Need Audio CD Ripping Software Recommendations

[tmtomh]

On 5/21/2018 at 1:21 PM, audiventory said:

 

Improve. You have correct error detection probability Pripper lesser 1.0.

 

If you add checking with checksum database, the database correct error detection probability Pdb (also lesser 1.0).

 

Total correct error detection probability P = Pripper * Pdb.

 

Example (numbers are not exact):

 

Pripper = Pdb = 0.999.

 

P = 0.999 * 0.999 = 0,998 < Pripper = Pdb = 0.999

 

P is lesser Pripper and P is lesser Pdb, because numbers in right part of formula both are lesser 1.0.

 

So Total error detection probaility is improved if only 1 of mthods is used.

 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sophistry

[tmtomh]

7 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

Looks like you are right @tmtomh.

You realize I was referring to you and not to @mansr, right?

[tmtomh]

6 minutes ago, diecaster said:

Look here:

 

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/dbpoweramp-is-superior-to-eac-for-secure-ripping.179662/#post-4337030

 

Here is a quote:

 

"AR [AccurateRip] checksums, when they match, are virtually 100% reliable. For each accurate rip match, the chances of the disk getting the same checksum but the data being different are 1 in 4 billion. If you have 3 AR matches the chance of the data being wrong is 1 in 4 billion times 4 billion times 4 billion. So accuraterip is pretty durn accurate."

 

Just think about how low the odds are for a match error when there are 20 AccurateRip matches in the database. I did the math. It is 1 in 1.0995116277760003e+192. Or 1 in 4,000,000,000^20.

 

That is a really huge number which means it is just about impossible for there to be an error..

 

This shows, really it proves, why AccurateRip is far better than any method @audiventory suggest or recommends.

 

 

Yes absolutely. Unfortunately, @audiventory is absolutely convinced that AccurateRip is inferior to the methods he is suggesting, and he chimes in with his same nonsense - and it is indeed nonsense - every time this subject comes up.

 

He actually seems fairly civil and cheerful in his comments, but it's a waste talking to him, because he's one of those people who will not allow you to disagree with him - he will only allow you to "misunderstand" him. He genuinely doesn't understand that people do in fact get what he's trying to say - and they still think he's wrong.

[tmtomh]

40 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

When checksums are different is not matter.

 

But when checksums are same, we don't know like it to original data checksum or not.

 

Example: we have 100 similar ripped checksums Srip, but original studio file may have other cheksum Sorig.

 

And millions of CDs in the database can't guaranty that Srip = Sorig. Because, I think, that the million may be copied from damaged (or altered by some unknown me reasons) matrix.

 

There is no way at all to guarantee that a CD's CRC exactly matches the CRC of a studio file. But that has nothing to do with ripping method - and you know it. So first you need to clearly acknowledge that this "what is the true original CRC" problem has nothing to do with the AccurateRip database - and in fact has nothing to do with ripping at all. If you do not acknowledge this fact, then no one here should pay any attention to what you say.

 

That said, your entire argument in this thread is based on your "simple formula" that multiples two methods: 0.999% CD ripper accuracy times 0.999% AccurateRip database accuracy equals 0.998% total accuracy.

 

Of course 0.999 x 0.999 = .998 (actually, 0.998001,  but we'll leave that aside for the moment). But that's not the question. The question is, does 0.999 x 0.999 = 0.998 represent mathematically the actual reality of securely ripping CDs and checking the AccurateRip database? And the answer is No.

 

The reason, as @mansr noted earlier in the thread, is that we are not dealing with independent variables here. The AccurateRip database is a large aggregation of multiple CD rippers, drives, and discs, and as the number of entries increases, the inaccuracies or flaws of individual drives or CDs become less and less significant (because the chances of all those drives misreading the same frames/sectors of all those copies of the CD are astronomically small). So as the database grows, its accuracy limit will be 100% - that is, it will never be 100%, but 100% is what it will more and more closely approach.

 

You cannot say the same for your single-ripper/single-software model. In fact, you already know you can't say this, because in another thread where you and I went 12 rounds on this same issue, you were very clear about how you want to figure out which CD rippers are the most accurate: You wrote that you want to get a bunch of drives and a bunch of ripping programs, and test them all out with each other to find out which drive (and I guess maybe which software too) is the best.

 

Of course, that is impractical - which is why you have not done it, and why no one else has done it either.

 

But the AccurateRIp database is precisely a doable, feasible version of your "ideal" experiment: It's 10s of thousands of individual optical drives that have done more than 340 million rips of 3.8 million unique CD titles/albums. But instead of demonstrating which optical drives are the most accurate as you foolishly seek to do, the AccurateRip database makes the drive irrelevant by its sheer volume, instead demonstrating which RIPS THEMSELVES are the most accurate - which is the whole point of this enterprise anyway.