|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: EAC/Lame THE ANSWER !!!RE: EAC/Lame THE ANSWER !!!
From: Mark Bright <mark.bright_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:53:40 -0000 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? Received on 2003-12-22 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |