[mb-users] AccurateRip or accurate rip?

[Grant]

> 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.

I've been researching this exhaustively for at least the last few days
and I think the above is good advice.  In this thread:

http://www.digital-inn.de/exact-audio-copy-english/28787-andre-wiethoff-who-feels-have-say-offsets.html

it is pointed out that CDs themselves can have different offsets and
because of this, even the correct drive offset can leave data behind.
Andre Wiethoff (the author if EAC) closes the thread by saying "No
program will ever exactly copy an audio CD".  I think this is true.
The best we can do is go for a high probability of not having any
errors on the rip (via AR) and capture 99.99%+ of the audio.

I'd still like to see MBz incorporate some type of FLAC checksum, but
if it does, I'll know it doesn't necessarily represent an exact rip of
the CD track.  What is should represent is an error-free rip of most
of the track's data.

- Grant