Rockbox mail archive
Subject: RE: EAC/Lame THE ANSWER !!!
Please, Please, Please let this drop.
It is way off topic here and reaching incredible heights of pointlessness!!!
Your tests prove nothing, since you prepared the files and you evaluated
them with your equipment and your ears. This may be satisfying to you,
but it does not provide any other person with usable information.
I don't mean to pick on you. I could have written this reply any time in
the past three days to whichever one had posted last.
Since LAME and EAC cannot run under Rockbox, and since Linux and Windows
cannot run on an Archos, this entire topic has no place here.
Please let it die, die, die.
> 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
> 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)
> 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
> I want to listen on the HiFi, I would play the original CD; there is an
> 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
> 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
> 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 /
> 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,
> could find no difference between the two files. Both sounded good enough
> 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
> 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
> like, at a quality that's good ENOUGH fo ME.
> If you are after the BEST POSSIBLE QUALITY, on a WINDOWS PLATFORM, and
> SIZE / SPEED is not important then EAC/LAME is the way to go, but it will
> not be the BEST RIPPER for every user...
> |-----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