Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: First Public Testing of AccurateRip (Read 14634 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #1 –
Downloading it now...  I'll try to up the ratio of heavy metal music in your database 

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #2 –
[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'](CDex isn't even a rival huh?.. )[/span] Congratulations, haven't checked it out yet, but anoter such project sounds great!

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #3 –
I was asked:

Quote
And will you be charging for this service eventually?
I'm loath to help out if it evetually costs me money?


Good question, I publically state that AccurateRip will never be sold off, or charged for. It might even make it onto other Rippers (totally free and open), but that is a little too early just yet.

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #4 –
I have tried about 10 cds on the list, and it only recognized one of them.  On that cd, it couldn't get the proper results  .  I guess I'll have to wait until more cd's get into the database to use it.

Edit:  Somebody add some Metallica cds to the database and I'll be fine 

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #5 –
Sure this project doesn't sound like a bad idea, but there are a couple of questions I have:

1. You are aware that a lot of CDs are reissued (with bonus tracks etc.), and then you have "Digitally Mastered" CDs (as opposed to the originals) ... wouldn't this cause some confusion regarding your CD database?
2. Also, you want this database to be big enough to store all CDs in existence? Won't that make the database awfully large (to download)? And 1 million (different) CDs? Doesn't seem like that much to me, surely there must be more CDs in the world!

Anyway, good luck with your project!

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #6 –
Quote
AccurateRip what?

A system designed to offer true 100% accurate rips from Audio CDs, be a part of AccurateRip and help create it, visit here for full information and download:

http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php...p?threadid=1592

- every RIP should create a hash (128 bit) + a random number (16...32 bit) + RMS value (16 bit)
  which gives a 160...176 bit number
- every number is used at most once, not more

- generating hashs from WAV files should be possible (WAV, APE, LPAC),
  some people have hundreds of CD-DAs losslessly encoded on HD

- error propability can be computed exactly. This needs some knowledge of math

- note that there are a lot of CDs with identical track lengths, but different PCM
  signal.
--  Frank Klemm

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #7 –
why not use gracenote to detect cdda tracks?
r3mix zealot.

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #8 –
Why not change the name to AccuRip??? Sounds catchier than AccurateRip.

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #9 –
Quote
Quote
AccurateRip what?

A system designed to offer true 100% accurate rips from Audio CDs, be a part of AccurateRip and help create it, visit here for full information and download:

http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php...p?threadid=1592

- every RIP should create a hash (128 bit) + a random number (16...32 bit) + RMS value (16 bit)
  which gives a 160...176 bit number
- every number is used at most once, not more

- generating hashs from WAV files should be possible (WAV, APE, LPAC),
  some people have hundreds of CD-DAs losslessly encoded on HD

- error propability can be computed exactly. This needs some knowledge of math

- note that there are a lot of CDs with identical track lengths, but different PCM
  signal.

Now this sounds more interesting.

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #10 –
Quote
Quote
AccurateRip what?

A system designed to offer true 100% accurate rips from Audio CDs, be a part of AccurateRip and help create it, visit here for full information and download:

http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php...p?threadid=1592

- every RIP should create a hash (128 bit) + a random number (16...32 bit) + RMS value (16 bit)
  which gives a 160...176 bit number
- every number is used at most once, not more

- generating hashs from WAV files should be possible (WAV, APE, LPAC),
  some people have hundreds of CD-DAs losslessly encoded on HD

- error propability can be computed exactly. This needs some knowledge of math

- note that there are a lot of CDs with identical track lengths, but different PCM
  signal.

Agreed !  This is the way we could get much more confident in audio extraction.

However, we should really stop using md5 (128-bit) because of the collision probabilities, and replace that deprecated hash with sha-1 or tiger.

May I suggest:

1. a 160-bit (or tiger256) hash of the complete PCM signal (all tracks concatenated) => rip precision can be verified,
2. a 160-bit (or tiger256) hash of the exact track lengths, ISRC and all optional info except the audio => album can be easily looked up *before* playing it,
3. a 160-bit (or 256) random number => each rip (even by same person) is unique, and can be identified if needed
4. other info (rms value?  others?)

and optionally:

5. a 1024-bit (or 2048) digital RSA signature of all the above, performed using the private key of the ripping person.

[edit]
- just out of curiosity, Frank, your incorporation of the RMS value is for informational purposes only ?  good idea I think !
- the inclusion of a properly-designed, hardware cryptographic-level RNG (random nb generator) should be mandatory in every computer, PDA !

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #11 –
Quote
have tried about 10 cds on the list, and it only recognized one of them. On that cd, it couldn't get the proper results  .


Which stage did it not yield propper results. Did it Configure? ie find the offset of your drive?

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #12 –
Quote
1. You are aware that a lot of CDs are reissued (with bonus tracks etc.), and then you have "Digitally Mastered" CDs (as opposed to the originals) ... wouldn't this cause some confusion regarding your CD database?


Quote
- note that there are a lot of CDs with identical track lengths, but different PCM
signal.


If in the table of contents on a CD these two different discs appear identical (to 1/75th of a second) then yes they would clash.

Quote
2. Also, you want this database to be big enough to store all CDs in existence? Won't that make the database awfully large (to download)? And 1 million (different) CDs? Doesn't seem like that much to me, surely there must be more CDs in the world!


It will move to a system like freedb, being online, but initally it is offline.

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #13 –
Would it be possible to get more information on the ripping process? ie when a re-read of a section is required, or if the reader came across something unreadable? Having nothing kinda weirds me out, being used to the wealth of information that EAC provides.

Edit: *sigh* After testing, it seems that the so-called "AccurateRip" can't even tell me when by CD-rom drive has littered a file with read errors (likely numbering in the hundreds, at least one or two per second for about 240 seconds), let alone get a half-decent rip from that. I recommend you try testing the program with an error-inducing CD, and making it get a half-decent rip from that before making any claims of competing with EAC. dMC is about on CDex level right now, IMO. Probably somewhat lower, as I think CDex gives an error message when it does not read properly.

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #14 –
For your Error CD was the track already listed in the database? this system is nothing without the database being populated, which it is not now.

It is like saying 1 day after CDDB was launched 'this system is useless, it does not contain my disc!'

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #15 –
I can't seem to get AccurateRip configured with my Plextor 40-TS drives.  I have tried about 6 of the cd's on the list and it fails after reading the offsets.  Do I need to do something else to get this to work or just wait for a future release?

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #16 –
Quote
it fails after reading the offsets


The error is that the drive is not Accurate Stream compatible? (even though I think it is).

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #17 –
Quote
For your Error CD was the track already listed in the database? this system is nothing without the database being populated, which it is not now.

It is like saying 1 day after CDDB was launched 'this system is useless, it does not contain my disc!'

No. However, no amount of external error correction is going to fix rip problems like that. At very least, the program ought to be able to extract without the database decently and inform the user when local errors occur.

To use the CDDB analogy, most programs that implement it tell you when it isn't available, and most try to make the best of that situation by reading CDPLAYER.INI et cetera.

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #18 –
Wow. Out of that list of CD's, I have 1, maybe 2 CD's. Guess that would make it a good cross-section.

Question I have is, if the CD needs to be in the database to get an accurate rip, and the CD first needs to be ripped to get into the database, isn't this kinda like the chicken & the egg?

Just trying to understand how it works
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #19 –
Take this example - a brand new CD is released 'Britney Spears - Worst Hits'

The very first person to get said CD will rip it and AccurateRip will say it is not in the database, the 2nd person has the first persons rip to go off, and so-on.

BTW If the first person with the CD was to re-rip it, AccurateRip would use his own results from the first rip, although personally I don't think it is a 100% accurate, sort of how EAC does now - you need other people with the same disc.

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #20 –
sorry, but it still seems you're failing to notice that you can and should give an error report of the rip.  That requires absolutely no database information of any sort.  You just read the CD, so you should have some data on whether or not you read it without errors.  Whether or not your ripping results match other peoples' is of no concern yet, and whether or not you're getting 10 zillion read errors off the CD at the moment is of great concern.  There's no sense littering your database with bad read results, now is there?  If you're simply doing burst reading and relying on everyone else's results of burst reading the same cd to classify your rip as accurate or inaccurate then you need to do a bit of rethinking of the process.  You should be able to do a "100% rip as far as my own equipment goes" rip before you worry about a "does my 100% local error free rip match anyone else's 100% local error free rip" rip.

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #21 –
Your proposing a 2nd seperate system (what EAC tries to do).

Lets put it this way, lets look forward 6 months, I rip a CD and at the end of the Rip it says that my rip has matched 5 other peoples indepant rips, then I can sleep soundly at night that it is 100% right.

If on the otherhand it says that 5 other people are telling me that my rip is wrong, I personally would remove the disc apply a restorer to the disc and try again, if it fails again I am going to find that disc from another source (borrow). I really do not think a system that re-reads each sector without knowing what the true correct result is can know if it is accurate, in my testing (of 125 discs) I have had EAC report a disc ripped accurately when clearly it did not (as verified by going out and buying a fresh unscratched CD).

And it does not matter if people submit discs to the database that have 10 zillion scratches, the system is mathamatically immune to such (as long as there are a resonable amount of submits from other people, ie more than 1).

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #22 –
Quote
Your proposing a 2nd seperate system (what EAC tries to do).

Still, adding a decent ripping method (something more advanced then burst mode, cdparanoia maybe?) would be a good thing. That would minimize the amount of bad rips submited.

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #23 –
but it should also take into account the fact that perhaps nobody else has that CD, or at the very least it hasn't been submitted to the database.  You are happy with a burst mode rip, fine.  "AccurateRip" doesn't seem to be a very descriptive name of the product in that case, since you're not doing anything at all to ensure that the *rip* is accurate as it is ripping.  You're simply doing a check afterwards in hopes that the drive's burst mode is capable of giving correct results on the very first try.  I keep saying burst mode, which may not be correct at all, but you haven't corrected me.  Does it simply read in burst mode?  Or do you at least have it read in some simple sync mode?

First Public Testing of AccurateRip

Reply #24 –
You are using very EAC specific terms, but dMC can do both, to answer your question I (myself) read in 'burst mode', for Accurate Stream drives that is the best, no point in doing synchronization.

When a scratch can return the same data for two reads  is there a point in re-reading? I feel EAC has lead alot of people into a false sense of security, in many ways it operates from the oppersite direction, let me explain:

If AccurateRip says a disc is 100% then it will be 100%, if it is not in the database then AccurateRip cannot function on that Rip (yet, wait for the database to be populated) so you do not know if the Rip is accurate.

If EAC says a disc is 100% then there is that nagging chance the error returned the same data twice in its 'secure' mode, if EAC says a disc is 98% you can be sure the disc has errors.

Now imagine a system that combines both....right now I am trying my best to develop and put everything together for a new concept that has never been tried.