Rockbox.org home
release
dev builds
extras
themes manual
wiki
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
patches
dev guide



Rockbox mail archive

Subject: RE: EAC/Lame THE ANSWER !!!
From: Mark Bright (mark.bright_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 2003-12-22


OK, since it has been the subject of MUCH debate over the last few days, I
thought I would give EAC/LAME another go.

Last time I used it, it did work EXCEPTIONALLY well, but was really
difficult to configure etc. I tried the new version yesterday; ripping one
track that I know quite well, from a CD that I rate highly for quality
reproduction, with both Musicmatch and EAC/LAME giving 160kbps VBR files.

Both of the resulting files were then a) copied to my Jukebox, and b) Burnt
to CD.

ROUND ONE:
I listened first of all on my HiFi system, and there was a subtle, but
noticable difference in the two. EAC claimed a win there, and if that was
the main object of my MP3 collection there would be no contest. However if
I want to listen on the HiFi, I would play the original CD; there is an even
more subtle but equally noticable difference between the original and the
EAC rip. OK, higher bit rates would minimise the gap, but then I would have
bigger files, and would need a bigger HDD to hold them.

I know some of you have different reasons etc. and would claim this as a win
for EAC. But for me it is a draw - Neither is good enough to replace the
original CD, at what I have defined for personal use, a suitable bitrate /
filesize

ROUND TWO:
I then listened on the Jukebox with the two tracks in a playlist of two
files, random play enabled, to try and minimise any bias. Try as I might, I
could find no difference between the two files. Both sounded good enough to
listen to out walking; in a noisy office at lunchtime; on the bus; etc.

Another drawn round

ROUND THREE:
As musicmatch completed the task in about 6 minutes, and EAC/LAME took 37
minutes...

CLEAR WINNER; MusicMatch.....

Again, I stress this is based on Personal circumstances - For me, Music
match is good enough, and quick enough to give me files I want, at a speed I
like, at a quality that's good ENOUGH fo ME.

If you are after the BEST POSSIBLE QUALITY, on a WINDOWS PLATFORM, and FILE
SIZE / SPEED is not important then EAC/LAME is the way to go, but it will
not be the BEST RIPPER for every user...

Mark

|-----Original Message-----
|From: owner-rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se
|[mailto:owner-rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se] On Behalf Of Brian King
|Sent: 22 December 2003 18:10
|To: rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se
|Subject: Re: EAC/Lame THE ANSWER !!!
|
|Fred Maxwell wrote:
|
|> Jon asks 'why use it'? I have a better question: Why not use it?
|> Why run the risk that errors will creep into your rips? EAC is free
|> and practically guarantees error-free ripping. Why use
|anything else?



Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew
aaa