On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 16:01 -0500, Peter Jones wrote: > On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 10:16 -0700, Kim Lux wrote: > > Same thing. Progress was non existent and there were several Vs in the > > output. syslogs are clean of messages. > > How many is "several" -- was it a constant line of them like the > previous run? Also, does the result sound even close to correct? I think it was better, but I didn't pay that much attention. > How long did track 5 take? It didn't finish in 20 minutes. The data count was moving, but very slowly. Previously, ie before any changes, I ripped that track at 4x. It doesn't have any scratches on it that I saw on the first rip. > For that matter, what did the result of the old run sound like? Was it > completely trash, or was there real data in it? Sorry, Peter, I didn't listen to either. Neither finished and I assumed (obviously wrongly) that they weren't worth listening to. Please direct me what to do next. > -- > Peter > -- Kim Lux (Mr.) Diesel Research Inc