What's the best way to rip CDs to a Mac?

[audiventory]

6 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

So a checksum database is an ideal solution.

Are you sure that checksum don't include metadata?

 

7 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

You are only looking at this from the perspective of what your product does so you are a completely biased source

 

It is not argument in this discussion.

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, audiventory said:

Are you sure that checksum don't include metadata?

 

AccurateRip calculates the checksum from the data extracted  from the CD. In other words,  raw LPCM data with no metadata.

 

 

[audiventory]

17 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

My previous post explained that "best way" is not automatically or simply what you think it's about.

 

If you can't publish your results, then your experiments are of no use.

 

Personally I have no problem with relying on rippers' and drives' error detection systems. But this is a perfect example of why your posts generate disagreement from others. First you say that normal CD-ripping software and methods are not robust enough because we don't know for sure if they're really accurate. But now you say that normal CD-ripping software and methods are overly redundant and have extra safeguards that are not needed.

 

"More sophisticated system may have higher bug probability" is the perfect example of a general principle that has no particular relevance here. Adding a single step - checking the accuraterip database - does not result in any appreciable complexity, and it's not even clear what a "bug" would be in such a scenario. In addition, anyone is free to simply ignore the AccurateRip aspect of a secure ripper's results - the ripping programs also list how many retries and errors were found when ripping each track. So if you get a rip with 0 errors and 0 retries that does not match the AccurateRip database - and this has happened to me occasionally - then you can just ignore the AccurateRip non-match and assume an accurate rip. Problem solved.

 

The page of yours you linked to above is a sketchy outline of a possible comparison protocol of ripping numerous CDs with numerous combinations of rippers and CD drives. As I said before, have fun with that if you want to - but it's totally unnecessary and massive overkill since it's very easy to use any secure ripping app in combination with almost any properly functioning optical drive manufactured in the last 15 years to get good rips 99+% of the time. If for some reason you have a drive that's throwing up a lot of errors, then sure, get a new drive - problem solved. There's no need to do extensive research to get a drive that studies have shown has a 99.91% accurate-rip rate instead of a drive that has shown a 99.86% rate. There's no way to know if those small differences will manifest themselves in anyone's particular situation - if their drive will be manufactured to the exact same physical spec, if it will have the same firmware, if the ripping environment will have the same humidity, if the "better" drive's laser will still perform as well as it ages, whatever. The difference between these two hypothetical drives is a single CD rip in a collection of 2,000. Not worth worrying about - especially when you get retry and error stats from each rip - and you have the AccurateRip database as an extra level of security.

 

> But now you say that normal CD-ripping software and methods are overly redundant and have extra safeguards that are not needed.

 

I don't say it. There are several levels of error detection. CD-rippers may use all or not. But, I think, that uncerticfied database can cause distortion of results.

 

> Adding a single step - checking the accuraterip database - does not result in any appreciable complexity, and it's not even clear what a "bug" would be in such a scenario.

 

Wrong error detection, as example.

> In addition, anyone is free to simply ignore the AccurateRip aspect of a secure ripper's results - the ripping programs also list how many retries and errors were found when ripping each track. So if you get a rip with 0 errors and 0 retries that does not match the AccurateRip database - and this has happened to me occasionally - then you can just ignore the AccurateRip non-match and assume an accurate rip. Problem solved.

 

> The difference between these two hypothetical drives is a single CD rip in a collection of 2,000. Not worth worrying about - especially when you get retry and error stats from each rip - and you have the AccurateRip database as an extra level of security.

 

And why need checksum database there?

 

 

 

[audiventory]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

AccurateRip calculates the checksum from the data extracted  from the CD. In other words,  raw LPCM data with no metadata.

 

 

It must be so. But do you guaratee it for all CD rippers?

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, audiventory said:

It must be so. But do you guaratee it for all CD rippers?

 

All major CD rippers other than iTunes use AccurateRip. 

[tmtomh]

57 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

> But now you say that normal CD-ripping software and methods are overly redundant and have extra safeguards that are not needed.

 

I don't say it. There are several levels of error detection. CD-rippers may use all or not. But, I think, that uncerticfied database can cause distortion of results.

 

> Adding a single step - checking the accuraterip database - does not result in any appreciable complexity, and it's not even clear what a "bug" would be in such a scenario.

 

Wrong error detection, as example.

> In addition, anyone is free to simply ignore the AccurateRip aspect of a secure ripper's results - the ripping programs also list how many retries and errors were found when ripping each track. So if you get a rip with 0 errors and 0 retries that does not match the AccurateRip database - and this has happened to me occasionally - then you can just ignore the AccurateRip non-match and assume an accurate rip. Problem solved.

 

> The difference between these two hypothetical drives is a single CD rip in a collection of 2,000. Not worth worrying about - especially when you get retry and error stats from each rip - and you have the AccurateRip database as an extra level of security.

 

And why need checksum database there?

 

 

 

 

If you rip a CD and the AccurateRip database has more than 1 other rip already in it, the chances of the database being wrong are astronomically small.

 

Yes, it is true that you could rip a CD with 0 retries and 0 errors and it would still not match the AccurateRip database - and it is possible that your CD could still be accurately ripped. But that's not an argument for trashing the AccurateRip database. And it certainly is not evidence that the database is skewing results in any significant or systematic way.

 

You clearly want to argue that we should rely solely on certified accurate drives, in combination with secure ripping software that doesn't poll the AccurateRip database. If that's how you want to do it, then go ahead - you're free to do so. But the OP isn't going to test 10 or 20 or 30 drives with different combinations of CDs and ripping software, and you're not going to publish the results of your experiments, so your argument is totally irrelevant to this thread - as I and others have told you over and over again.

 

To put it in the OP's terms, which is the better method for ripping CDs to a Mac:

1. Download XLD (or buy DBPoweramp) and use it in secure-rip mode with the OP's existing optical drive, OR
2. Purchase 20 different optical drives, get XLD and DBPoweramp and several other apps, and then rip 10 different CDs with every possible combination of drive and software, and then write a program that will batch-compare the results bit by bit while taking different drive offsets into account, and then look at the results and see if he can figure out which of the 20 drives is the best, with which software app.

The best method by any rational measure is #1. So why not take your "experiment that I would like to run but have not yet run and even if I did could not publish" issue to a new thread? You are member here and are free to start new threads as you wish.

[audiventory]

13 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

If you rip a CD and the AccurateRip database has more than 1 other rip already in it, the chances of the database being wrong are astronomically small.

 

It don't guarantee that CD ripped correctly. Because original content is unknown.

 

Let's consider example:

1. CD ripper 1 don't found error.

2. CD ripper 2 don't found error.

3. There are different check sums.

 

Why you think that different checksum more probable, than error detection in [CD-drive + CD ripper] system?

[Speed Racer]

Just now, audiventory said:

 

It don't guarantee that CD ripped correctly. Because original content is unknown.

 

Let's consider example:

1. CD ripper 1 don't found error.

2. CD ripper 2 don't found error.

3. There are different check sums.

 

That is probaility of undetected error for each ripper after several stages of error detection during CD ripping seance?

 

OMG, give it a rest......

 

Original content is NEVER known. All you have are the CDs out in the real world. The AccurateRip database has checksums from these CDs. whether or not the ripper generates errors is irrelevant. What matters is the checksum from thousands of rips. The odds of the same error happening over and over again across thousands of CDs across thousands of systems with hundreds of CD readers is nil. 

[audiventory]

1 minute ago, Speed Racer said:

Original content is NEVER known. All you have are the CDs out in the real world. The AccurateRip database has checksums from these CDs. whether or not the ripper generates errors is irrelevant. What matters is the checksum from thousands of rips. The odds of the same error happening over and over again across thousands of CDs across thousands of systems with hundreds of CD readers is nil. 

 

Post was updated. Check question at the end of the post.

[Speed Racer]

2 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

Post was updated. Check question at the end of the post.

 

Who cares? It's the same answer. You are wasting everyones time with this sideshow of yours that no one cares about.

[audiventory]

5 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

You are wasting everyones time with this sideshow of yours that no one cares about.

 

What is probabilities of different checksum and missed error in numbers?

 

You can don't answer to save your time.

[kumakuma]

17 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

Post was updated. Check question at the end of the post.

 

Yuri,

 

You seem like a smart guy and I understand that you have spent a lot of time working on this but I can't help but think that your time would be better spent developing solutions to problems that people actually feel they have. 

 

The hard reality is that no one here (or anywhere else) is looking for a better way to rip CDs because the available solutions do a good enough job. They may not be perfect but they close enough to perfect that no one cares.

 

All the best,

 

Tom

[audiventory]

9 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

You seem like a smart guy and I understand that you have spent a lot of time working on this but I can't help but think that your time would be better spent developing solutions to problems that people actually feel they have. 

 

The hard reality is that no one here (or anywhere else) is looking for a better way to rip CDs because the available solutions do a good enough job. They may not be perfect but they close enough to perfect that no one cares.

 

What about error recovering?

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, audiventory said:

 

What about error recovering?

 

I don't understand the question.

[audiventory]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I don't understand the question.

 

If error found, what do further? For rare CD, as example.

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

If error found, what do further? For rare CD, as example.

 

I've ripped thousands of CDs and probably had less than five that fall into this category. It isn't something I spend any time worrying about and don't think others do either.

 

The bottom line is you are wasting your time trying to convince people to buy a solution for a problem they don't feel they have. 

[audiventory]

11 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I've ripped thousands of CDs and probably had less than five that fall into this category. It isn't something I spend any time worrying about and don't think others do either.

 

Sales are not matter here.

But I can't understand logic: "We don't care about exact CD rip. But we want check CD rip via non-100% database for sureness".

[Speed Racer]

Just now, audiventory said:

 

Sales are not matter here.

But I can't understand logic: "We don't care about exact CD rip. But we want check CD rip by non-100% database for sureness".

 

Wow. The checksum database is a far better way to rip with confidence than ANY methods you have suggested.

[audiventory]

1 minute ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Wow. The checksum database is a far better way to rip with confidence than ANY methods you have suggested.

These methods suggested by several rippers. But you don't show numbers here.

[Speed Racer]

This is a waste of time. You are being pedantic.

[audiventory]

3 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

This is a waste of time. You are being pedantic.

Yes. I'm engeneer.

 

50 minutes ago, audiventory said:

You can don't answer to save your time.

 

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

Sales are not matter here.

 

 

That is obvious. Software developers interested in selling their products listen to what potential customers say.

[audiventory]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

That is obvious. Software developers interested in selling their products listen to what potential customers say.

 

Of course, I'm interesting in sales.

However, let's look my purposes in discussion above.

[tmtomh]

13 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

Sales are not matter here.

But I can't understand logic: "We don't care about exact CD rip. But we want check CD rip via non-100% database for sureness".

 

Here's why your argument is irrelevant: Let's agree with you, for the sake of discussion, that the AccurateRip database is worthless. Fine: then let's just rely on the CD ripping log's list of errors and retries. If the rip reports 0 errors and 0 retries, then according to your argument, that is plenty to assure an accurate rip, because drives have sophisticated error correction.

 

Now of course, you then say that we need to make sure the drive is of good quality so we can be confident it rips accurately. And then we're back to my response: Since all modern, properly functioning drives can easily rip undamaged discs accurately 99+% of the time, we have no practical basis for choosing among drives. We basically have to guess. 

 

You can object, "But wait, you can look up drive reliability ratings online, and I want to do further experiments to see which drives are more reliable!" But I have already given an answer to that above: You cannot guarantee with anywhere near 100% certainty that the drive I buy today will be the exact same piece of hardware, with the exact same mechanism and firmware, as the one you test or the one listed in an online reliability database. You also cannot guarantee that the drive when you test it will perform the same as the same drive 3, or 5 or 10 years later as its laser assembly and mechanicals age. And you cannot guarantee that one drive will respond better or worse than another if the rips are done in a location that's warmer or colder or drier or more humid.

 

So if we are going to look to something beyond just the built-in error-correction circuitry of a specific drive, then the question is, which data(base) is more reliable: Your CD drive comparison experiment of 20 or 30 drives at a particular moment in time, or the AccurateRip database with (in the case of most CDs) dozens or 100s of identical results from all kinds of different drives, at various stages in their service lives, across the world at different times and in different physical environments? To me - and apparently to most others - the answer is that the AccurateRip database is imperfect but far more reliable than the alternative measurement system you propose.

 

 

29 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

If error found, what do further? For rare CD, as example.

 

That's a separate question, totally irrelevant to this thread.

That said, my understanding is that some software (CUE Tools maybe?) enables the repair of flawed rips by referencing accumulated online data from good rips. But I'm not sure if I have that right.

 

Beyond that, if you have a rare CD and there are errors, you could try to rip it with a different drive. And to be clear, if I were going to try to rip such a disc with a different drive, I certainly would avoid a drive model that is known to be bad or not work well - but I would never pay a price premium for a particular drive because some guy had compared it with 10 other drives using 10 CDs and found that it was 0.09% more accurate than another drive. Instead, I would do what most other people do: I would stick the CD into whatever drive(s) happened to be installed in another computer I had laying around the house; or I would dig around in my computer junk boxes to see if I had another drive; or I would ask a friend if I could try ripping it in their computer.

 

And if I could find an online rip or version of the rare CD, I would download that.

[tmtomh]

1 hour ago, audiventory said:

 

What is probabilities of different checksum and missed error in numbers?

 

If you cannot answer this question yourself, and you have not or will not do the research to find out, then you have no business asking others, and you should stop posting in this thread.