On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> cdparanoia is a cdda2wav version from 1997 with some modifications.
Even the recent version?
Cdparanoia
> is Linux/gcc only.
Tha'ts fine by me. I understand devs will think otherwise, but for a
linux-only user portability is not a plus nor a minus.
>
>
> I recommend to use cdda2wav for best audio extraction results and in order to
> be able to access meta data also.
>
Joerg: I've been using your software, and I intend to keep using it.
Yes, I know about the -paranoia option. But sometimes cdda2wav report
some (usually minor) problems. Example:
100% track 4 recorded with minor problems (0.2% problem sectors)
100% 0 rderr, 0 skip, 0 atom, 1 edge, 81 drop, 1 dup, 0 drift
100% 466 overlap(0.5 .. 0.8274)
I suppose this is essentially harmless, but, being somewhat
perfectionist, I would rather have 0 problems. Most tracks usually
come out without errors. So I tried cdparanoia, and it did the ripping
with two "+" signs at full speed. So I tried at speed=1 and it came
out completely clean.
Now, I'm not that naif as to assume that "no errors reported" <=> "no
errors at all". (Maybe 0 errors from cdparanoia means that the 81
drops are still there but deemed irrelevant?) I did visit the
cdparanoia site, but I didn't leave much wiser.
So, for someone who wants to rip a brand new, duly purchased, never
played before, CD with the maximum quality, what would be useful to
know (with proper arguments) is:
-- When one of the programs ("cdda2wav -paranoia" or "cdparanoia")
reports less than optimal results, is it worth to try the other one?
--
Note that this wouldn't mean that one is better than the other: they
might use different algorithms, and it might happen that one algorithm
performs better for a particular CD. Then again, what I'm saying may
be complete nonsense. I am not qualified to read the source of either
program.
Thanks
Jorge
