IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
CTDB question: Repair function
greynol
post May 26 2010, 23:46
Post #51





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 26 2010, 15:38) *
Yes, the problem is that an AR1 rip is in fact not accurate if it's your own submission.
The fact that someone submits something to the database and it comes back later as a match means the rip was not accurate? wacko.gif

QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 26 2010, 15:38) *
Well then this is a flaw of CTDB, I thought Greg wouldn't have made this misstake.
No, the mistake was clearly yours. Unfortunately you seem to be unable to admit it.

QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 26 2010, 15:38) *
Keeping those AR1 rips which may not be accurate is not the behavior I would have expected from CTDB, it only creates noise.
I find this somewhat ironic since there has been a lot of noise in this discussion.


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sauvage78
post May 26 2010, 23:46
Post #52





Group: Members
Posts: 677
Joined: 4-May 08
Member No.: 53282



I like the idea I will use AR(2) from now on.

Edit:
QUOTE
The fact that someone submits something to the database and it comes back later as a match means the rip was not accurate? wacko.gif

well you know nothing except that your submission matches your submission, you don't know if it's accurate.

QUOTE
Unfortunately you seem to be unable to admit it.

Well I never said I was right so why would I admit that I was wrong ? I used plenty "maybe" "it seems" " "I think" ... I even used "warning" ... I would rather say that you always try to be right & have the last word ... this is a very inquisitive & annoying behavior of yours ... but I get used to it because I usually learn from discussion with you. All I tried to do was to help the topic starter to the best of my knowledge, as imperfect as it might be.

Sorry Skybrowser,
I was asked in pm by Greynol to quit this discussion because I was spreading missinformation. Having already been almost banned by Greynol I know that this means that if I keep answering I will get warned.

I don't want to upset him so I quit.

This post has been edited by sauvage78: May 26 2010, 23:59


--------------------
CDImage+CUE
Secure [Low/C2/AR(2)]
Flac -4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Skybrowser
post May 26 2010, 23:56
Post #53





Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 7-January 10
Member No.: 76815



Greynol, I wasn't attempting to fabricate any facts. I was merely stating observations and asking questions so that I can learn. It was not my intent to annoy anyone, and I do my best to look up information on my own, but if i don't know where it is..... i don't know where it is.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post May 26 2010, 23:58
Post #54





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



My comment wasn't directed at you. It was at sauvage78 and then Teknojnky (though it seems he's just guilty of not following along very closely).


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post May 27 2010, 00:05
Post #55





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 26 2010, 15:46) *
well you know nothing except that your submission matches your submission, you don't know if it's accurate.
That's a whole lot different than saying it's not accurate, now isn't it?

QUOTE
I used plenty "maybe" "it seems" " "I think" ... I even used "warning"
Please don't make me count the number of times you failed to qualify your "facts" as being less than factual. I would not appear to need to get the last word in if you would stop making stuff up and then presenting it as fact. Once called out you turn around and blame the developer of making a mistake!

While this probably makes pretty good reading for those on the sidelines, we could have avoided this whole mess if you wouldn't make stuff up with what is practically every new post.

This post has been edited by greynol: May 27 2010, 00:19


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gregory S. Chudo...
post May 27 2010, 21:22
Post #56





Group: Developer
Posts: 689
Joined: 2-October 08
From: Ottawa
Member No.: 59035



Back to original topic:

QUOTE (Skybrowser @ May 25 2010, 01:19) *
Some of the albums I want to repair are showing up in the CTDB but when I attempt to verify them, it says for example " AR: offset 112, rip not accurate (0/116), CTDB: could not be verified ".


Your rip isn't accurate according to AR database. No matter what offset do you apply, it will still be inaccurate, so there's no point in it. It could be repairable with CTDB if there were less errors. Offset doesn't matter for CTDB either.

The log that you quoted shows errors in almost all tracks, that's the reason CTDB can't identify it. As explained in http://db.cuetools.net/about.php, CTDB can fix only up to 40 damaged sectors, and sometimes can fail to fix even 4 damaged sectors.


--------------------
CUETools 2.1.4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd July 2014 - 21:47