|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: EAC/Lame THE ANSWER !!!RE: EAC/Lame THE ANSWER !!!
From: Fred Maxwell <rockbox_at_anti-spam.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:25:51 -0500 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se [mailto:owner-rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se] On > Behalf Of Jon Drukman > Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:58 PM > To: rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se > Subject: Re: EAC/Lame THE ANSWER !!! > > At 11:06 AM 12/21/2003, Brian King wrote: > >SteamShip wrote: > >>I may be wrong, but it appears that you are more dedicated to Linux than > >>you are to having high quality mp3's, so this discussion with you is > >>misplaced. I started this topic to speak to audiophiles, not Linux-only > >>computer users who happen to enjoy music as a sideline. > > > >Can someone explain to me how the choice of a DAE tool affects the > >resulting audio quality? I had thought that the DAE tool simply ripped > the > >bits off the CD and onto your hard disk. Different DAE tools may be > faster > >than others, but I don't understand how SQ is affected. > > http://www.xiph.org/paranoia/faq.html#play > > i think steamship is exaggerating the scope of the problem. with > reasonably clean cd's and a decent modern cd-rom drive these issues are > not > common. Steamship is not exaggerating the scope of the problem. With reasonably clean CDs and a good modern drive, EAC still detects and corrects errors on a high percentage of CDs. If there was no need for error detection and correction, then EAC would not have a huge following and its author would not have invested so many man-hours in its creation. 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? Regards, Fred Maxwell Received on 2003-12-22 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |