if the same CRC values appear when you use another drive.
[x number of] track(s) accurately ripped
[x number of] track(s) could not be verified as accurate
Some tracks could not be verified as accurate
A result like this calls for further investigation. If the track(s) that could not be verified also have CRC mismatches between test and copy, it appears obvious that there was a ripping error. You need to rip the CD again, and perhaps clean and/or repair it in order to be able to get a proper rip.
If there are matching test and copy CRC values for a track, but the track can not be verified as accurate, rip the track again using a different drive (if possible). If this results in the same matching test and copy CRC values, you have created a confidence of 2, as it were, that your rip is proper in spite of the AccurateRip results.
One drive may rip an error consistently, so that you get matching test and copy CRC values in spite of the error. It is very very unlikely that an error could be consistently ripped by two (or three or four...) different drives, resulting in the same test and copy CRC values for all the rips.