Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: EAC/Lame THE ANSWER !!!
Re: EAC/Lame THE ANSWER !!!
From: SteamShip <steamship_at_sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 15:35:38 -0500
It only made sense to >snip< all that posting, and I apologize for any part
my comments have played in causing a flame war. That was honestly not my
intention. It only made sense to me among a group such as this Email list
highly dedicated to software that gives the best audio performance to be
also using the best mp3's to start with, and I had not seen EAC/Lame
I could have made similar comparisons in discussing the best high end
Sennheiser (HD-600) vs Grado SR225/325 Headphones, or the Etymotic E4s/4p
vs. Sure E5c
I simply cannot believe that people would judge a program's value on the
basis of it working on Linux or being open source. The issue of spyware or
some other malicious code would have been exposed by the huge number of
users and supporters by now, so that suggestion just made you sound silly.
If you spend the time actually reading a number of audiophile websites that
are only focussed on finding the best hardware and software to give the
highest quality sound performance, you will have no question on EAC/Lame
being the best with CDex a close 2nd choice.
If you want to listen to the highest quality music you need to adapt to the
hardware, OS, & programs that do it best.
This is the heart of why we are using the Archos with Rockbox and dealing
with a FAT32 format. It is why I do some things on a Linux system, other
things on a .NET platform, other things on XP Pro. I could bitch about the
inferiority of any OS, hardware, or software application's
shortcomings....or just look at what end result do I want, and what is the
best way to get there.
To be honest, with the hardware investment I have made to date, even if
Rockbox were to cost $30, or EAC $50, I would have bought them because they
are a means to having the best end result.
Received on 2003-12-20