I mostly use Windows build in encoder to rip CD, just wonder does it make a diff in them of SQ using others like LAME. If yes, which encoder is best for SQ?
Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
I mostly use Windows build in encoder to rip CD, just wonder does it make a diff in them of SQ using others like LAME. If yes, which encoder is best for SQ?
Of course encoders encode things differently. Therefore, the output is different. The differences are extremely small and likely to be a hundred times less than the differences between amps and a hundred times again less significant than different pairs of headphones or earphones.
That said, a good encoder can provide proper material for you to use when listening. LAME is considered the gold standard and it's a safe bet in any case. But when the difference between lossless and 192Kbit/s aren't proven without a doubt to be hearable, it's not much to worry about.

Of course encoders encode things differently. Therefore, the output is different. The differences are extremely small and likely to be a hundred times less than the differences between amps and a hundred times again less significant than different pairs of headphones or earphones.
That said, a good encoder can provide proper material for you to use when listening. LAME is considered the gold standard and it's a safe bet in any case. But when the difference between lossless and 192Kbit/s aren't proven without a doubt to be hearable, it's not much to worry about.
LAME is considered the gold standard between MP3 encoders. If the OP was saying about WMA encoder, then things are becoming more complicated.
PS: I'm not an audiophile, but i hear the difference between lossless and MP3 (even if it is 320kbps) on the most of my CDs.