Jump to content
IGNORED

Ripped CD via Sofware vs Manual Copy/Paste File Differences


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, mansr said:

I should have said "do you still not realise?"

 

I released that me need add the warning:

18 hours ago, audiventory said:

WARNING: be careful, when define name of probability event.

 

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
5 hours ago, diecaster said:

You have zero credibility now. None.

 

Ok. I got your proofs.

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

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

 

Absolutely. CD contains inside:

  • checksums and
  • fine code to recovery audio data.

 

And CD drive have mechanical abilities with feedback to get more correct information.

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, diecaster said:

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. 

 

What is target of using complex distributed system?

 

It is doubt eliminating.

 

 

*******************************************************

Doubt #1:

 

Your checksum is not same to 50 checksum.

 

You don't have audible issues.

 

But you have doubt in your ripping.

 

 

Doubt #2:

 

Your checksum is same to 50 checksums.

 

But doubt is there, that these 50 checksum is the same to checksum of [original from studio].

 

 

*******************************************************

Resume:

 

 

Why need to use complex system, when it can't fully eliminate the doubts?

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, diecaster said:

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.

 

+1

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
13 hours ago, diecaster said:

 

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. 

 

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

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

So no doubts?

 

you mean No Doubt as in Tragic Kingdom?

 

or do I plan to re-rip them all with another program by employing slave labor ot do so?

 

diecast - sorry your experiences were bad - I'm enjoying Miles & Monk at Newport as I'm writing.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, diecaster said:

 

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. 

 

This iTunes issue is exactly what drove me to learn about and start using secure ripping apps too. I too never have had a problem with a CD marked accurate by AccurateRip.

 

I have, however, run into a handful of tracks (out of about 400+ albums) that ripped with zero errors and yet were reported as not accurate by AccurateRip. In a couple of cases, I downloaded AccurateRip-confirmed copies of those tracks and did a null test between those and my rip. And sure enough, the two tracks were bit-identical, except for a tiny blip or glitch. Now, that glitch was not audible when playing the CD - but it does show the value of AccurateRip, because it is possible that a secure ripping app is able to do two consecutive, identical passes of a section of a track, but both of those passes still are not actually accurate. These cases are very rare - but when they happen, they illustrate the intrinsic benefit of the crowdsourcing of the AccurateRip database.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, diecaster said:

You and your "doubts". 

 

Yes. It's my doubts.

 

Careness about details give many doubts.

 

 

9 hours ago, diecaster said:

This is something your software cannot and will never do UNLESS you add AccurateRip support. 

 

I can't believe. I should know.

 

I prefer works with actually estimated (by me and any other) things.

 

 

9 hours ago, diecaster said:

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

9 hours ago, diecaster said:

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 can don't worry. It is personal choise.

 

I prefer increase estimated abilities of error detection and audio data recovering on ripper side.

 

It is one, known me, and direct approach to get higher probability of ACTUALLY correct ripping of "whatever the music companies are putting out to the public".

 

 

 

Example (all numbers below are not real):

 

What ia preferable in strong wind weather:

1. safer fly on bigger plan or

2. stresfull fly on smaller plan?

 

For each of 100 smaller plans we have registered 50 impacts per 1 fly. And commit in database: should be 50 impacts per 1 fly.

 

On the bigger plan we get 40 impacts per 1 fly. It is not same the database contains.

 

But what plan is preferable:

1. Plan that fly "according database"? or

2. Plan that have lesser impacts per fly?

 

I suppose, that need put all efforts to bigger plan creation despite, that the database consider as correct result.

 

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
20 hours ago, diecaster said:

hat 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 addition on my previous post.

 

Here you consider "having the same 1 bit error as the same release of the CD that my friend next door owns" event according total bit number on CD.

 

But this event depend on manufacturing and damaging factors rather.

There may be other fugures than 1/4,800,000,000.

 

And it is not single wrong case. There is kit of cases:

  • Same bit wrong;
  • Different bit wrong;
  • N bits wrong at disk A and M bits wrong at disk B in any combinations.

 

There is need to SUM all probabilities of these events.

 

"Bigger plan" (safer CD ripper), should provide reducing of these probabilities via data recovering.

 

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment

@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.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, diecaster said:

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.

 

Also, there is precision of confidence, that depend ond trial number.

 

More technically correct phrase: 100 % confidence with measurement precision (3...10)/50*100%=6...20%.

 

3...10, because we suppose that there normal distribution of results are. But we don't know exactly.

 

Measurement precision show degree of trust to results.

 

Also need multiply result (percents) to staticlical calibration coefficient Cstat, that we don't know without learning the database's probabilities.

I suspect, that the coefficient refer to used CD rippers, manufacturers and other unknown us probabilities.

 

General simplified formula of measurement precision (degree of trust to results)

 

Precision = (3 ... 10)/Ntrials*100%*Cstat

 

 

50 people is not "huge" number.

 

To provide proper precision for so undefined conditions, I'd refer to tens of thousands (N * 10 000) trials for CDs from the same manufacturing serie though.

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment

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. 

Link to comment

 

8 minutes ago, diecaster said:

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.

 

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.

 

 

Technical approach operate in figures only.

 

 

4 minutes ago, diecaster said:

We aren't trying to measure or quantify precision. We don't care about precision at all.

 

One of our works is not just "write CD-ripper, that do a huge deal".

This our work is "provide objectivelly correct ripping as possible as we can".

 

And, as professional, who care about our customers, I should care about precision.

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...