From: Fred Maxwell <rockbox_at_anti-spam.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:40:51 -0500

Mark wrote:
> 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.
{snip}
> As musicmatch completed the task in about 6 minutes, and EAC/LAME took 37
> minutes...

Whoa! 37 minutes to rip and encode one song? Are you using a 33mhz 486?
As a test, I just ripped and encoded an entire CD in 13 minutes and 30
seconds. That was 13 tracks over 55 minutes in total length and the
encoding I used was the --preset extreme setting. Had I used a lesser
setting of LAME (say 160kbps CBR), the whole thing would have been done in
just over 7 minutes.

While I appreciate the effort you went to in order to conduct a fair test,
you only used one song from one CD. The beauty of EAC is its ability to do
error-free rips. If the one song you selected read pretty much error-free
anyway, then EAC would offer no real advantage on that song. A skydiving
analogy: You do two jumps, one with a backup chute and one without. Both
jumps go fine and you conclude that the backup chute, which doubles the size
and weight of your backpack, just isn't worthwhile.

Regards,
  Fred Maxwell
Received on 2003-12-22