AccurateRip question

[RLANE]

I am not sure how AccurateRip functions, so here's a question.

I have two CDs with the same music on them (artists/works/etc.).
CD *1 was released in the early 1990s.
CD *2 was released in late 2012 and boasts to be thoroughly remastered in 2012 with 24bit/192k technology resulting in audio quality that is far superior to all prior releases.

The track layouts and timing are absolutley identical. When either CD is inserted the various meta data carriers recognize it as CD *1.

If CD *2 genuinely contains remastered tracks, should AccurateRip return positive results or negative? If AccurateRip returns positives for CD *2 and the AccurateRipId is the same for every track on each CD, should I assume that the remastering claim is a crock of ....?

[garym]

Re: AccurateRip question

I am not sure how AccurateRip functions, so here's a question.

I have two CDs with the same music on them (artists/works/etc.).
CD *1 was released in the early 1990s.
CD *2 was released in late 2012 and boasts to be thoroughly remastered in 2012 with 24bit/192k technology resulting in audio quality that is far superior to all prior releases.

The track layouts and timing are absolutley identical. When either CD is inserted the various meta data carriers recognize it as CD *1.

If CD *2 genuinely contains remastered tracks, should AccurateRip return positive results or negative? If AccurateRip returns positives for CD *2 and the AccurateRipId is the same for every track on each CD, should I assume that the remastering claim is a crock of ....?

There's a lot of variables here, so hard to give a definitive answer. The metadata databases thinking all are CD1 is not surprising and this doesn't really tell you anything. What do you mean by Negative AR results. AR results are either (1) not in database at all or (2) some number showing the number of other people that ripped the same CD and had the same CRCs from the audio. Having smaller or larger numbers (i.e., AR(2) vs AR(29)) is not that meaningful). A newer CD would have fewer numbers because fewer people have ripped the CD as compared to the older one. Plus there are different pressings of a CD and that can have larger or smaller number of matches. But I assume you do understand that the AR(x) match number has nothing to do with quality. AR(200) is no better quality than AR(3). But if you are saying that both CD1 and CD2 match the same exact AR ID, that is suspicious and makes me wonder if CD2 is exactly the same as CD1 (i.e, not really remastered). But then again, I don't know enough to know exactly how the AR ID is determined. It could be based on the Album/Track and the ID is the same no matter which pressing you rip. Don't know. Are you saying that the CRCs of each track on CD1 and CD2 are identical. That would suggest that the two tracks are bit perfect identical, and if so, how could one be based on a *different* master?

[RLANE]

Re: AccurateRip question

But if you are saying that both CD1 and CD2 match the same exact AR ID, that is suspicious and makes me wonder if CD2 is exactly the same as CD1 (i.e, not really remastered).

My suspicion too. And that's what I am looking for confirmation on.

[garym]

Re: AccurateRip question

My suspicion too. And that's what I am looking for confirmation on.

Yep, perhaps Spoon can chime in on whether the AR ID is unique or whether it is simply tied to the track/album/artist name. If the latter, then you *may* have a remastered disk after all.

[Spoon]

Re: AccurateRip question

AR IDs are based on track lengths, so even if one track was 522 samples less, it would appear the same audio length overall, but would have different AR ID.

[Sunfist]

Re: AccurateRip question

All I can say is, I have heard other people who claim to have knowledge of certain sites selling, so called, audiophile cd music that is in fact not a remastered, re-recorded album at all, just an upsampled version of the original cd. Not saying that is what you have but I have heard some friends say they have the same uncertainty you do about how authentic their music is. That could very well be that they can't hear any difference, so assume there isn't any. But the crc has to be different I don't see how two different formats could have the same crc.

[Kevro869]

Re: AccurateRip question

I have become quite fond of AR in EAC. When ripping to mp3 I don't see a need to use the slower secure ripping method when I can use burst mode and let AR decide whether the rip is accurate or not. The issue I'm having is when burning an image that I know is accurate, AR flags it as not accurate or track not present. I'm only having the problem on an older pc (2006) with a Plextor PX-800A and a Lite-On iHES208 2. Both drives will rip an accurate image, but when I burn the image using the same drive, AR spits it out as not accurate. When I move the image to my main pc with a hp DVD-RAM GH60L and a ATAPI iHBS112 2, both drives burn the image accurately. How can a drive rip an accurate image and fail on the burn? I use EAC to rip and imgburn to burn. I realize the issue is probably not the fault of AR, but I had to start somewhere in my search for answers. Thanks in advance...

[eaglescout1998]

Re: AccurateRip question

The issue I'm having is when burning an image that I know is accurate, AR flags it as not accurate or track not present

My guess is you neglected to configure your drive's write offset correction.

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/support/faq/offset-questions/

[Porcus]

Re: AccurateRip question

How can a drive rip an accurate image and fail on the burn?

You wrote that you rip to mp3. Then obviously it is not bit-identical anymore.

Also, writing back does require that e.g. it does not introduce 2 seconds silence in between.

[Kevro869]

Re: AccurateRip question

You wrote that you rip to mp3. Then obviously it is not bit-identical anymore.

I'm sorry, that was just an example of AR's convenience. I am trying to burn .wav image with imgburn. I will try setting the write offset first, I've never done it before. Wish me luck...

[Porcus]

Re: AccurateRip question

I do not know (literally! I have no idea whether it is an issue or not!) whether pregaps that are not 2 seconds will cause issues. Since you are using EAC to rip, you can try to use EAC to burn from an EAC-generated cuesheet: http://blowfish.be/eac/Burn/burn.html (dunno how updated that one is!).

If you use dBpoweramp to rip, then you may look up the ACCURATERIPDISCID tag. If it is not the same in the burnt copy vs the original, then they do not have the same table-of-contents.