On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
results. If you like to most agressive parameters, I recommend to call:
cdda2wav paraopts=proof
I'll keep this one in mind for next time.
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.
Nevertheless, it did inform about the two small problems corresponding to '+' (" Unreported loss of streaming/other error in read"), which disappeared when I repeated the ripping with speed 1.
-- 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.
Of course. What I do is to extract it all ("-B") and then try again for each track that didn't came out perfect ("-t n"). I even have the feeling that it may get better after letting the drive resting for a while, maybe heat is a problem...
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.
Can you positively confirm that there are no different algorithms in the two programs that might sometimes have influence? I used the current version from the Arch (extra/cdparanoia 10.2-3), which I suppose is not the one you mean. Jorge