Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
The summary code is quite new, so it's no surprise some finetuning has to be
done.
If you have any other thoughts on improving the log output, you're welcome to
say
so.
Original comment by rubyripp...@gmail.com
on 9 Nov 2006 at 9:48
I'm sure there is some; I think I recall some redundancy but as it's low
priority I
will look into it later.
Original comment by mordbr...@gmail.com
on 9 Nov 2006 at 11:01
An extra verbose log option would be swell. Have it also include all the
output from
cdparanoia or cdda2wav to the file as well. Then a user could just look at the
file
to see if the disc is prolematic at all.
Like with this one track:
cdparanoia III release 10pre0 (August 29, 2006)
(C) 2006 Monty <monty@xiph.org> and Xiph.Org
Report bugs to paranoia@xiph.org
http://www.xiph.org/paranoia/
Ripping from sector 124239 (track 4 [0:00.00])
to sector 165075 (track 4 [9:04.36])
outputting to /Sjø/rr/track4_1.wav
(== PROGRESS == [V +| 165075 00 ] == :^D * ==)
Done.
cdparanoia III release 10pre0 (August 29, 2006)
(C) 2006 Monty <monty@xiph.org> and Xiph.Org
Report bugs to paranoia@xiph.org
http://www.xiph.org/paranoia/
Ripping from sector 124239 (track 4 [0:00.00])
to sector 165075 (track 4 [9:04.36])
outputting to /Sjø/rr/track4_2.wav
(== PROGRESS == [V +| 165075 00 ] == :^D * ==)
Done.
It all compares fine but there is no way of seeing what exactly happened without
looking in the terminal.
Original comment by mordbr...@gmail.com
on 10 Nov 2006 at 1:06
Just FYI, the track in the above example doesn't rip right. It's probably a
poor
(cheap) pressing and now fault of rubyripper of course. cdparanoia seems to
work
around the scratch by skipping forward a few blocks; using -Z gets a correct
rip.
Original comment by mordbr...@gmail.com
on 12 Nov 2006 at 10:23
ugh, I'm so out of it I posted before finishing my thought. Anyway, the reason
why I
like to look at the cdparanoia status line is exactly for reasons like that.
According to rubyripper everything is swell, but that actual ripping command
shows
otherwise (even if they do match).
Original comment by mordbr...@gmail.com
on 12 Nov 2006 at 10:25
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Suspicion position at 05:23.
Why not condense these into one line that says something like "X suspicion
positions
at 05:23" where X is the number of Suspicion lines for each time. It will keep
the
log size down and make it more readable. In this case the log for that disc
was 575
kb for over 20000 lines! Most of it is duplicitous.
Original comment by mordbr...@gmail.com
on 12 Nov 2006 at 10:30
Yup, keep 'm coming. I also made one up myself: if the amount of matches for
erronous positions is bigger than non-erronous positions, the log file can be
smaller.
Say match all chunks = 2 and erronous chunks = 5
When errors are found after trial 2, no matches will be found ofcourse in trial
3,
4 and 5, so skip this info.
Original comment by rubyripp...@gmail.com
on 13 Nov 2006 at 10:30
I should clarify on having the cdparanoia / cdda2wav output in the log file.
Not the
whole thing but just the status lines; something like this:
Track 05, trial 01:
(== PROGRESS == [V +| 165075 00 ] == :^D * ==)
Track 05, trial 02:
(== PROGRESS == [V + +| 165075 00 ] == :^D * ==)
and so on. Maybe there is a better way to do it too.
Original comment by mordbr...@gmail.com
on 15 Nov 2006 at 7:00
I've rewritten a lot of relevant code to better match our wishes. The
cdparanoia
output isn't covered by this. Can you open a separate bug for that?
Original comment by rubyripp...@gmail.com
on 19 Nov 2006 at 1:33
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
mordbr...@gmail.com
on 9 Nov 2006 at 12:03Attachments: