IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

CTDB question: Repair function
Skybrowser
post May 24 2010, 22:19
Post #1





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



First off, i'd like to say that CTDB is probably the most useful and amazing tool i've seen since i started doing DAE a few months ago. Thankyou so much for creating something that can repair bad rips or essentially .. damaged CDs.

I've started using the CTDB repair function and i'm absolutely loving it. I'm struggling with a certain feature of it right now though.

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 ".

Now this seems to be happening pretty much only for albums where the accuraterip log shows matches for multiple offsets and the CTDB repair function won't activate and encode my files because it doesnt know which offset to use. I tried telling cuetools what offset to use in order to force the encode, but it wouldnt do it. I tried fixing the offset of the files just incase that was causing it, but that wouldnt do it either. Now I know the repair function can only repair a certain amount of errors, but for these albums i dont think the error count would be that high. I think the CTDB just gets stuck when it doesnt know which offset to use..... which is weird, because if you look at the bold text above, cuetools + AR is able to figure out the right offset. Is there a way of telling the CTDB to use the offset that AR is seeing and then repairing the damaged tracks? This situation doesnt happen in all cases with multiple offsets, but just mostly when there is a large number of offsets or the confidence for track matches are quite similar for each of the offsets
Again, this DB is awsome. If you have the time to populate it with your verified albums then please do so, because everyone benefits in the end.

This post has been edited by Skybrowser: May 24 2010, 22:27
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
sauvage78
post May 25 2010, 18:37
Post #2





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



As I said you may disagree with the "unlikely" conclusion, here this is a feeling based on experience, I know this is irrationnal to you, but it is like poker: the more you play, the more you know the probability of your hand to win. I update a folder full of 140go of non accurate rips every months the numbers of rips which suddenly become accurate is very low.

QUOTE
I'm pretty sure this is not correct.

Me too but I specially posted this for people to teach me what to do with these numbers !

QUOTE
Ignoring that the result can actually be the same but yet still be in error

Unless the guy is stupid & rerip with cueripper a scratched CDR he submitted to AR previously with EAC or dbpoweramp, the data cannot match because as I explained scratched data cannot match between two different rips. No I don't have a link sorry. I don't know how to explain better.

When you rip a commercial CD you own with EAC & that you match with an AR1 submission that is not yours, you know that the CD is not scratched. I know you know this. I don't understand why you don't admit that the same happens with cueripper & AR1. It's the same.

Again it seems only Greg can save my soul wink.gif

This post has been edited by sauvage78: May 25 2010, 18:49


--------------------
CDImage+CUE
Secure [Low/C2/AR(2)]
Flac -4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post May 25 2010, 19:08
Post #3





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



QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 25 2010, 10:37) *
Unless the guy is stupid & rerip with cueripper a scratched CDR he submitted to AR previously with EAC or dbpoweramp
or the data used to burn the CD-R was in error.

QUOTE
the data cannot match because as I explained scratched data cannot match between two different rips.
Provided you mean rips from two different physical CDs, the odds of the same exact error from a unique scratch IMO cannot possibly be significant, I suspect they're even lower than the odds of an AR hash collision which, assuming the analysis that is often presented is correct, is on the order of one in a few billion.

QUOTE
When you rip a commercial CD you own with EAC & that you match with an AR1 submission that is not yours, you know that the CD is not scratched.
I know if a CD is scratched by looking at it, not by what the AR numbers are. As I've tried to tell you there are more reasons for errors than just a scratch, but I digress.

QUOTE
I don't understand why you don't admit that the same happens with cueripper & AR1.
Actually what I'm asking of you is where you're getting this impression that CUERipper does something unique with results with an AR confidence of one. I also want to revisit whether CUERipper submits information to CTDB when there is no AR record, there is an AR record but it does not provide a match unless an offset is applied within a given range, and when there is an AR record but it doesn't provide a match and cannot provide a match when an offset is applied within a given range.


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Skybrowser
post May 26 2010, 22:55
Post #4





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



Ok, I think i've finally gotten lost in you guys' discussion. My original question was basically about why CTDB wouldnt repair certain CDs, and how do i know if a CD is beyond repair or if something else is wrong and CTDB is confused by my CDRs.

But I picked up on something one of you said in an earlier reply and just today i came across an example of it. I think one of you said that cueripper automatically adds albums to the CTDB or something to that effect.
- Well just today i decided to try using cueripper to rip an album and just play around with it. After ripping the album it said rip in-accurate AR 0/13. CTDB not in database. Now i've had this same result for this album using EAC. Track 1 simply won't verify. This IS NOT a CDR. The Test and Copy CRC's matched, and the tracked quality showed 100% ... which doesnt necessarily mean anything because cueripper was on paranoid mode and will do ALOT of retries. Cueripper said it submitted my data to CTDB...... even though my rip was in-accurate according to AR confidence 13. I thought this odd so i went into cuetools and did a verify ... and low and behold there was now a CTDB confidence of 1 for my album. Now maybe CTDB is smarter than I am, and I really do have a different pressing of this album. I actually burned this album years ago, and I cant get the first track on the burn to verify either.... so that could be evidence for a different pressing.... unless the original was damaged before i burned it.

I'm thinking of trying the same thing with a couple of other albums i'm having problems with. I'll let you know what happens if i do.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Skybrowser   CTDB question: Repair function   May 24 2010, 22:19
- - sauvage78   Plz post the complete cuetools log so that we can ...   May 24 2010, 22:31
- - greynol   AR2?   May 24 2010, 22:44
- - sauvage78   Short for Accurate with confidency confidence 2. ...   May 24 2010, 22:46
- - greynol   Some sort of shorthand you've made up, I suppo...   May 24 2010, 22:50
- - sauvage78   Greynol: I know all this, but still I use AR2 for ...   May 24 2010, 23:02
|- - greynol   A confidence of one that vanished is really no bet...   May 24 2010, 23:17
- - sauvage78   QUOTE How so exactly? Just like you said Greg uses...   May 24 2010, 23:24
|- - greynol   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 24 2010, 15:24) Ju...   May 24 2010, 23:27
|- - greynol   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 24 2010, 15:24) Ye...   May 24 2010, 23:28
- - sauvage78   Yes you're right, but I think this is temporar...   May 24 2010, 23:36
- - greynol   I think Gregory would take exception to the idea t...   May 24 2010, 23:40
- - sauvage78   He never said that, it was just obvious to me. In...   May 25 2010, 00:18
- - greynol   So is the answer as simple as the OP's disc no...   May 25 2010, 00:39
- - sauvage78   Yes, as far as I understund, it can be as simple a...   May 25 2010, 00:50
- - Skybrowser   Ok.... well following that massive discussion betw...   May 25 2010, 02:08
|- - greynol   QUOTE (Skybrowser @ May 24 2010, 18:08) -...   May 25 2010, 02:46
- - sauvage78   With your last cuetools log: this rip is not accur...   May 25 2010, 02:39
|- - greynol   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 24 2010, 18:39) Wi...   May 25 2010, 02:50
|- - Skybrowser   - My drive offset in logfiles for ripping is 667. ...   May 25 2010, 03:00
- - sauvage78   I may be wrong but I think that CTDB still require...   May 25 2010, 02:53
|- - greynol   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 24 2010, 18:53) fo...   May 25 2010, 08:57
- - sauvage78   Well what is likely or not is only a question of p...   May 25 2010, 03:01
- - sauvage78   Ok I completely forgot that it was a CDR, well for...   May 25 2010, 03:03
|- - Skybrowser   I already have a few encountering this situation. ...   May 25 2010, 03:41
- - sauvage78   The ability of CTDB to repair damaged rips is rand...   May 25 2010, 03:48
|- - Skybrowser   Ah, at first i didnt really realize why you were p...   May 25 2010, 04:18
- - sauvage78   No, as far as I understund how CTDB works, it is d...   May 25 2010, 04:37
|- - greynol   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 24 2010, 20:37) Th...   May 25 2010, 08:45
- - sauvage78   QUOTE pressings can differ by more than just an of...   May 25 2010, 11:05
|- - greynol   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 25 2010, 03:05) So...   May 25 2010, 18:20
- - sauvage78   As I couldn't found any rip with 2 CTDBID for ...   May 25 2010, 17:53
|- - greynol   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 25 2010, 09:53) So...   May 25 2010, 18:30
- - sauvage78   QUOTE CUERipper has absolutely no way of knowing i...   May 25 2010, 18:28
|- - greynol   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 25 2010, 10:28) I ...   May 25 2010, 18:32
- - sauvage78   As I said you may disagree with the "unlikely...   May 25 2010, 18:37
|- - greynol   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 25 2010, 10:37) As...   May 25 2010, 18:50
|- - greynol   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 25 2010, 10:37) Un...   May 25 2010, 19:08
|- - Skybrowser   Ok, I think i've finally gotten lost in you gu...   May 26 2010, 22:55
|- - Teknojnky   QUOTE (Skybrowser @ May 26 2010, 15:55) A...   May 26 2010, 23:04
- - greynol   QUOTE (Teknojnky @ May 26 2010, 15:04) si...   May 26 2010, 23:14
- - Teknojnky   cuetools ripper can add to CTDB without the aid of...   May 26 2010, 23:18
|- - greynol   QUOTE (Teknojnky @ May 26 2010, 15:18) I ...   May 26 2010, 23:25
- - sauvage78   There is a reasonnable chance that this new rip is...   May 26 2010, 23:20
- - greynol   Since neither of you could be bothered to look up ...   May 26 2010, 23:24
- - Teknojnky   It the same situation as accurate rip confidence o...   May 26 2010, 23:24
- - Teknojnky   like I said, cue ripper can add to CTDB without A...   May 26 2010, 23:28
- - greynol   Yes, thank you. Unfortunately you failed to provi...   May 26 2010, 23:34
- - sauvage78   Well then this is a flaw of CTDB, I thought Greg w...   May 26 2010, 23:38
|- - greynol   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 26 2010, 15:38) Ye...   May 26 2010, 23:46
- - Teknojnky   I suggest you reference them as AR (1) and AR (2) ...   May 26 2010, 23:42
|- - Skybrowser   Greynol, I wasn't attempting to fabricate any ...   May 26 2010, 23:56
- - sauvage78   I like the idea I will use AR(2) from now on. Edi...   May 26 2010, 23:46
|- - greynol   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 26 2010, 15:46) we...   May 27 2010, 00:05
- - greynol   My comment wasn't directed at you. It was at ...   May 26 2010, 23:58
- - Gregory S. Chudov   Back to original topic: QUOTE (Skybrowser @ ...   May 27 2010, 21:22


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: 31st July 2014 - 13:54