I think I pretty much found the answers on my question. Hardware does matter, even with EAC. Explanation follows. The only two critical for DAE parameters of a drive are C2 support and whether drive buffers data during DAE.
C2 support gives you another layer of control over errors Buffering audio data doesn't allow reliable CRC calculation. So, drive supporting C2 and not buffering audio data is apparently better suitable for DAE then others. Now, why is it important, considering that "EAC will squeeze blood from a stone"? Because it's a hype. EAC is, at least was, better then anything around, but it's not panacea. The simplest easy-to-read explanation of it I found is here http://www.dbpoweramp.com/secure-ripper.htm, but more detailed articles may be found on net. The point is that *every single* method EAC and others use is prone to undetected errors, which includes checking C2, comparing CRC, and multiple re-reads, and of course AccurateRip. Smart solutions, such as EAC, use appropriate combinations of known methods, which just lowers probability of undetected error(s), but still doesn't eliminate them at all. Thus, if your drive doesn't support C2, you have one method less for your disposal. If your drive buffers audio data, which causes CRC calculation issues - the same, one method less. You do the math. What I'm yet to find is if there's any advantage of having drive supporting C1 and PI/PO error detection... -- 325xi simaudio nova cdp >> simaudio moon i-5 >> revel performa m20 via acoustic zen matrix reference ii and acoustic zen satori -planned additions:... >> deq2496 >> lavry da-10 >>...- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 325xi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5661 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32725 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
