IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
help me interpret this CUETools accurip output?
boombass
post Jul 11 2013, 19:15
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 79
Joined: 24-August 02
Member No.: 3191



I am tidying up some old CD rips to satisfy my OCD, and I have found CUETools to be an amazingly helpful tool. In almost all cases it has convinced me that my old old rips are still accurate even thought they were done before there was AccurateRip data to compare them to.

But one CD (actually a two CD set) has given me this output:

CODE
[CUETools log; Date: 7/8/2013 11:09:24 AM; Version: 2.1.5]
CD-Extra data track length 02:39:49.
[CTDB TOCID: 2uMDQvilwo_ZFRxvcwEvnM1Ibvw-] found.
Track | CTDB Status
1 | ( 2/120) Accurately ripped
2 | ( 1/120) Differs in 36 samples @02:53:32, or (1/120) differs in 36 samples @02:53:32
3 | ( 2/120) Accurately ripped
4 | ( 1/120) Differs in 31 samples @00:59:21-00:59:22,01:41:22, or (1/120) differs in 96 samples @00:59:21-00:59:22,01:29:32,01:41:22
5 | ( 1/120) Differs in 1 samples @01:04:59, or (1/120) differs in 9 samples @01:04:59,02:40:50
6 | ( 1/120) Accurately ripped, or (1/120) differs in 74 samples @04:41:00
7 | ( 2/120) Accurately ripped
8 | ( 1/120) Differs in 109 samples @00:53:20,01:11:09-01:11:10, or (1/120) differs in 109 samples @00:53:20,01:11:09-01:11:10
9 | ( 1/120) Accurately ripped, or (1/120) differs in 473 samples @00:46:67,01:16:67,01:29:01,01:47:02,02:29:02,02:47:02,02:52:67,03:04:67,03:05:02,03:11:01-03:11:02,03:41:02,03:52:66-03:52:67
10 | ( 1/120) Accurately ripped, or (1/120) differs in 115 samples @00:11:20-00:11:21,00:23:19-00:23:20,02:05:09,02:35:19
[AccurateRip ID: 0010ca38-0085b529-810afa0b] found.
Track [ CRC | V2 ] Status
01 [e5b7fa9e|1d05b010] (00+00/75) No match
02 [b2d3e84a|05725b44] (00+00/77) No match
03 [9c6aee92|ad8e521d] (00+00/77) No match
04 [5d7ffba7|ed4a87ab] (00+00/76) No match
05 [f7cfe9fc|5856388d] (00+00/77) No match
06 [cb4dd4ef|c6bdc801] (00+00/74) No match
07 [f151ef31|7cfdbdae] (00+00/75) No match
08 [98f1660c|7f61b098] (00+00/75) No match
09 [5bb444fe|6b245446] (00+00/74) No match
10 [2af32be6|60a4e069] (00+00/71) No match

Track Peak [ CRC32 ] [W/O NULL] [ LOG ]
-- 99.1 [A12DE607] [A8E54C6F]
01 95.9 [5D889C77] [5DA6F2D9] CRC32
02 96.1 [73240C40] [70AD0F70] CRC32
03 98.2 [5E9316E1] [13310584] CRC32
04 99.1 [CB8C0ADD] [796AE867] CRC32
05 98.1 [6B192635] [28B2E837] CRC32
06 99.0 [6FED9C7C] [6DF24B63] CRC32
07 92.9 [1C58F380] [FF3CE9DC] CRC32
08 98.0 [E9CAFDA1] [4DE1C6C0] CRC32
09 94.5 [1A41D3CF] [108EA16C] CRC32
10 91.1 [E3E3ECBA] [87C9FAED] CRC32


How should I take this? Is my rip accurate, or not? Why the different samples? Can I assume they are from someone else's rip? smile.gif

Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
korth
post Jul 11 2013, 22:55
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 13-March 11
Member No.: 88969



No errors in the rip? (I see that all the track CRCs match the original rip but a rip log would have been helpful).
You do not have an accurate match in either database for the complete disc.
The sample differences are a comparison of your rip against others in the CUETools Database (CTDB) that have a recovery record (the disc may be repairable), however (1/x) records should be considered unreliable for repair use (see known issues).

You may have a disc version that just isn't in either database.


--------------------
korth
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
boombass
post Jul 12 2013, 04:03
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 79
Joined: 24-August 02
Member No.: 3191



No, no errors in the rip. Here is the log:

CODE
EAC extraction logfile from 10. August 2008, 10:01 for CD
David Bowie / Aladdin Sane

Used drive : LITE-ON DVDRW LH-20A1P Adapter: 0 ID: 0
Read mode : Secure with NO C2, accurate stream, disable cache
Read offset correction : 6
Overread into Lead-In and Lead-Out : No

Used output format : E:\_music encoding\_programs\flacattack\flacattack.exe (User Defined Encoder)
128 kBit/s
Additional command line options : "E:\_music encoding\_programs\flacattack\flacattack.ini" %s "%a" "%t" "%g" "%y" "%n" "%m" %o

Other options :
Fill up missing offset samples with silence : Yes
Delete leading and trailing silent blocks : No
Native Win32 interface for Win NT & 2000


Track 1
Filename E:\_encode temp\01 - David Bowie - Watch That Man.wav

Peak level 95.9 %
Track quality 100.0 %
Test CRC 5D889C77
Copy CRC 5D889C77
Copy OK

Track 2
Filename E:\_encode temp\02 - David Bowie - Aladdin Sane (1913-1938-197 ).wav

Peak level 96.1 %
Track quality 99.9 %
Test CRC 73240C40
Copy CRC 73240C40
Copy OK

Track 3
Filename E:\_encode temp\03 - David Bowie - Drive-In Saturday.wav

Peak level 98.2 %
Track quality 100.0 %
Test CRC 5E9316E1
Copy CRC 5E9316E1
Copy OK

Track 4
Filename E:\_encode temp\04 - David Bowie - Panic in Detroit.wav

Peak level 99.1 %
Track quality 99.9 %
Test CRC CB8C0ADD
Copy CRC CB8C0ADD
Copy OK

Track 5
Filename E:\_encode temp\05 - David Bowie - Cracked Actor.wav

Peak level 98.1 %
Track quality 100.0 %
Test CRC 6B192635
Copy CRC 6B192635
Copy OK

Track 6
Filename E:\_encode temp\06 - David Bowie - Time.wav

Peak level 99.0 %
Track quality 100.0 %
Test CRC 6FED9C7C
Copy CRC 6FED9C7C
Copy OK

Track 7
Filename E:\_encode temp\07 - David Bowie - The Prettiest Star.wav

Peak level 92.9 %
Track quality 100.0 %
Test CRC 1C58F380
Copy CRC 1C58F380
Copy OK

Track 8
Filename E:\_encode temp\08 - David Bowie - Let's Spend the Night Together.wav

Peak level 98.0 %
Track quality 99.7 %
Test CRC 4EC18409
Copy CRC E9CAFDA1
Copy OK

Track 9
Filename E:\_encode temp\09 - David Bowie - The Jean Genie.wav

Peak level 94.5 %
Track quality 100.0 %
Test CRC 1A41D3CF
Copy CRC 1A41D3CF
Copy OK

Track 10
Filename E:\_encode temp\10 - David Bowie - Lady Grinning Soul.wav

Peak level 91.1 %
Track quality 99.9 %
Test CRC E3E3ECBA
Copy CRC E3E3ECBA
Copy OK

No errors occured


End of status report


So maybe just a different pressing? If the EAC rip had no errors, I can pretty much be sure I had a good rip, I think.

Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
korth
post Jul 12 2013, 04:26
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 13-March 11
Member No.: 88969



Well track 8 could be iffy.

Track quality 99.7 %
Test CRC 4EC18409
Copy CRC E9CAFDA1

But there's no clear indication that the Copy CRC is wrong and secure mode did not correctly copy the track.


--------------------
korth
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gib
post Jul 13 2013, 02:07
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 227
Joined: 20-January 03
From: A Tropical Isle
Member No.: 4640



Re-rip your disc and any questions will most likely be answered.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 13 2013, 03:22
Post #6





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10256
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (korth @ Jul 11 2013, 20:26) *
Well track 8 could be iffy.

Track quality 99.7 %
Test CRC 4EC18409
Copy CRC E9CAFDA1

But there's no clear indication that the Copy CRC is wrong and secure mode did not correctly copy the track.

You could say the same thing about the test pass.

So that it is clear matching CRCs are proof of consistent data; they are not proof of an accurate extraction. If the test pass finished without EAC exhausting all the allotted re-read sets, what would that tell you?

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 13 2013, 05:11
Reason for edit: removed smiley


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 13 2013, 03:26
Post #7





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10256
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (gib @ Jul 12 2013, 18:07) *
Re-rip your disc and any questions will most likely be answered.

With the same drive, program and settings?

Maybe if you changed at least one of those things up then the word "likely" would be more easily entertained.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
korth
post Jul 13 2013, 06:00
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 13-March 11
Member No.: 88969



QUOTE (greynol @ Jul 13 2013, 03:22) *
QUOTE (korth @ Jul 11 2013, 20:26) *
Well track 8 could be iffy.

Track quality 99.7 %
Test CRC 4EC18409
Copy CRC E9CAFDA1

But there's no clear indication that the Copy CRC is wrong and secure mode did not correctly copy the track.

You could say the same thing about the test pass. dry.gif

I did call the track iffy. Using only the log, there's information missing for the test pass. If any uncorrectable read errors did occur during the test pass they aren't reported to the log as suspicious positions. The copy pass however didn't report any uncorrectable read errors to the log as suspicious positions but had a track quality of less than 100%. So re-reads occurred and at least 8 reads had the same CRC. Could that CRC be wrong? Yes it happens occasionally. AccurateRip or CTDB data would be helpful.

QUOTE
So that it is clear matching CRCs are proof of consistent data; they are not proof of an accurate extraction. If the test pass finished without EAC exhausting all the allotted re-read sets, what would that tell you?

I can't tell that's what happened from the log but I do agree that rarely it can. If the on-screen rip dialog showed the test pass completed (with re-reads) but without any uncorrectable read errors then at least 8 reads had the same CRC for that pass as well but with a different CRC than the copy pass. If I had this additional information I would be even more likely to question the copy result.

Either way I would have cleaned the disc and re-ripped the track. If I still didn't find the result satisfactory I would try a different drive or settings as you suggested.


--------------------
korth
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 13 2013, 06:30
Post #9





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10256
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



When someone has gone though an entire collection in order to focus on the questionable rips, "rare" all of a sudden becomes less so.

Uncorrectable read errors? Call it what it really is: data that isn't consistent beyond an arbitrarily chosen threshold. The two concepts are not at all the same.

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 13 2013, 06:36


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gib
post Jul 13 2013, 10:17
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 227
Joined: 20-January 03
From: A Tropical Isle
Member No.: 4640



QUOTE (greynol @ Jul 12 2013, 16:26) *
With the same drive, program and settings?

Maybe if you changed at least one of those things up then the word "likely" would be more easily entertained.

You're correct, of course. Diversity is a good thing when ripping.
When I saw boombass' original rip is 5 years old I assumed they no longer have the same optical drive, thus the suggestion in my first post in all its brevity. I really shouldn't make such an assumption.

So to expound, I'd suggest boombass re-rip the disc on a totally different drive. Not another of the same model, or similar model, or another brand that OEMed the same internal guts and slapped their name on it. A totally different drive. That's the first step.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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: 26th November 2014 - 04:35