Re: [Libcdio-devel] CD-Text patches

[Leon Merten Lohse]

Hi,

As you noticed, my example is a little ... special ;)

On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:14:35AM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Has this been tested with an audio CD player ?

No. I don't have one ;)

> Does it show both languages correctly ?
> (Especially the "First track" number 2 is suspicious. See below.)
> 
> 
> > You were right. There are only 3 BLOCKSIZE Packs in total.
> 
> Hm. I see two groups of 0x8f. One after each block.

Something must have been wrong with my eyes.

> There is a trailing 0. The file has 613 bytes after storing by my
> mail client. (gzip before attaching to mail would keep the mail
> handlers from tampering with the content.)

The trailing 0 is actually correct according to the spec and was caused
by the Sony tool. I will alter libcdios code to compensate it.

> "Drei Wochen war der Frosch so krank,
>  jetzt raucht er wieder. Gott sei Dank."
>                          (Wilhelm Busch)
> 
> Interpreting the first group of 0x8f according to my theories:
Your theory seems very right. I will attach the cleartext input file.

> Why is the number of the first track 2 and not 1 ?
> Did you cause this by input to the Sony tool ?

Yes. I did it on purpose.

> Now for the second 0x8f group:

Correct again.
This should have also answered the copyright question.
0x00: No Copyright on CD-TEXT
0x03: CD-TEXT is copyrighted

> 
> Again, the start track is 2. Riddling ...

Should have told you ;)

> Open questions:

> - What input caused these two Disc Identification packs ?
>     11 : 86 00 0b 00  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  2 6b 5d
>     12 : 86 00 0c 0c 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 2f 0c
My input was 1..(10 0s)...2. The second Pack was necessary for the
trailing 0x00.
> 
> - Why does the copyright byte differ in both 0x8f groups ?

Because of my input. I wanted to test how independent the Blocks are.

> 
> - Why does cdtext.cdt from libcdio show with pack type 0x87 a
> duplication
>   of the two bytes "00 1b" in each pack
>     34 : 87 00 22 00 00 1b  A  n  i  m  a  l     S  o  u ed 40
>     35 : 87 00 23 0a 00 1b  n  d  z 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 b6 f1
>   whereas the new example frog.cdt has cleartext at the payload start
>   of
>   the second pack
>     29 : 87 00 0b 10 00 07  F  r  o  g     C  o  u  n  t 36 ad
>     30 : 87 00 0c 1a  r  y 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 5d f8
>   ?

This is an issue. Either the standard is unspecific or on the the two
examples violates it. CDRWIN or Sony: Which one is to trust?
We should be able to compensate for this on the parser side though.
But you have to make a decision for libburn ;)

What I don't understand is why there are not DISC_ID fields. I inputted
some garbage for them.

Regards
Leon

FROG.TXT
Description: Text document

FROSCH.TXT
Description: Text document