Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Check a russian .log file (Read 13063 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Check a russian .log file

What app or website tool can I use to check a .log file ? I want specially check a .log file (to see if it´s 100%, 80% or what) that´s on Russian language, but want to know how to check a english log too.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #1 –
Quote from: dunego on
What app or website tool can I use to check a .log file ? I want specially check a .log file (to see if it´s 100%, 80% or what) that´s on Russian language, but want to know how to check a english log too.


If you want help on issues like this, a good piece of advice would probably be that you explain where you got it from -- otherwise, lots of readers who could maybe have helped, will just assume you want to verify the content of some illegal download.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #2 –
It'd be nice to understand what he's talking about.  This is in the Lossless / Other Codecs forum.

Is there some lossless codec that generates a log in Russian?

AFAICT it better be 100% or it isn't lossless, or are we talking about a compression ratio, in which case 80% isn't all that great unless you're trying to compress Merzbow or something.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #3 –
Perhaps he is referring to this.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #4 –
"Interpreting Flac´s Log file"

Brilliant find, pdq!



EDIT: Oh, that was by the same poster.  I didn't know that there's a Russian version of flac that generates logs.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Porcus on
Quote from: dunego on
What app or website tool can I use to check a .log file ? I want specially check a .log file (to see if it´s 100%, 80% or what) that´s on Russian language, but want to know how to check a english log too.


If you want help on issues like this, a good piece of advice would probably be that you explain where you got it from -- otherwise, lots of readers who could maybe have helped, will just assume you want to verify the content of some illegal download.


Ok. Obviously is a download. Not a illegal download, since the CD isn't available commercially. It´s a rare independent PROMO CD, from Japanese dub-reggae band released only 500 copies of it, distributed for free in their shows in 1993.

Quote from: greynol on
Is there some lossless codec that generates a log in Russian?


Yes sir:

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/...anslations-eac/


Quote from: pdq on
Perhaps he is referring to this.


No.

I´m referring to what I´m referring to.


BTW I putted on the 'Other Codecs' subforum cause it´s a .ape rip. My bad, sorry. Should have been posted somewhere else.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #6 –
>I´m referring to what I´m referring to.
You never made it clear to what it was that you were referring.

Since when was Exact Audio Copy a lossless codec?

Anyway, here are a couple of links for you to follow:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://eachelper.uphero.com/translatehtml.php

Check a russian .log file

Reply #7 –
OK, you have an EAC log file for extraction, and you have an .ape file with .cue or a set of individual .ape files. You want to know whether the .ape is the same as was ripped by EAC, or if someone has transcoded it to lossy and back to .ape before sharing.

So what you need, apart from the log translator Greynol refers you to, is a program which can read .ape files and return checksum. Foobar2000 (with plugin) can do so, using the Utilities -> Verify Integrity. And do read his other link too.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #8 –
Quote from: dunego on
Not a illegal download, since the CD isn't available commercially.

No, this is not true. Whether something is or isn't available commercially, doesn't tell anything about the legality of a download. Another straw horse for the pirates? By your definition, a leaked, not yet commercially available album would be completely legal to download if you find one.. this is just one example.. there are lots more.


EDIT: @Porcus: How do you know that the EAC log is not tampered?

Check a russian .log file

Reply #9 –
Quote from: dunego on
Ok. Obviously is a download. Not a illegal download, since the CD isn't available commercially. It´s a rare independent PROMO CD, from Japanese dub-reggae band released only 500 copies of it, distributed for free in their shows in 1993.

This is a moral argument, not a legal one. Is the group authorizing free copy and distribution of these tracks? I would be surprised.

Anyway: an EAC log is a plain text file. It can be forged or modified with Notepad. You'll never know if it's genuine or if some line has been deleted or modified. There's no point analyzing a log file coming from a warez source.

@Akkurat: you were faster than me.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #10 –
Not to go off-topic but it can be a legal and moral argument.  Copy protected material is still copy protected whether you can legally obtain it or not.  That still doesn't make obtaining the material from non-authorized sources legally or morally right.  Some countries have different laws though (or ones that aren't enforced such as not being allowed to carry pretzels in an bag in Philadelphia, PA or the prohibition of the sale of bologna on a Sunday in Tennessee) so the legal portion can go out the proverbial window.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #11 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
Copy protected material

This holds for copyrighted material as well, which may or may not be copy protected.

It's funny that we would bring up morality.  At first I'm thinking that the morality of it doesn't matter and then I thought, what if this guy just lied and said he wanted to check through his personal rips to make sure they're OK.  Surely you guys would bend over backwards to help.  Anyway, just some nonsensical pondering.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=521592

Check a russian .log file

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Akkurat on
No, this is not true. Whether something is or isn't available commercially, doesn't tell anything about the legality of a download. Another straw horse for the pirates? By your definition, a leaked, not yet commercially available album would be completely legal to download if you find one.. this is just one example.. there are lots more.


EDIT: @Porcus: How do you know that the EAC log is not tampered?



Good points, both -- I'll get to the latter. In my jurisdiction (geographically not that far from yours ...), making copies for personal uses used to be legal. Pretty much everyone has tons of legally downloaded mp3s. Nowadays it is a prerequisite that the specimen you copied from, is legally available to you, and uploading to a publicly available source is considered public distribution (hence, restricted). That means that if both uploader and server are in a fairly lawless jurisdiction, you can download. It is not clear what is the situation if only one of uploader and server is.

And the (in)famous allofmp3 site is/was legal in Russia (they were taken to court and they won). There are still such vendors like that around, which brings me to your question to me: This gives a commecial incentive to transcode from lossy and fake an EAC log.

Just in case someone would ask "why?". Unless you actually gain something from faking a log, you would be inclined to trust it, as it would be much easier not to include any such than faking it -- but there are cases where someone could actually have a business opportunity of distributing something in a lossless format even if transcoded from lossy.


The IANAL disclaimer applies.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #13 –
Germany has some seemingly strange rules about a lot of things.

While I believe the copyright laws are (about) equal to those of other western nations, the nation has many laws which apparently (IMO) contradict the notions of free speech and artistic expression befitting a democracy. For example: the Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien (Federal Office for Media Deemed Harmful to Children...loosely) has made it impossible for even adults to buy video games and music deemed too violent by its institution. (Seriously...if you're legally an adult you must "semi-legally" buy almost all First-Person Shooters from Austria if you want a German-language edition.)

There are more than a few death metal-type bands who are on the "index." Certain albums are not allowed to be played or performed in public...even to an adult audience.

I could rattle on ad nauseam about similar things but my point is this: I believe we are all uniquely and individually responsible to make "moral" decisions IMO We are all aware of TOS #9 and I don't believe that the OP broke this rule with his/her post. If we hound him/her as to his/her sources, I believe, we are just baiting and trying to get him/her to admit that he or she is a "pirate" or whatever. I don't see where the OP has made any light of infringing on copy-protected materials.

It's one thing to warn people so as they don't misunderstand the rules of this forum. It keeps honest people honest, so to speak. I don't want to be involved in a witch-hunt. Having plenty of law-enforcement background, I still respect others rights and the extent of my "jurisdiction."

I would like to propose an interesting question to all: how many HA members who obviously use apps like CUETools are using such apps to verify their own rips? Please don't answer...it's hypothetical, speculative, and counter-baiting 

...but anyway: greynol's link to eachelper should completely solve your perceived problem. Use CUETools if you need a new log that's verified against the database. CUETools (and others here mentioned) will handle properly converting APE to the now more common FLAC.
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #14 –
Quote from: Engelsstaub on
I would like to propose an interesting question to all: how many HA members who obviously use apps like CUETools are using such apps to verify their own rips?

Maybe I didn't understand what you tried to convey (CUETools is used only to verify illegal stuff?), but as long as EAC (and other rippers?) doesn't have AccurateRip checking across offsets/pressings, CUETools is certainly used to verify own rips.

Quote from: Engelsstaub on
Use CUETools if you need a new log that's verified against the database.

Are you aware that this doesn't verify whether the files are lossless or not? (I believe that this is what the OP is after) The point is that if you download something, CUETools nor EAC logs can't "verify" the files.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #15 –
Quote from: Akkurat on
Are you aware that this doesn't verify whether the files are lossless or not? (I believe that this is what the OP is after) The point is that if you download something, CUETools nor EAC logs can't "verify" the files.

Hmmm. I thought that was one of the things that Cuetools did - check your ripped lossless files against the AR database. Or do you mean that the AR database might only contain results from the rerip of a burned lossy CD?

Check a russian .log file

Reply #16 –
If you download a FLAC album encoded from lossy source and check it against AR DB, the only thing that you're checking is that it matches the original "lossy FLAC" AR submit. Nothing more! A proper lossless rip of that same album, if it was submitted, is under a different AccurateRip ID. Again, if you download something, CUETools nor EAC logs can't "verify" the files as lossy/lossless. You get what you pay for.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #17 –
Quote from: Akkurat on
Quote from: Engelsstaub on
I would like to propose an interesting question to all: how many HA members who obviously use apps like CUETools are using such apps to verify their own rips?

Maybe I didn't understand what you tried to convey (CUETools is used only to verify illegal stuff?), but as long as EAC (and other rippers?) doesn't have AccurateRip checking across offsets/pressings, CUETools is certainly used to verify own rips.

Quote from: Engelsstaub on
Use CUETools if you need a new log that's verified against the database.

Are you aware that this doesn't verify whether the files are lossless or not? (I believe that this is what the OP is after) The point is that if you download something, CUETools nor EAC logs can't "verify" the files.


I believe that's what he means, Ouroboros.

Yes, Akkurat, it has occurred to me that one using a program like CUETools could get results back from transcoded rips. I tried comparing an MP3 transcode-to-WAV to the actual lossless WAV file more than a few times. It seems most (but certainly not all) of the time one can differentiate even a high-quality MP3 from their own lossless rip by looking at a spectogram.

Yes, I know that CUETools can be used for "legitimate" reasons. I use it for such, but very seldomly. There's little need to verify my own rips in my own mind. I'm just making the assumption (as some are assuming right away that OP is a pirate...like it's their business) that the vast majority use it for verifying other people's rips. In such a case, I believe it's not too probable (especially if AR returns 30+ matches) that they'll be comparing their pirated materials against similar transcodes.

(BTW: I really do need to get around to checking out REACT. Sounds interesting  )
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #18 –
Quote from: Engelsstaub on
I'm just making the assumption (as some are assuming right away that OP is a pirate...like it's their business) that the vast majority use it for verifying other people's rips. In such a case, I believe it's not too probable (especially if AR returns 30+ matches) that they'll be comparing their pirated materials against similar transcodes.

I use it for verifying my own rips..... but only under a particular set of circumstances. I'm ripping my parents' CD collection so they can stream it around the house and put it on iPods - it seemed like a good Christmas gift. They don't have an Internet connection, so I can't get AR data to confirm my rips as I'm doing them. Consequently I use EAC test and copy to help identify any glaring read errors, then I check the rips properly with CueTools when I get home, before converting to MP3.

Now, I'm not sure how common that is as a workflow, but it is a legitimate use of CueTools, and if I get an AR match I can be fairly certain that I'm unlikely to be matching a pirated lossy-lossless recode - but only because I started with a (hopefully) genuine CD.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #19 –
Fair enough. 

You shouldn't have to justify your use of CUETools if you don't wish to. I was just trying to stick up for the OP in that I don't believe his initial post warranted some of the  criticism and judgment here. It just seemed like interrogation to me.

Even if he had initially said "I just downloaded..." we shouldn't be concluding that he did so illegally. I can think of more than a few releases that are legitimately available through torrent distribution. Nine Inch Nails' The Slip is just one.

(I think it's cool that you're doing that for your parents. The work involved is valuable...especially to your elders who probably would struggle with such tasks. Kudos for that.)
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #20 –
Quote from: Porcus on
If you want help on issues like this, a good piece of advice would probably be that you explain where you got it from -- otherwise, lots of readers who could maybe have helped, will just assume you want to verify the content of some illegal download.

Quote from: Engelsstaub on
Even if he had initially said "I just downloaded..." we shouldn't be concluding that he did so illegally.

Well, I'm kind of of the mind that if it walks like a duck and swims like a duck, I don't have to wait for it to quack like a duck before deciding what to call it. (Pardon the liberties I just took with that expression.)

However, I also feel feel strongly that questions like these—about formats, audio quality, transcode detection, splitting/joining, tagging, cue sheets, logs, and so on—even if they aren't entirely "innocent" in context, can and should be answered without trying to get the poster to admit to some questionable activity. TOS #9 doesn't seem to forbid such asking or answering questions, even if the poster fully admits to copyright infringement, as long as no one's asking or saying how to infringe or circumvent copy protection, or referencing any infringement-facilitating venues.*

What seems to happen is that some of the regulars here just can't resist the urge to reply to such questions before they've ascertained whether they really want to help the person. They start answering, but at the same time, they probe to see if they might have a reason to not answer and/or to be upset at the person for asking. Then they get all resentful when they find out the person's question likely was related to pirated music—as if by participating in the thread, they're aiding & abetting the pirates, and are thus guilty of some moral or legal transgression themselves, or maybe are just feeling icky about having accidentally helped someone they feel superior to. They channel their disappointment and/or irritation into public humiliation of the OP and refusing to help any further, if not shutting down the discussion entirely.

I understand this point of view and feel it's certainly our prerogative; we can post or lurk...help or not help...turn a blind eye or go "tsk tsk". But it really does seem like a pointless exercise to always be looking for a reason to be unhelpful, if not also contrary to the spirit of the forum. If you need to deem someone worthy of your assistance before you help them understand some nuance of audio technology, maybe your time is better spent only participating in discussions and activities where you're actually willing to be helpful all the time, rather than just some of the time. I've taken my own advice on this matter several times and found it's really better for everyone.

* (If that interpretation of TOS #9 is incorrect, then a separate discussion should be undertaken about revising its phrasing.)

Check a russian .log file

Reply #21 –
Your interpretation of TOS#9 is correct, mjb2006.

I have stated quite clearly that I am not interested in helping people with music that has been illegally distributed just as I normally not interested in helping people who can easily help themselves by searching our forum or the web if it's more appropriate.  If someone asks for advice about integrity, I will give the most obvious: buy the CD; provided that I feel the advice best fits the situation.

I would prefer that this forum doesn't turn into the one-stop-shop for pirates who aren't keen enough to figure things out for themselves and am more than happy to see people with such intentions turned away.

Those that may take offense to this post might consider if it is due to a guilty conscience; for those who are innocent and take offense, then I will gladly apologize for their lacking thick skin.

FWIW, just about every question a person might ask regarding the quality/integrity of illegally distributed music has been asked and answered on this forum, already.  People interested can search.  I see little need for redundant conversation.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #22 –
Quote from: mjb2006 on
What seems to happen is that some of the regulars here just can't resist the urge to reply to such questions before they've ascertained whether they really want to help the person. They start answering, but at the same time, they probe to see if they might have a reason to not answer and/or to be upset at the person for asking. Then they get all resentful when they find out the person's question likely was related to pirated music—as if by participating in the thread, they're aiding & abetting the pirates, and are thus guilty of some moral or legal transgression themselves, or maybe are just feeling icky about having accidentally helped someone they feel superior to. They channel their disappointment and/or irritation into public humiliation of the OP and refusing to help any further, if not shutting down the discussion entirely.

Exactly. Noticed same irritation in my short life here - more by those replies then clumsy noob questions which can make me laugh. I appreciate curiosity, and if I like the question and know the answer I would provide it to anyone (under TOS of course), but also think that most 'illegal downloaders' aren't that naive to post stupid questions about their illegal activity, if they need answer.

What follows? Usual replies by same members most of the time, and I wonder don't they feel bored typing those same replies as I feel reading them and know they are arrogantly ruining the thread, or maybe they experience it as some kind of cleansing act!? If you don't have answer or don't want to answer because you suspect the poster is involved in some illegal activity just carry on - be busy doing whatever you are doing, after all we can't possibly know that you aren't doing the same. For other concerns Moderators exists, let them decide if thread needs closing

Check a russian .log file

Reply #23 –
Quote from: greynol on
I would prefer that this forum doesn't turn into...

It doesn't seem to be working. When interest in a reputable forum's topics is on the rise, but reliable, organized, well-written, detailed information about those topics is still hard to come by, there's an ever-increasing rush of moths to the flame. It's flattering, in a way. But I don't think there's any way to really stop it without closing off the forum or finding other ways to get the info out. Until then, we pay the price: once, it could taken for granted that most everyone posting had a base level of competence and no ulterior motives, but now there's an influx of invaders who contribute nothing and just post to acquire one piece of info that they'll immediately exploit in some other venue.

I used to be very active on some computer programming forums, but eventually my inner exclamations of "Oh! I know the answer to this one!" and "I bet a lot of people could benefit from my clever solution to this common problem!" gave way to things like "Why am I doing this kid's schoolwork for him?" and "I think they outsourced my old job to this idiot." That's when I knew it was time to focus on less frustrating ways of making myself useful.

Check a russian .log file

Reply #24 –
mjp2006 and others:

"Should I care to help"? The usual "can someone help me verify" poster is probably not too satisfied with Greynol answering "buy the CD", but it might very well be that the forum is. (Simplifying "the forum" down to a single opinion is of course wrong, but you get my drift.) Of course, always answering "buy the CD" and then turning the blind eye, means that a fair deal of questions related to non-downloaded files remain unanswered (for example, retro-verifying against different pressings blah blah blah).

One -- IMHO -- more ideal situation is that anyone starting a thread which could be interpreted as asking for help we don't want to give, is responsible for qualifying that this is a more accepted issue. Pretty much like a few of us don't even open "HELP ME WITH THIS!!!!!" threads, where the user doesn't bother to help us sort between "worth reading" and "not worth reading".


"accepted" here does not necessarily mean "legal", "TOS-compliant" or whatever; a forum might formalize into rules e.g. "Moderators will close threads without descriptive subject", "Do not ask for help on how to be criminal", "Don't post porn, we don't want the bad PR", "Don't hotlink from here, we don't want the traffic". Others will provide a FAQ trying to teach users how the forum works. Others will simply presume that the users we care about are not that dumb, and the dumb ones do not completely destroy the signal to noise ratio. Regardless of what is put into rules, I think it is wise to think of the "walk like a duck" rule as a more fuzzy rule-of-thumb:

Frogs are kissed here. If you quack duckish, bring and show your photo ID.