Need Audio CD Ripping Software Recommendations

[mansr]

Let's not forget that Audiventory sells ripping software. I'm guessing it doesn't support AccurateRip.

[audiventory]

5 hours ago, mansr said:

I'm guessing it doesn't support AccurateRip.

 

Main CD ripper criterias are both:

- correct error detection probability (should be maximal);

- false-error detection probability (should be minimal).

 

How  the checksum database improve these parameters?

 

I don't see improvements, according my calculations, that I shown above.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, mansr said:

Let's not forget that Audiventory sells ripping software.

How it change my formulas?

[diecaster]

audiventory comes up with this same bogus crap every time he posts about ripping software. His math is wrong as are his conclusions. His inability to understand how a CRC database works and how it is superior to what he recommends causes me to recommend not buying anything from him and to recommend ignoring his advice. He is plain wrong here. 

[audiventory]

2 hours ago, diecaster said:

His math is wrong as are his conclusions

 

Just show correct math right here.

[diecaster]

1 hour ago, audiventory said:

 

Just show correct math right here.

 

I don't need to show the correct math to know that your math is wrong. Your math is based on incorrect assumptions. Because of that, it can't possibly be right.

 

Short of the record label releasing the checksum (and associate math for calculating it) of a CD for ripping software to compare against, the AccurateRip checksum database is best way to assure accurate rips. Without comparing the checksum of ripped data to the checksums of other sources of ripped data, there is no way to verify rip accuracy.

[audiventory]

1 hour ago, diecaster said:

Without comparing the checksum of ripped data to the checksums of other sources of ripped data, there is no way to verify rip accuracy.

 

Example: we have 80 checksums with Srip1 and 20 checksums with Srip2 value.

 

Real (unknown for us studio checksum) is Sstudio.

 

Do you think, what Srip1 = Sstudio with 100% probability?

[mansr]

Audiventory is going about this all wrong. Suppose you rip a CD. Either you got the correct data, or you didn't. If you want to, you can compare the checksum of your rip against those of others. Doing this will not alter the correctness of yours, which is still either right or wrong. The database check is a validation. If your checksum matches many other rips, it is most probably correct, unless you all got the same errors, which would imply a manufacturing flaw. For a disc with many submissions, there likely are a few outliers with different checksums. These are either results of bad rips or caused by variations in how CD drives handle things like lead-in and lead-out. The latter is more likely to occur with discs that don't quite follow the original spec regarding data placement and track assignment. If the database has a few different checksums with many entries each, we're probably looking at multiple issues with slight differences. In this case, matching any one of them is an indication of a correct rip on your part.

 

The idea that verifying your rip against the database would somehow reduce your chances of getting it right is simply preposterous.

[mansr]

6 hours ago, audiventory said:

12 hours ago, mansr said:

Let's not forget that Audiventory sells ripping software.

How it change my formulas?

It gives you incentive to misrepresent the utility of the database if your software doesn't use it.

[audiventory]

32 minutes ago, mansr said:

It gives you incentive to misrepresent the utility of the database if your software doesn't use it.

 

36 minutes ago, mansr said:

Suppose you rip a CD. Either you got the correct data, or you didn't. If you want to, you can compare the checksum of your rip against those of others. Doing this will not alter the correctness of yours, which is still either right or wrong. The database check is a validation. If your checksum matches many other rips, it is most probably correct, unless you all got the same errors, which would imply a manufacturing flaw. For a disc with many submissions, there likely are a few outliers with different checksums. These are either results of bad rips or caused by variations in how CD drives handle things like lead-in and lead-out. The latter is more likely to occur with discs that don't quite follow the original spec regarding data placement and track assignment. If the database has a few different checksums with many entries each, we're probably looking at multiple issues with slight differences. In this case, matching any one of them is an indication of a correct rip on your part.

 

The idea that verifying your rip against the database would somehow reduce your chances of getting it right is simply preposterous.

 

You try explain things that demand math for explanation without math.

 

Despite word "preposterous" cannot be used in formula, it was interesting reading. Thank you.

 

Let's explain step-by-step:

 

1 hour ago, audiventory said:

Do you think, what Srip1 = Sstudio with 100% probability?

 

[mansr]

Just now, audiventory said:

You try explain things that demand math for explanation without math.

There's no need for maths to see that you are clearly wrong.

[audiventory]

Just now, mansr said:

There's no need for maths to see that you are clearly wrong.

 

 

1 hour ago, audiventory said:

Do you think, what Srip1 = Sstudio with 100% probability?

 

Do you can't answer the question?

[mansr]

This has nothing to do with probabilities, at least not in the way you seem to think.

[audiventory]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

This has nothing to do with probabilities, at least not in the way you seem to think.

 

We discuss errors in information system and there is do nothing with probabilities?

 

It's something new for me as engineer

[davide256]

the leaning tower of Pisa was built with good math... but bad foundations mean you reach a defective endpoint. As to probabilities...

we aren't dealing with thermodynamics, quantum physics or signaling theory here.

[audiventory]

4 minutes ago, davide256 said:

we aren't dealing with thermodynamics, quantum physics or signaling theory here.

 

Absolutelly. We don't touch these 3 disciplines here.

Here we dealing with theory of information transmitting.

This theory are based on probabilities.

Because the theory learn stochastic processes.

[mansr]

Think about the process for a moment. First you rip the CD, possibly with errors. Then you look at the database. Audiventory is suggesting that looking at the database after ripping the CD somehow increases the error rate in the past.

[audiventory]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

Audiventory is suggesting that looking at the database after ripping the CD somehow increases the error rate in the past.

 

Sorry, I can't understand that you mean. But me seems, it is not what I mean.

 

First, I want to be sure, that you understand, that I talks about probabilities as term of mathematical probability theory.

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, audiventory said:

First, I want to be sure, that you understand, that I talks about probabilities as term of mathematical probability theory.

I understand that, but I don't understand why. It isn't applicable here.

[audiventory]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

I understand that, but I don't understand why. It isn't applicable here.

 

Do you know what CD error (manufacturing, ripping) is stochastic process?

[mansr]

It doesn't matter what kind of process it is. Checking a rip against the database doesn't alter its correctness.

[tmtomh]

On 5/21/2018 at 1:21 PM, audiventory said:

 

Improve. You have correct error detection probability Pripper lesser 1.0.

 

If you add checking with checksum database, the database correct error detection probability Pdb (also lesser 1.0).

 

Total correct error detection probability P = Pripper * Pdb.

 

Example (numbers are not exact):

 

Pripper = Pdb = 0.999.

 

P = 0.999 * 0.999 = 0,998 < Pripper = Pdb = 0.999

 

P is lesser Pripper and P is lesser Pdb, because numbers in right part of formula both are lesser 1.0.

 

So Total error detection probaility is improved if only 1 of mthods is used.

 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sophistry

[audiventory]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

It doesn't matter what kind of process it is. Checking a rip against the database doesn't alter its correctness.

 

What happens, if you just answer my question?

 

[audiventory]

Just now, tmtomh said:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sophistry

 

Looks like you are right @tmtomh.

[tmtomh]

7 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

Looks like you are right @tmtomh.

You realize I was referring to you and not to @mansr, right?

[audiventory]

27 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

You realize I was referring to you and not to @mansr, right?

 

Do you realize moment, when you wrote it?