Jorge Almeida <jjalmeida@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
cdparanoia is a cdda2wav version from 1997 with some modifications.
Even the recent version?
Cdparanoia
Correct, Monty did take a cdda2wav release from before the first major rewrite has been done. There was a major rewrite starting in 1999 another one starting around 2006.
is Linux/gcc only.
Tha'ts fine by me. I understand devs will think otherwise, but for a linux-only user portability is not a plus nor a minus.
All my software is portable to virtually all platforms and this is why I need to make code portable before I can ise it.
Joerg: I've been using your software, and I intend to keep using it. Yes, I know about the -paranoia option. But sometimes cdda2wav report some (usually minor) problems. Example:
100% track 4 recorded with minor problems (0.2% problem sectors) 100% 0 rderr, 0 skip, 0 atom, 1 edge, 81 drop, 1 dup, 0 drift 100% 466 overlap(0.5 .. 0.8274)
"minor problems" means that these problems are not expected to cause audible results. If you like to most agressive parameters, I recommend to call: cdda2wav paraopts=proof
I suppose this is essentially harmless, but, being somewhat perfectionist, I would rather have 0 problems. Most tracks usually come out without errors. So I tried cdparanoia, and it did the ripping with two "+" signs at full speed. So I tried at speed=1 and it came out completely clean.
This just verifies that cdparanoia doesn't inform you about the problems.
Now, I'm not that naif as to assume that "no errors reported" <=> "no errors at all". (Maybe 0 errors from cdparanoia means that the 81 drops are still there but deemed irrelevant?) I did visit the cdparanoia site, but I didn't leave much wiser. So, for someone who wants to rip a brand new, duly purchased, never played before, CD with the maximum quality, what would be useful to know (with proper arguments) is:
I fixed some problems in the praranoia code related to error reporting....
-- When one of the programs ("cdda2wav -paranoia" or "cdparanoia") reports less than optimal results, is it worth to try the other one?
My ststistic experience shows that you will usually not get a better overall result if you repeat the extract with all tracks as usually one track will be worse then before. I thus recommend to repeat extracting single tracks. Note: cdda2wav supports MD5 sums on the audio data since 2008. This allows an easy check on whether an identical result may give different paranoia statistics.
Note that this wouldn't mean that one is better than the other: they might use different algorithms, and it might happen that one algorithm performs better for a particular CD. Then again, what I'm saying may be complete nonsense. I am not qualified to read the source of either program.
Before 2006, cdda2wav did not enable dynamic overlap with libparanoia. This may cause different results. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily