Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.stack.nl!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Willem <willem@turtle.stack.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.compression
Subject: Re: PAR2 question
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 23:16:20 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Stack Usenet News Service
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <slrnjffbm4.12ht.willem@turtle.stack.nl>
References: <fb5b85b9-daae-4a0e-b375-de8fa57be53a@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: turtle.stack.nl
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: mud.stack.nl 1324854980 95288 2001:610:1108:5010::132 (25 Dec 2011 23:16:20 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@stack.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 23:16:20 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (FreeBSD)
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.compression:663

Industrial One wrote:
) I am using Quickpar and have experimented by manually damaging a WAV
) file to test the limits of PAR2. Obviously, at some point it refuses
) to repair as it needs one more block. Why can it not just repair the
) damaged file as much as it can?
)
) It would be far more preferable to have 99% of the original song/video
) clip than only 80% because QuickPar bitches about the file being one
) bit too damaged for it to do anything.

Because that's how the underlying mathematics work.

SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT