[Signal2Noise]

Normally I use EAC & LAME to rip my CDs before transferring to iTunes and Zune. Today I was experimenting with the MP3 encoder in Nero 8 because I'm finding EAC to be rather slow on my Vista64 systems (which I'm usually on) compared to my older WinXP machine. While the Nero encoder is much faster I'm seeing some inaccuracies in the mp3 file info when in iTunes.

For example:

SongX ripped with EAC/LAME (V0, target 256kbps) in iTunes

Size: 9.2MB
Bitrate: 243kbps (VBR)
Time: 5:16

SongX ripped with Nero 8 Rip & Burn V0 VBR in iTunes

Size: 5.9MB
Bitrate: 32kbps
Time: 25:37 (!!)

Audio-wise the two sound the same from a non-analytical perspective. Just the info seems off. I would use Nero based on speed but the geek in me also wants accurate mp3 file info.

Anyone aware of this?

 

[ManAtWork]

Why use LAME as you can choose loseless option in contrast with the iTune? If you want to have better music files for iTune, avoid to use destructive compression option like mp3 even LAME is the best.

 

[Signal2Noise]

That's not what the discussion is intended to be about. All i'm curious about is the differences between the two MP3 files and how iTunes interprets them.

The intent of the MP3 format is for transfer to my DAPs. I am quite aware of Lossless and that's the next step when I have free time to start re-ripping my 900+ CD library.