Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

is the application currently considered reliable? #542

Open
brainchild0 opened this issue Jun 6, 2021 · 6 comments
Open

is the application currently considered reliable? #542

brainchild0 opened this issue Jun 6, 2021 · 6 comments

Comments

@brainchild0
Copy link

Please excuse me if anyone would prefer that such a question not be given through this system, but I find the specific information nowhere I have looked, nor find any other place to ask.

Is the application currently mature enough that a ripped image it produces, assuming no error or warning occurred during the process, may be considered reliable, that is, accurate and complete, to the same degree as other from software (e.g. EAC)?

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jun 6, 2021

👋 Thanks for opening your first issue here! If you're reporting a 🐞 bug, please make sure you include steps to reproduce it. We get a lot of issues on this repo, so please be patient and we will get back to you as soon as we can.

To help make it easier for us to investigate your issue, please follow the contributing instructions.

@JuniorJPDJ
Copy link

Yes, but it's hard to verify it as it only uses AccurateRip to do so and loads of CDs are not here.
EAC and CUERipper also use CTDB, but whipper still doesn't (#15).

@Bujiraso
Copy link

Bujiraso commented Jul 1, 2021

It's quite reliable here.
Of my 623 CDs, it got 585 of them ripped accurately.

31 of those CDs would not rip because they were not a common pressing. dbpoweramp worked just fine with those. The remainder were damaged or were not in AccurateRip's database, again forcing me to use dbpoweramp to enter my initial values (no certainty of accuracy)

I've yet to take the time to file a bug on that.

@JoeLametta
Copy link
Collaborator

JoeLametta commented Jul 4, 2021

Whipper should be reliable (not bulletproof, see current limitations):

We also depend both on cdrdao and libcdio's cd-paranoia to perform the ToC/audio extraction so any serious bug affecting one of them is going to cascade issues in whipper (https://github.com/whipper-team/whipper/issues?q=label%3A"Upstream+Bug").

If the CDs you're trying to rip have useful AccurateRip DB records, you can rely on those to give you an idea of the confidence level of the rip you've completed.
In case no online DB entry exists for the CDs you're trying to rip you can always rip it multiple times using different software and compare if the resulting data (audio) matches (Test & Copy with Exact Audio Copy, then whipper, etc.)

@tsweet64
Copy link

tsweet64 commented Jul 4, 2021

It seems to vary based on hardware. On my drive (reported as a HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GSA-T10N) whipper fails in some way with every CD. It either won't read the TOC at all, due to #531 (see my comment there for further details) or if that succeeds it still fails to rip the last track if I set the correct offset (likely upstream libcdio/libcdio-paranoia#14).

I've been using abcde instead, but I'd love to have the AccurateRip verification which whipper provides. I'm considering getting a new CD drive to see if it works properly. Does anyone know any good external optical drives that work well with whipper?

@MerlijnWajer
Copy link
Collaborator

I use the iHAS-124 mostly. But it's not an external optical drive, but it works with most usb<->sata enclosures.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants