Adding a single step - checking the accuraterip database - does not result in any appreciable complexity, and it's not even clear what a "bug" would be in such a scenario. "More sophisticated system may have higher bug probability" is the perfect example of a general principle that has no particular relevance here.
Bitperfect not repeting songs software#
But now you say that normal CD-ripping software and methods are overly redundant and have extra safeguards that are not needed. First you say that normal CD-ripping software and methods are not robust enough because we don't know for sure if they're really accurate. But this is a perfect example of why your posts generate disagreement from others. Personally I have no problem with relying on rippers' and drives' error detection systems. If you can't publish your results, then your experiments are of no use. My previous post explained that "best way" is not automatically or simply what you think it's about. What about restoration of audio data of damaged CD? More sophisticated system may have higher bug probability. Why there need additional element, like database? It made system more sophisticated.
![bitperfect not repeting songs bitperfect not repeting songs](https://www.scoringnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/28061502_10160238990860105_233882722147606702_o.jpg)
I can't understand: why there is need database? CD ripper and CD-drive have powerful error detection system. I can make experiments (and make it), but I can't publish results, because I produce own CD ripper.
![bitperfect not repeting songs bitperfect not repeting songs](https://dt7v1i9vyp3mf.cloudfront.net/styles/news_preview/s3/imagelibrary/E/EffectsRevreverb1-Fbz2QqLiJ_j0YC4V8McKJxLOwetWdcbO.jpg)
To found the probaility need method, that I suggested. It is maximal probability of binary identity with the original audio file (not checksum with the database) among rippers. So, with respect, your questions here are interesting and worth exploring, but when it comes to actually answering the OP's question, the issues you raise are pointless. If you want to test it, the by all means go ahead - but how about not raising your objections until you've actually carried out the experiment? My argument is that when you compare the two rips of all these CDs, the result will be that at least 4,999, and probably all 5,000, will match. I am sufficiently confident in this argument that I have zero interest in actually testing it. With XLD or DBPoweramp + AccurateRip database, or To put it more simply, based on all we know, let's say you have a collection of 5,000 CDs, and for this hypothetical let's say that all of them are undamaged and can be accurately ripped. (And the fact that I cannot assign an exact number to that very small probability does not change the fact that it's still a very small probability.) Even if it is a rare CD with only 1 entry in the database, if it matches the likelihood is extremely high that the rip is accurate - because the chances that the rip in the database, using different hardware and probably different software, made with a different individual disc, had the exact same errors, down to the bit level, are astronomically small. If the rip exactly matches the database, that provides an added level of confidence that the rip is accurate. But then, the secure rippers check with the AccurateRip database. Of course that method is not foolproof by itself. Because the vast majority of ripping errors do not repeat themselves in an identical manner, getting multiple consecutive identical ripping results is, already by itself, a strong indicator that the rip is accurate. The fact is that secure CD ripping like that done by XLD and DBPoweramp, combined with AccurateRip database checking, provides a result that is not statistically 100% guaranteed, but is sufficiently close to 100% that it is not worth worrying about for anyone who - like the OP - is looking for a method that also is easy and convenient.Īs you know, the secure rippers do multiple passes on the disc and they don't move on until they get identical results on more than one pass. He asked about a method, a workflow, not about scientific or statistical experiments. He asked about the "best way" to rip CDs to a Mac.
![bitperfect not repeting songs bitperfect not repeting songs](http://img.allw.mn/cards/5/4f3bbef39d2f6889de3d8740.jpg)
Bitperfect not repeting songs how to#
The OP did not ask about how to ensure theoretical or statistically certain 100% accurate rips all the time. However, I believe it is you who are missing the point here.
![bitperfect not repeting songs bitperfect not repeting songs](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4f/27/25/4f2725c6d185323b17b8bb55eea26c54.png)
I appreciate the info you are providing at your linked page, and I understand the point you are making.