Re: [Gwc-general] Invalid cdrdao toc file

[jeff w. <we...@ya...>]

Hi Brian,

I didn't get any new toc files in your message...

I have tried both methods for creating the toc files, and it works perfectly for me.


Are the differences you are seeing less than 588 samples?  If so, that is expected because of the restriction that cdrdao tracks have to be multiples of audio blocks in length.


Jeff



________________________________
 From: Brian Burch <br...@pi...>
To: "gwc...@li..." <gwc...@li...> 
Sent: Monday, April 9, 2012 2:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Gwc-general] Invalid cdrdao toc file
 
On 08/04/12 23:36, jeff welty wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> Thanks very much for the more detailed info. I was able to reproduce the
> problem, and it is one nasty bug. I guess everyone must've switched over
> to using the song marker pairs. BTW, the marker pairs idea allows you to
> have gaps between songs, some lead-in audio (like when the the needle
> hits the vinyl ;-) ), and some trail out audio. It gives you more
> control on what segments of audio you want to appear on the CD tracks.
>
> Another bit of important trivia, audio tracks must be integral numbers
> of audio blocks, which are 588 samples in length, so if you are doing
> math with song markers, you'll find small differences because GWC will
> create the cdrdao file with the track lengths to the nearest audio block.
>
> I have patched up the markers.c source code, and it is attached.

Sorry to bring bad news, Jeff, but I have just built and tested your new 
source module. It looks to me as if you have nearly fixed the bug, but 
there is still a bit more to do.

It seems to me that you haven't disabled the marker pair "track 
separator logic" and so the toc is not inclusive of every sample...

i.e. start_track_n+1 != (start_track_n + length_track_n)

Here is the toc built by your new code using the same wav and .gwc file 
as my test files below. You should compare it to the toc I built by hand 
to see what I think ought to be the "right answer".

I won't start debugging your code unless you are too busy to do it 
yourself - I am sure you are so familiar with it you'll come up with a 
fix in a fraction of the time it would take me!

Regards,

Brian