[mb-users] AccurateRip or accurate rip?

[Per Øyvind Øygard]

On 6/23/08, Adam Golding <adamgolding at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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...

As far as I know the wrong offset is used simply because Spoon (the
author) didn't know better when he wrote AR. The mistake was initially
made by EAC and has been perpetuated since then. Spoon is however
working on AR2 these days, and hopefully he'll take it into account.
It's hard to say though, I'm guessing it would mean discarding the old
database for new rips, unless he can work some magic.

> 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.

I'd undoubtedly stick with AR for now. The chance of an error slipping
by because you didn't use AR is much greater than the chance you'll
miss the few frames that weren't ripped.

-- Per / Wizzcat