On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> results. If you like to most agressive parameters, I recommend to call:
>
> cdda2wav paraopts=proof
I'll keep this one in mind for next time.
>> 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.
>
> This just verifies that cdparanoia doesn't inform you about the problems.
>
Nevertheless, it did inform about the two small problems corresponding to '+' ("
Unreported loss of streaming/other error in read"), which disappeared
when I repeated the ripping with speed 1.
>
>> -- When one of the programs ("cdda2wav -paranoia" or "cdparanoia")
>> reports less than optimal results, is it worth to try the other one?
>
> My ststistic experience shows that you will usually not get a better overall
> result if you repeat the extract with all tracks as usually one track will be
> worse then before. I thus recommend to repeat extracting single tracks.
Of course. What I do is to extract it all ("-B") and then try again
for each track that didn't came out perfect ("-t n"). I even have the
feeling that it may get better after letting the drive resting for a
while, maybe heat is a problem...
>
>> 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.
>
> Before 2006, cdda2wav did not enable dynamic overlap with libparanoia.
> This may cause different results.
>
Can you positively confirm that there are no different algorithms in
the two programs that might sometimes have influence? I used the
current version from the Arch (extra/cdparanoia 10.2-3), which I
suppose is not the one you mean.
Jorge
