IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Relative ease in generating AR hashes for multiple offsets, New AR algorithm compromises CUETools functionality for no good reason
greynol
post Jul 26 2012, 21:59
Post #1





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



This thread stems from a comment I made in another discussion:
QUOTE (spoon @ Jul 26 2012, 13:30) *
> In fact, the algorithm change has actually made checking against alternate pressings more difficult.

I do not believe this, if the official way of checking pressing is used, not the scatter gun try every offset known to man method...

Sour grapes.

That it isn't "official" is hardly relevant. The exploitation of your mal-formed "checksum" was quite elegant and worked quickly. You'll be hard pressed demonstrating that using this exploitation to compare a rip against alternate pressings was any less accurate or effective.

Regarding the scatter gun every offset known to man method, isn't that a fitting description of how your offset hash is used? wink.gif

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 27 2012, 15:11


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spoon
post Jul 26 2012, 23:12
Post #2


dBpowerAMP developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2745
Joined: 24-March 02
Member No.: 1615



Why is it sour grapes? There is a correct way of doing it, and an incorrect way...it is relevant as say a programmer bypassing the official API for foobar when creating a component, then complaining about it later when the program changes and their component no longer functions. Follow the "offical" guide lines and it is not an issue.

The offset hash was designed for that purpose, that is how offsets of drives are found, even if there are 2 or 3 false positives for a given track, it does not matter as a false positive on an offset match will not match the overall CRC for a track.


--------------------
Spoon http://www.dbpoweramp.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 26 2012, 23:54
Post #3





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



Re: sour grapes
Let's just say I'm projecting. This is especially so considering that it has not been proven nor will it likely ever be proven that AR2 will provide any tangible improvement over AR1, despite your good intentions. Rather, it has the negative affect of starting to render obsolete a very beneficial part of an important piece of software.

Re: what you believe
That you have chosen to redefine what I've said so that you can disagree is your business. It doesn't really go very far in refuting my claim, however. Gregory Chudov made it plainly clear that your method is more computationally expensive and because of this he wasn't going to implement it.

Anyway the fact remains, there is nothing about AR2 that provides for the ability to check against alternate pressings that didn't already exist beforehand. (EDIT: No longer relevant due to thread split)

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 27 2012, 15:00


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Jul 27 2012, 00:29
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



«more difficult» isn't really well justified by «more computationally expensive», at least not as long as we are this far from brute-force password-cracking?


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 27 2012, 00:46
Post #5





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



Sure it is. When you liken the situation to hacking, are you doing so based on my use of the word exploitation or are you actually familiar with what's being discussed?

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 27 2012, 00:48


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Jul 27 2012, 02:49
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



*sigh* Flat out claiming an implication which ... well I wouldn't ask for so much that it were logically valid, but ...

«Takes time to run, so I wouldn't bother to use it» and «is difficult to implement, so won't bother to write it», are two completely distinct complaints over AccurateRip2.

There is absolutely nothing that says that just because your computer spends more time completing algorithm1 than algorithm2, then algorithm1 is more «difficult». It might be so in certain cases (I mentioned one for the sake of completeness, only to see it being used to dub me an idiot), that the easy one is cheaper, but the stating it as an implication or even an inference ...?

Matter of fact is, there are lots of algorithms that are «more computationally expensive», but less difficult (just ask your local professor of a relevant discipline of applied mathematics).


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 27 2012, 04:37
Post #7





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



Your speaking in generalities answers my question.

I won't be bothered with this until you get yourself up to speed on the differences between the "official" method and Chudov's workaround as well as the differences between AR1 and AR2. I know you are more than capable based on what I think I know of your mathematical background. Ignoring that for the moment, you could have at least gotten yourself up to speed from just an historical perspective.

Disappointing!

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 27 2012, 14:40


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Jul 27 2012, 12:17
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (greynol @ Jul 27 2012, 05:37) *
Your speaking in generalities answers my question.


Your speaking in generalities is itself the logical failure of your argument. Normally you would be able to catch the obvious error that coincidence isn't implication, normally you wouldn't resort to error-in-one-error-in-all, and fairly often you would even require that level of precision from others. Take that as a compliment (I mean, sincerely), but please also take a sincere suggestion that you carefully consider erring on the safe side when exercising moderator privileges in discussions where your personal biases could get the better of you.

This post has been edited by Porcus: Jul 27 2012, 12:18


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 27 2012, 14:45
Post #9





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



Now you're suggesting that I would use my status as a moderator to somehow influence this discussion?

So much for arguing on the merits.


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
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: 3rd September 2014 - 09:18