Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: EAC/Lame THE ANSWER !!!
Re: EAC/Lame THE ANSWER !!!
From: Planet77 <planet77_at_gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:22:56 +0100
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Bright" <mark.bright_at_btopenworld.com>
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:53 PM
Subject: RE: EAC/Lame THE ANSWER !!!
> 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.
> ROUND THREE:
> As musicmatch completed the task in about 6 minutes, and EAC/LAME took 37
> CLEAR WINNER; MusicMatch.....
I ripped a musicfile from an audio cd, about 4 minutes in the highest quality
plus VBR2 (high quality, too) The file had a bitrate around 200 kbit/s.
It took about 3 minutes. I don't how it could be more than 30 minutes? I have a
Athlon XP 2000. Nothing special.
Perhaps you really have something wrong configured.
If you want I can tell what options I choose exactly.
Received on 2003-12-22