Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: EAC/Lame IS THE ANSWER
Re: EAC/Lame IS THE ANSWER
From: Michael O'Quinn <michael_at_oquinn.info>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:15:37 -0800 (PST)
I fixed the subject line so those following the thread can find this.
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, c s wrote:
> --- SteamShip <steamship_at_sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Don't listen to the others recommending a program
> > that you have to buy (no offense intended). The
> > above link is completely free
> What are you talking about? The only recomendations in
> this thread have been for free programs that just like
> EAC, also use the free Lame encoder. Since the thing
> that controlls the quality of the resulting MP3
> encoding is the thing that all the recomendations have
> in common... the Lame encoder, and the rest is just a
> user interface wrapped around that encoder, the smart
> thing to do is pick the one that matches your needs
> for features and ease of use. I found FreeRIP
> (http://www.mgshareware.com/frmmain.shtml) to be
> extremely powerful, easy to use, and packaged with
> everything needed in one download, in addition to
> being completely free.
> Since EAC seems to be extremely popular, I plan to
> take a look at that too now just in case it has some
> nifty feature that I didn't relize I might want. After
> I do that, if I discover that either FreeRIP or EAC
> has any significant differences or advantages in my
> opinion, I'll report that here so that others can
> decide on their own what might be best for their
I suspect the primary feature you will notice about EAC is the first word
of it's name: "Exact". AFAIK, it is the only CD Ripper that includes such
comprehensive error detection and recovery. I have put in CD's so
scratched and abused that any other ripping software would produce songs
so full of clicks, pops and other distortions as to be unlistenable by
even the worst standards. EAC was able to make a reasonably good copy,
and even told me where the likely trouble spots were in each song.
EAC is generally slower than most other rippers, but that is because it is
doing the error checking. (NOTE: It CAN be configured to be as fast as
the rest, but you lose the error detection and correction capability).
> The main point to remember is that when you have
> several choices that all use the Lame encoder, they
> all will give you the same quality encoding, so you
> should pick one that has the simplicity or complexity
> of user interface features that you desire.
Another thing I really like about EAC is that it CAN use the .EXE version
of lame. I have found this to be more configurable than the DLL version.
Not important for everyone, but I'm kind of a gadget freak, and I like to
twiddle and tweak the controls.
Received on 2003-12-20