I think Muz's hearing aid is malfunctioning though
gioele
Muz, can you turn for a sec?
turn away
Muz
No, you just worded it like a fucking moron
See, two can play at the asshole game ;)
gioele
Muz, please. Hey, look there are some lovely moose around the corner :)
copper
meese?
Muz
None of the fingerprinting stuff is to do with MB, we developed it all ourselves
copper
mooses?
Muz
Further down the line we may tie Fingerprint data + our metadata to correct names, based on an import of MB data to our database
But that's further down the line
And the plural of moose is moose
gioele
because I fear that "wisdom of the crowd" does not apply to music tags
outsidecontex1 joined the channel
Muz
Depending on the music, it does. Given there are 24153 plays of Britney Spears - Toxic and a lot lot less of Britney Spears - Txoic or any variant thereof
gioele
At least it did not apply to my friends' collections before I introduced them to picard
well it could work for spelling errors.
Muz
It will work for anything as long as the audio is correct
That's the whole point of audio fingerprinting
You could have no tags at all, and it should be able to match up the track to the tags correctly
gioele
recognizing stuff will work for sure. I wonder if it will work good enough to create a collection of good quality track titles (U vs You, uppercase vs lowercase...)
outsidecontex1
muz: just not to the correct release, but that's another topic
Muz
outsidecontex1, actually, it could
gioele, well like I said, there'll be match ups of our data to MB moderated data
And also our own user moderated stuff, like we used to have 3 years ago
gioele
Muz: great, this should solve almost all the problems
Muz
outsidecontex1, the fingerprinter records album metadata, and seeing as tracks vary across releases in time, track number, album name, and in some cases the actual audio, this should work well
outsidecontex1
muz: but if you have a track with no tags at all, only his fingerprint, and the audio was extactly the same on two releases there is no way to match it correctly. or do i miss something?
Muz
outsidecontex1, well the data wouldn't be accepted as definitive based on the fingerprints alone, which is where the user moderated side of stuff comes in
Also, with time, given other people fingerprinting the same audio with more complete tags
gioele
outsidecontex1: we have the same prob with PUID-based tagging in picard
Muz
The first step is just to gather as much fingerprints as possible before committing any actual data changes based off of them
outsidecontex1
muz: ok, i get it. i think we were talking from slightly different things, i was only considering the matching against existing data not the supplying of this data.
gioele: i know, it's of course a general problem. i don't think there is a real solution for it-
gioele
outsidecontex1: context :)
outsidecontex1
:-)
gioele
I call it the "Tuttapposto" problem
I have an album Tuttapposto in its 16-track version
aCiD2 has quit
PUID search insist on selecting the 15-track version
so one track is always excluded by the scan/match mechanism
if picard could use some of the context it has ("look there are 16 tracks to be scanned....") the problem would go away
outsidecontex1
gioele: yes. i think there is even an open ticket requesting that. would be really nice :-)
gioele
On the other hand such a context-sensitive scan would cause problems with uses of picard like "here is my huge collection of file: tag it"
Muz: thanks for the explanation
nnakijdki has quit
outsidecontext has quit
trolloma1 has quit
outsidecontex1
outsidecontex1 is now known as outsidecontext
hawke has quit
Freso joined the channel
Freso
Cat?
Oh well then.
Freso has quit
drsaunde joined the channel
FauxFaux
warp: Not, at the moment. CatCat: What'd you like it to look like?
drsaunde
faux: It had better by shiny
FauxFaux
I could add pictures of ponies?
Maybe make it bright pink?
drsaunde
perhaps lavender
FauxFaux
Heh. No. :P A serious question, should /all/ trans*ated track-listings have the same cdtoc, or does that not happen?
brianfreud
FauxFaux: I'd say only if it's a pseudorelease should it be 100%
theoretically you could have a official release in Russia and a official one in the US, same release, different language/script, and perhaps not the same toc
outsidecontext has left the channel
FauxFaux
Hmm, yeah, I could expect that to happen, as much as it'd make me want to stab people. :p
Muz
Bright pink :D
Muz has a bright pink kazoo on his desk
mnakinnoe joined the channel
CatCat
dumme freso, i stepped outside for liek a sec and ofcourse he dropped in to ask of me the bit I was out, ugh, satay more thna a sec next time :P
muz: pictures!
FauxFaux: huh?
wat look like who?
outsidecontext joined the channel
ojnkpjg
canidae, ping
canidae
pong, sort of. i'm eating dinner & watching simpsons in a minute, but i'll check in every now & then
i guess i need to dig into exactly what those bytes near the end of the file are
canidae
yeah
CatCat
ugh ENOUGH with the ean/paranoia7whatcamafuripping
canidae
i've done some testing today myself with ripping badly damaged cds
getting weird results myself
ojnkpjg
never tried much with damaged cds
i'm completely anal about storing my cds :/
i keep them in mylar sleeves
canidae
burned a cd, dragged it around on the floor, dusted it off and put it in the drive
CatCat
FauxFaux: what i meant was that the report iself is pretty slick and i dig it
ojnkpjg
that'd make me afraid of hurting my drive
CatCat
the amounts of dupliated data made me cry
ojnkpjg
i found a plexwriter pro on clearance somewhere and picked it up very cheaply
canidae
ripped with cdex, got some errors and a really nasty audible error in the middle of the song, but except for that it was ~flawless
CatCat
something tells me that if software is *hurting* hardware you shouldnt be usign said software
ojnkpjg
catcat, i meant i'd be afraid dirt or similar were on the cd
and would muck up the drive
CatCat
also what are you guys *doing* with your discs? using them as costers for dinks or what?
canidae
ripped it with eac and the really nasty audible error wasn't there, and the rest was just like cdex
FauxFaux
CatCat: Aha, okay. :) The page isn't particularily pretty anyway, but I couldn't find anything that hurt my eyes less, I was wondering if you had suggestions.
canidae
so i ripped it again with cdex and the nasty audible error was gone, producing same output as eac
ojnkpjg
i'd like to dig into this more when i have some free time
i really would like to produce something that is as good as EAC that doesn't need windows
CatCat
fauxy: useful woudø be a 'merge' link
ojnkpjg
found some pretty good info
CatCat
but that woudl have to have args for all the dupes aid
wich in the xase of 4 discs wcoudl get.. ug hard?
FauxFaux
CatCat: (Afaik) there's no way to link directly to a merge-both page. I'll have a look. :/
ojnkpjg
cdparanoia is pretty close, but it doesn't do gap detection yet, and it can't figure out the correct read offset correction
cdrdao will do gap detection already, so code can be reused from there
and there's code floating around to pull read offset from the accuraterip db
MrPloddy29 joined the channel
canidae
ojnkpjg: well, i damaged the cd even further, ripping now takes 3-4 hours
ojnkpjg
and code to calculate the accuraterip checksum for comparison
hehe
canidae
first round cdparanoia won, but i cranked up the settings on eac a bit to give it another go
ojnkpjg
i'm more interested in the case where the cd is in pretty much mint condition
i'd like to get a libparanoia based app to the point where it agrees with plextools pro (and eac)
i'd trust the former more
but i've never seen differences with undamaged discs
copper
ojnkpjg: did you use the -O switch with cdparanoia (sample offset)?
ojnkpjg
yep
copper
btw Rubyripper is being developped as a replacement to EAC under unix
ojnkpjg
i've heard of it, but i've never checked it out
and i don't know ruby
but i guess it's probably learnable in an afternooon