[mb-users] AccurateRip or accurate rip?

[Adam Golding]

Wow, this is news to me.  I've always ripped using EAC and the proper drive
offset.  I haven't ripped in awhile but I was considering switching to
dbPoweramp which claims to be even more accurate (and also has superior
metadata using the PerfectMeta system which accesses MB and three other
sources.) using AccurateRip, but now that you've told me that the offset
could be wrong using this method, I'm just as torn as you!!

Why can't the AccurateRip system compare to get the right offset
value--because not enough people who submit have correct offsets in the
first place?  It seems that, in principle at least, there ought to be a
'best of both worlds' solution where the correct drive offset is used, and
then, when the data is compared against the database, an additional offset
is applied until the best match to the common data is found.  Some
complicated code would be necessary, I imagine, to decide how far in either
direction to search for a match when applying an offset for comparison...

2008/6/23 Grant <emailgrant at gmail.com>:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list
> MusicBrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20080623/f535cd54/attachment-0001.htm