Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: help me interpret this CUETools accurip output? (Read 5942 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

help me interpret this CUETools accurip output?

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: [Select]
[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?

Thanks!

help me interpret this CUETools accurip output?

Reply #1 –
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

help me interpret this CUETools accurip output?

Reply #2 –
No, no errors in the rip. Here is the log:

Code: [Select]
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!

help me interpret this CUETools accurip output?

Reply #3 –
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

help me interpret this CUETools accurip output?

Reply #4 –
Re-rip your disc and any questions will most likely be answered.

help me interpret this CUETools accurip output?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: korth on
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?

help me interpret this CUETools accurip output?

Reply #6 –
Quote from: gib on
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.

help me interpret this CUETools accurip output?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: korth on
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.

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

help me interpret this CUETools accurip output?

Reply #8 –
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.

help me interpret this CUETools accurip output?

Reply #9 –
Quote from: greynol on
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.