CUETools log weirdness: AccurateRip v1 and v2 give opposite results, [TOS #6: moved from FLAC] |
![]() ![]() |
CUETools log weirdness: AccurateRip v1 and v2 give opposite results, [TOS #6: moved from FLAC] |
Jun 5 2012, 15:53
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 5-June 12 Member No.: 100433 |
Hello everyone, I'm a bit confused by the following cuetools log on one of my cds:
CODE [CUETools log; Date: 05/06/2012 15:39:59; Version: 2.1.2a] [CTDB TOCID: 2Gb8FWncAEW3IeiKp9rpgj97JRU-] found. [ CTDBID ] Status [9a911150] (4/5) Accurately ripped [b45209c2] (1/5) No match [AccurateRip ID: 00197708-01236c7a-c80ac80f] found. Track [ CRC ] Status 01 [5f54e96a] (0/3) No match but offset 02 [57646b16] (0/3) No match but offset 03 [9e7280e5] (0/3) No match but offset 04 [abf1582d] (0/3) No match but offset 05 [4958716f] (0/3) No match but offset 06 [ba4e9cc3] (0/3) No match but offset 07 [cf19ab65] (0/3) No match but offset 08 [cded7c72] (0/3) No match but offset 09 [6eb8314e] (0/3) No match but offset 10 [deaf9934] (0/3) No match but offset 11 [f8f82bc9] (0/3) No match but offset 12 [71468541] (0/3) No match but offset 13 [6aebd38a] (0/3) No match but offset 14 [5e37dd55] (0/3) No match but offset 15 [8a72fb61] (0/3) No match but offset AccurateRip v2: 01 [abbe5c49] (3/3) Accurately ripped 02 [929abf5e] (3/3) Accurately ripped 03 [8cff04b3] (3/3) Accurately ripped 04 [7f6d6db0] (3/3) Accurately ripped 05 [21eb9d70] (3/3) Accurately ripped 06 [cd1124b0] (3/3) Accurately ripped 07 [c40976e7] (3/3) Accurately ripped 08 [c791fa1d] (3/3) Accurately ripped 09 [bf796ba4] (3/3) Accurately ripped 10 [5f7e4aab] (3/3) Accurately ripped 11 [13e219c8] (3/3) Accurately ripped 12 [1497578b] (3/3) Accurately ripped 13 [4815a506] (3/3) Accurately ripped 14 [d6b65032] (3/3) Accurately ripped 15 [62e15848] (3/3) Accurately ripped Track Peak [ CRC32 ] [W/O NULL] [ LOG ] -- 99,9 [95D77F94] [63C88A32] 01 88,7 [D0EBD16A] [D8C106D5] CRC32 02 99,2 [6DF964C0] [22452ED8] CRC32 03 96,7 [0FD5184D] [CB6E42F1] CRC32 04 96,7 [11EB2AE4] [83194BAF] CRC32 05 96,7 [BF2F35F4] [F5008D3C] CRC32 06 96,7 [48F0FF16] [3A09D3B7] CRC32 07 96,7 [31B962F2] [61394E3C] CRC32 08 96,7 [4E13EC85] [9D8D60E9] CRC32 09 96,7 [AEC45513] [34497790] CRC32 10 96,7 [2F1AF553] [28BB0F0F] CRC32 11 91,9 [2A5E5A2D] [9889EC37] CRC32 12 96,5 [31EFE655] [97BD9820] CRC32 13 99,9 [A336638C] [AE81766F] CRC32 14 58,8 [4B901188] [B5A9AF96] CRC32 15 96,7 [684F9000] [F5F3576D] CRC32 As you can see, AccurateRip v1 gives a `No match but offset' on every tracks, meaning AFAIK that the start offset is right but the content isn't accurate, when AccurateRip v2 says `Accurately ripped' on every tracks... How is this possible ? how can a rip not be accurate in v1 and be accurate in v2? If it was because of a pressing issue, AR v1 would only tell me the data is accurate but offset right ? Also the album was released in 2011 if it can help... Im confused here, thanks for your help This post has been edited by greynol: Jun 5 2012, 16:13
Reason for edit: codeBOX
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2012, 16:34
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Group: Super Moderator Posts: 9365 Joined: 1-April 04 Member No.: 13167 |
How is this possible ? how can a rip not be accurate in v1 and be accurate in v2? Your specific pressing has a v2 entry in the database but not a v1 entry in the database.If it was because of a pressing issue, AR v1 would only tell me the data is accurate but offset right ? Apparently the v1 entry has the same offset hash but the data elsewhere is different. To me this suggests the v1 and v2 versions come from unique and different pressings where the audio data itself is not actually offset.
This post has been edited by greynol: Jun 5 2012, 16:35 -------------------- Everything sounds the same until it is proven otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2012, 16:38
Post
#3
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 5-June 12 Member No.: 100433 |
hmm ok thanks, that sounds logical and simple, thanks !
EDIT: one thing just to make everything clear, do recent versions of EAC or CUERipper send the V2 CRCs only or both V1 and V2 are computed and sent to the DB? This post has been edited by nerdyluke: Jun 5 2012, 16:43 |
|
|
|
Jun 5 2012, 17:16
Post
#4
|
|
![]() Group: Super Moderator Posts: 9365 Joined: 1-April 04 Member No.: 13167 |
CUERipper does not submit to database. I am pretty sure EAC and dBpoweramp are the only ones to do that and I'm pretty sure the current versions only submit v2.
I do not know if the database is even accepting v1 submissions from older versions of AR. I doubt it does and suspect that current v1 submissions will eventually be purged. To me this would be a real shame since v1 is better suited to cross-checking against alternate pressings while v2 is likely no more effective at preventing collisions than v1 which was already good enough for the real world. It would be bad enough if new titles only enter the database as v2 submissions. This post has been edited by greynol: Jun 5 2012, 17:20 -------------------- Everything sounds the same until it is proven otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2012, 17:30
Post
#5
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 106 Joined: 5-August 08 Member No.: 56722 |
Apparently the v1 entry has the same offset hash but the data elsewhere is different. To me this suggests the v1 and v2 versions come from unique and different pressings where the audio data itself is not actually offset. Actually, I think it's simpler than that. The data is the same, but the AR1 checker sees the AR2 checksums and those are different, even when the data is the same. But the offset hash is the same, so it reports "No match but offset". Essentialy, it thinks it sees a different pressing in the database, when in fact it sees the AR2 checksums for the same pressing. This is something that always happens with new albums, which only have an AR2 submission in the database, but no AR1 submission. |
|
|
|
Jun 5 2012, 18:04
Post
#6
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 5-June 12 Member No.: 100433 |
^ if this is true, then it is really confusing for a random user
|
|
|
|
Jun 6 2012, 00:00
Post
#7
|
|
![]() Group: Super Moderator Posts: 9365 Joined: 1-April 04 Member No.: 13167 |
really confusing for a random user Agreed! I take it that inside the AR record there is no distinction between v1 hashes and v2 hashes? If so then I'm not as worried that v1 hashes may be removed from the database. Even still, checking against alternate pressings for these new titles with CUETools will not be possible unless or until the program is updated, or has this already been done? Thanks Goratrix! This post has been edited by greynol: Jun 6 2012, 00:02 -------------------- Everything sounds the same until it is proven otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Jun 7 2012, 20:00
Post
#8
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 287 Joined: 13-March 11 Member No.: 88969 |
^ if this is true, then it is really confusing for a random user The log has been updated in v2.1.4 to show ARv1 & ARv2 side-by-side at zero offset. CUETools still doesn't support ARv2 cross-pressing verification so at other offsets it now shows 'No match (V2 was not tested)' instead of 'No match but offset' if a non-matching record is found. If all tracks show 'No match (V2 was not tested)' at another offset then there's a chance ARv2 results can be found there. -------------------- korth
|
|
|
|
Jun 7 2012, 20:06
Post
#9
|
|
![]() Group: Super Moderator Posts: 9365 Joined: 1-April 04 Member No.: 13167 |
That doesn't do anything about the log presented by the OP.
Have there been any changes to help this particular case make more sense? CUETools still doesn't support ARv2 cross-pressing verification Thanks for this. This post has been edited by greynol: Jun 7 2012, 20:09 -------------------- Everything sounds the same until it is proven otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Jun 7 2012, 23:07
Post
#10
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 287 Joined: 13-March 11 Member No.: 88969 |
That doesn't do anything about the log presented by the OP. No can't do anything about the log without upgrading and verifying again to get the new log.QUOTE Have there been any changes to help this particular case make more sense? Sorry if the link given above didn't help. I wrote the page mainly to explain the new log. I thought it would show you that the double values (0/3) and (3/3) are now combined in the new side-by-side format to (0+3/3) to show there were only 3 records of which 0 are ARv1 "+" 3 are ARv2 "/" out of 3 total records. 'No match but offset' is no longer shown. A sample of the new log based on what the OP posted would look like this:CODE [AccurateRip ID: 00197708-01236c7a-c80ac80f] found. Track [ CRC | V2 ] Status 01 [5f54e96a|abbe5c49] (0+3/3) Accurately ripped 02 [57646b16|929abf5e] (0+3/3) Accurately ripped 03 [9e7280e5|8cff04b3] (0+3/3) Accurately ripped 04 [abf1582d|7f6d6db0] (0+3/3) Accurately ripped 05 [4958716f|21eb9d70] (0+3/3) Accurately ripped 06 [ba4e9cc3|cd1124b0] (0+3/3) Accurately ripped 07 [cf19ab65|c40976e7] (0+3/3) Accurately ripped 08 [cded7c72|c791fa1d] (0+3/3) Accurately ripped 09 [6eb8314e|bf796ba4] (0+3/3) Accurately ripped 10 [deaf9934|5f7e4aab] (0+3/3) Accurately ripped 11 [f8f82bc9|13e219c8] (0+3/3) Accurately ripped 12 [71468541|1497578b] (0+3/3) Accurately ripped 13 [6aebd38a|4815a506] (0+3/3) Accurately ripped 14 [5e37dd55|d6b65032] (0+3/3) Accurately ripped 15 [8a72fb61|62e15848] (0+3/3) Accurately ripped -------------------- korth
|
|
|
|
Jun 8 2012, 09:55
Post
#11
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 5-June 12 Member No.: 100433 |
ok thanks for everything guys, one last thing though, I read v2.1.4 is still in beta, thats why i didn't use it. Is it stable enough to be safely used (ripping + checking) ?
|
|
|
|
Jun 8 2012, 13:35
Post
#12
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 287 Joined: 13-March 11 Member No.: 88969 |
The new features are stable but one new bug. The new Advanced Settings: Advanced: CTDB: Detailed log = True will make the app crash on some discs with a CD-Extra data track. It is suggested to leave the setting at False for now. I'm still working on a page for the GUI but the Advanced Settings pages are pretty much done. Finished the GUI page for CUERipper and the new Options button.
-------------------- korth
|
|
|
|
Jun 8 2012, 16:33
Post
#13
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 287 Joined: 13-March 11 Member No.: 88969 |
QUOTE will make the app crash Sorry, meant it will throw an error message (not crash).-------------------- korth
|
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th June 2013 - 15:50 |