[mb-users] AccurateRip or accurate rip?

[Grant]

I'm having trouble deciding whether to rip my CD collection with the
EAC/AR offset value which is known to be incorrect, or whether to find
the correct offset for my drive and use that.

The advantage of the AR system is it helps to determine if a rip was
made accurately by comparing the rip with previous rips of the same CD
made by other people.  The disadvantage of the AR system is because of
the offset error, a rip that it validates will be missing an extremely
small amount of data from either the start or end of the rip.  The
missing data itself is not important, but a little while back on this
list we discussed the MBz database adding a FLAC checksum.  If
something like that is implemented in the future, I'd imagine it would
be with the correct offset as opposed to the AR offset, and I'd rather
be able to validate against MBz than AR.

Is an MBz feature like that likely to be implemented, or is AR
destined to be the standard?

Also, I was under the impression that using a properly configured
secure ripper like rubyripper or EAC was in itself enough to ensure a
good rip, but there are many posts on hydrogrenaudio.org indicating
the opposite.  Apparently factors such as error correction and several
others can "easily" cause a drive to make the same error more than
once.  This turns an AR-like system into a real necessity.

- Grant