Ripped CD via Sofware vs Manual Copy/Paste File Differences

[diecaster]

23 minutes ago, audiventory said:

What is better, [own error detection of ripper] or [error detection ability of the database], I don't know. Because it demand serious study.

 

Of course the crowd sourced database is better. You keep arguing this point and your are incorrect. 

 

Doing error detection locally and not comparing the result to other rips done independently means you have no idea if your rip is accurate. You only know that your local hardware/software detected no errors. If you compare a checksum of your rip to a database of rips and find that your rip matches a hundred others, it is almost impossible for your rip to be inaccurate. 

[diecaster]

5 hours ago, audiventory said:

 

Not all, that you feel intuitively, is true.

 

Original checksum of files, that was used to pressing CD is unknown.
As example:
* full serie of CDs was manufactured with errors (probably undetectable or with usual error distribution) relative original files.
* or most of used CD-rippers have undetected programming bug, that distort the checksum.
And the serie give same checksums or biased checksums. And these checksums will not be same to original file checksum.

 

Not this sad argument again. 

 

No software, including yours, has access to the original master data so there is never a way to know if the CDs one is dealing with are the same as the original master. All anyone has access to are the CDs release to the general public. 

 

Most CD ripper software has the exact same bug that distort the checksums identically? You sound really desperate now and your credibility is out the window. 

 

Face it, your software, by not using AccurateRip, is second rate compare to other software packages like dBpoweramp and will never get recommended over ripping software that supports AccurateRip. 

[diecaster]

23 minutes ago, audiventory said:

I understand, that I often says things, that is out of comfort zone.

 

You say things that are just plain wrong.

 

There is no better way to get perfect rips than to use software that checks the rips against the AccurateRip database. Since you do not have access to the original master CDs, there is no better method. Period. This method takes into account different masterings of CD titles.

 

The only reason you argue this is that your software does not use AccurateRip.

[diecaster]

6 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

Emotions. Not tech talks.

 

 

As I understand, you use Accurate Rip, you like it, it is the best for you.

 

But here only need "small unimportant" detail - exact figures.

 

 

No, it's not emotions.

 

Fact: Your software has no way of determining if the CD being ripped is accurate. All it knows is that it encountered no errors during the ripping process. Your software assumes the rip is accurate if there are no errors.

 

Fact: A crowd source checksum based system, such as AccurateRip, is able to checksum each track as it is ripped and compare that checksum to a database of rip checksums. If the CD is in the database, and your rip checksums match dozens of other rip checksums, the probability of there being an error is nil. You cannot argue otherwise. The checksum algorithm is implemented in at least 10 different software packages so the odds of any one package polluting the database with errors and it not being discovered is nil. The crowd sourcing system means that any one bad CD will not become the master that other CDs are compared to.

 

You are the one emotionally compromised here. You are emotionally invested in your software and cannot see the forest for the trees. 

[diecaster]

40 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

Fact 1: I (and you) can righ now measure all probabilities for any stand alone ripping system (CD-drive + ripper software).

 

I (and you) can say: I know.

 

Fact 2: I (ans you) can't right now (I'm not ready to say now, how to do it even) measure probabilities ot ripping database, due it is very complex system.

I (and you) can say: I believe.

 

Do you feel difference between "I know" and "I believe"?

 

Just because you keep presenting the same flawed probability argument over and over does not mean it will magically become correct.

 

You have zero credibility now. None.

[diecaster]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I am not seeing errors in ripping CDs as being much of a problem to begin with

 

Buy a couple of hundred pre-owned CDs and rip them with software that uses AccurateRip. You will see more than a few CDs with problems. 

[diecaster]

6 hours ago, audiventory said:

 

Ok. I got your proofs.

 

Okay. What is the probability a CD (with 600MB of music) I own having the same 1 bit error as the same release of the CD that my friend next door owns? Well, there are ~4,800,000,000 bits which means there are that many possible bits that could bad on each CD.

 

p(A and B) = p(A) * p(B)

 

So: 

 

p(A and B) = p(1/4,800,000,000) * p(1/4,800,000,000)

 

p(A and B) = 1/23,040,000,000,000,000,000

 

That's just two CDs. Imagine 50 rips matching in the AccurateRip database. Since all the CDs are the same, we can rewrite the formula like this:

 

p = 1/4,800,000,000^50

 

In other words, the probability of those 50 rips having the same 1 bit error is 1 in 4,800,000,000^50

 

In case you can't figure it out, that means that having 50 matching rips in the database GUARANTEES that people are getting accurate rips if they match the checksum in the database. Even 10 matching rips at 1 in 4,800,000,000^10 means there is no way those 10 rips had exactly the same error. This is why the crowd sourced AccurateRip database is the single best way to assure you are getting good rips.

[diecaster]

You and your "doubts".

 

Using the AccurateRip database to compare checksums will tell you, with certainty, if your rip is accurate. Accurate compared to what? To whatever the music companies are putting out to the public. This is something your software cannot and will never do UNLESS you add AccurateRip support.

 

The music companies are the only ones that could know if the CD masters used in the duplication process are the same as the masters from the studio. Ether way, that is beyond our control and not something it makes any sense to worry about. You bringing it up is just a red herring as you try to distract us from what is actually important.

 

You asked for hard numbers. I provided them. Yet you still try to wiggle around them. I hope no one here buys into your bogus concerns or buys your software. If you really knew what you were doing AND wanted to give your customers the best possible experience, you would admit that AccurateRip is a great thing and you would add it to your software. Or, you would stop bashing AccurateRip when it was brought up.

[diecaster]

22 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I have about 1500 CDs ripped now - they sound fine using iTunes with Error correction on

 

I have CDs that skip and stutter that iTunes happily ripped disclosing no errors. I stopped using iTunes to rip CDs a long time ago!!

 

I have never had a problem with a CD that was marked as accurate by AccurateRip. 

[diecaster]

I am on a Mac but I don't use iTunes. I use Roon which I have on a sonicTransporter i5 with HQPlayer Embedded feeding an ultraRendu acting as an NAA. I use dBpoweramp to rip CDs to FLAC.

[diecaster]

@audiventory

 

You aren't getting it. If 50 people get the same checksums ripping a particular 600MB CD, at worst there is a 1 in 4,800,000,000^50 chance that all 50 people have the same bit error and the checksums are invalid. Keep in mind that 4800000^50 = 1.153617588 E+334. Let me type that out for you:

 

 11536175883190102713781333061750113265204197371895301138409778354594291441591375626240000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

That is a HUGE number!!!

 

In other words, with 50 people getting the same result, there is 100% confidence that that any CD that matches the checksums those 50 people got has been ripped properly.

 

The odds only get more astronomical if you want to look at more than 1 bit errors.

 

The more people that get the same results, the more likely it is that the result is exactly what the CD manufacturer is sending out to the public.

 

If one rip results in bit 456789 being wrong and another has bit 987654 being wrong, the checksums won't match. If "N bits wrong at disk A and M bits wrong at disk B in any combinations", the checksums won't match.

 

Again, the key here is that rips will only get the same checksums over and over if, and only if, they are reading what is actually being put on all the CDs by the manufacturer.

[diecaster]

We aren't trying to measure or quantify precision. We don't care about precision at all. We do care about accuracy. We are comparing checksums to other checksums. If the checksums match it means the data was read accurately.

 

I didn't say 50 is a huge number. But you know that and are trying to deflect.

 

50 different people getting the exact same result with 50 different CDs and 50 different CD drives and several different software applications is a huge deal. The fact that you don't understand the significance of this is simply stunning. 

[diecaster]

22 minutes ago, audiventory said:

I agree. It may be "huge deal" subjectively or intuitively.

 

"Huge" is subjective non-exact estimation.

Because "huge" for one person is not "huge" for other.

 

No, it is objectively a huge deal. A 1 in 1.153617588 E+334 chance is absolutely a huge deal.

 

To borrow from Andy Dufresne, how can you be so obtuse?

 

If you get the same checksums as 50 other people from 50 other CDs of the same release, you are statistically guaranteed to have read the CD accurately.

[diecaster]

28 minutes ago, firedog said:

But failure in AccurateRip doesn't necessarily mean there is anything wrong with your CD or the rip.  It means your CD didn't match what's in the database. 
"The same" CD can be very slightly different depending on what country it was produced in or even what CD pressing plant it was produced in within the same country. These very small differences can be enough to get a "not accurate" result from AccurateRip. But the actual  rip is fine and errorless.

 

This would not normally happen...at least not for common genres and CDs. Only if the release is new or relatively rare would it not have at least a few entries in the AccurateRip database. Multiple releases of the same album are handled by using disc IDs.

 

I've never come across a CD that was not represented in AccurateRip. Even an unreleased 10cc CD from Audio Fidelity that I have in my collection is in the AccurateRip database. Of course, I am ripping mostly older CDs from common genres.

[diecaster]

18 minutes ago, audiventory said:

@diecaster be polite, if you want to communicate.

 

How can you not understand the benefit of AccurateRip when it comes to verifying the accuracy of rips? Even if the benefit were not obvious, it has been explained to you multiple times in multiple ways over the course of at least a year. The only logical explanation is that you cannot agree to the benefits of AccurateRip because you think doing so would diminish the value of your software.

[diecaster]

@audiventory

 

There is a very basic concept here that you either choose to disregard or are incapable of understanding.

 

Since there is only one correct checksum for each track on a CD, the only checksum results that different people with different CDs will get over and over when ripping a particular release of a CD are the checksums of accurately ripped tracks. Please take the time to understand that sentence. If there is an error when ripping the track, the checksum will not match.

 

Errors are random so the checksum results of tracks with errors will differ. The likelihood of two 600MB CDs having the same 1 bit error is 1 in 1.153617588 E+334. That number gets even bigger when there are multibit errors. This is why the AccurateRip database does not get corrupt with bad rip results being reported as good rips. The bad rips don't generate the same checksums over and over. Only the good rips generate the same checksums over and over. Read and understand that sentence. Bad rip results are weeded out of the database as a natural part of the system process.

 

If you are are unwilling to take the time to learn how AccurateRip actually works and why it is a reliable verification system, you should stop posting in any thread that discusses how to get the best and most accurate rips. Because you respond with incorrect information and are misleading people for your financial gain.

 

[diecaster]

3 minutes ago, audiventory said:

Do you prohibit me to write?

 

You should be prohibited from misleading people for financial gain, yes.

[diecaster]

2 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

Is you expert, who can estimate my knowledge in audio?

 

The fact that you don't understand how and why AccurateRip works and why it is a valid rip verification system is mind boggling.

[diecaster]

1 hour ago, audiventory said:

 

If you claim, that I'm wrong, I expect, what you, as expert, know, what you say.

 

As 20+ year engineer, team lead, ripper designer and professional researcher, I don't see your applicable background in the ripper issues.

I see emotions and phrases like "you are mistaken about it" without detailed discussion. "It" is so general.

 

At last, I here under real name and I should keep my reputaton, that is important part of my business.
But you here as tmtomh and claim that I'm wrong.

 

I'd be happy, if you take my formula-to-formula and discuss it. But I don't see it. I see "you are mistaken about it" instead.

 

So I expect safe proofs of your authority in the ripper issues, though:

• May be you programmer of the checksum database and actually know that inside there?
   
• May be you have designed ripper, that we can learn?
   
• May be you have references to your scientific researches in rippers?
   
• Do you have wrote articles though?
   
• What is your education?
   
• What is your math experience?

 

Wow. You think you CV is impressive? How many copies of your program are out there in real world?

 

The AccurateRip database has over 3.9 million unique disks in it. It has over 2 million keys disks that can be used to calculate read offset. The database has registered over 351 million accurate rips. There are 4477 drives in the database and there are 359142 users participating. The AccurateRip database was setup and is managed by the same team that wrote dBpoweramp.

 

I somehow thinks these credentials are more impressive than yours. All you are doing here is embarrassing yourself more and more. Stop and educate yourself before you make a total fool of yourself.

[diecaster]

34 minutes ago, audiventory said:

Nice. But here need more details. Including details about correctness probabilites fo all these "4477 drives" and ? rippers in each version.

 

This just goes to show that you have no idea what you are talking about. The "correctness probabilities" don't matter. AccurateRip is a verification system. I could rip with a terrible drive that is inaccurate 10% of the time, but, as long as the checksums match what is in the AccurateRip database, I know that I am getting a perfect rip.

 

You see, one of the beautiful things about using AccurateRip is that drive quality is much less important. It doesn't have to read the disc accurately every time. It just has to read it accurately most of the time.

[diecaster]

5 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

Common words without figures.

 

Now you are being ridiculous. You won't even try to understand how AccurateRip works so you don't understand how the verification systems works. You are the one that is saying the earth is flat and that the USA never put a man on the moon.

[diecaster]

Just now, audiventory said:

 

Do you really designed or programmed AccurateRip?

 

Or you just read its site something?

 

How many different logical fallacies are you going to use to try to dismiss what I say?

 

I have explained several times how the AccurateRip verification system works. You have yet to explain how it doesn't work.So tell us why the system does not work. Explain it point by point.

[diecaster]

48 minutes ago, cjf said:

At first glance so far though, it appears there is no concern with using AccurateRip based on the replies. That was my main concern as I didn't want any precious musical content being tossed because it doesn't match the online DB.

 

AccurateRip is a verification system. It does not alter any data.