Best Encoding Software
Nov 18, 2004 at 12:49 AM Post #31 of 53

Zemo

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 16, 2003
Posts
940
Likes
0
Yes, it's the error correction. multi-read, disableing the buffer, not relying on C2 correction, read offset, all results in a bit-perfect rip to your hard drive.

-Z

Quote:

Originally Posted by crimsonadam
What aspects of EAC make is superior to CDEX, in that you wouldn't just use CDEX all the time.

(that wording sounds kind of snotty, but its certainly not meant to be)



 
Nov 18, 2004 at 2:07 AM Post #32 of 53

apnk

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 20, 2004
Posts
3,596
Likes
11
Hey i was using EAC and i have it set to Alt Preset Standard and options for a beginner. The bitrate was set to 192 vbr, but on the cd i ripped Windows Media says the song is 517kbps, my Dell DJ says 320kbps (same song), and Dudebox explorer says 217kbps(Same song). WHats going on?
 
Nov 18, 2004 at 2:18 AM Post #33 of 53

Scrith

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 14, 2004
Posts
969
Likes
39
Location
Redwood City, CA
Yes, the "advantage" of CDEX is only on CDs that are just so damaged that there is no way to rip them perfectly using EAC (a rare occurence for me). In this case EAC will take forever and eventually give up (at least with the paranoid settings I usually use). CDEX will rip it, errors and all, at a pretty high speed.

Again...I always rip using EAC. It's just that once in a great while, for a CD I've had floating around in my car for a few years for example, EAC can't rip a damaged CD...for those, CDEX comes in handy (although, if it's a CD I really like, I'll usually end up buying a new copy so I can rip it perfectly with EAC).
 
Nov 18, 2004 at 3:00 AM Post #34 of 53

scottder

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 4, 2002
Posts
3,485
Likes
17
Scrith that depends very much how EAC and CDex are set up. for me the opposite is true...I use CDex for clean CDs an EAC for scratched.
 
Dec 3, 2004 at 6:16 PM Post #39 of 53

Kurt

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 21, 2004
Posts
1,033
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus
how come only wav files come out when I use this setting? did I type it correctly? --alt-preset standard


http://www.bestmp3guide.com/
 
Dec 3, 2004 at 6:52 PM Post #40 of 53

jpr703

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Posts
2,733
Likes
15
I've started using EAC and find it very easy to work with once it's set up properly. I'm ripping everything to .wav first so that I'll always have a reference file.
 
Dec 3, 2004 at 7:14 PM Post #41 of 53

scottder

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 4, 2002
Posts
3,485
Likes
17
Quote:

Originally Posted by jpr703
I've started using EAC and find it very easy to work with once it's set up properly. I'm ripping everything to .wav first so that I'll always have a reference file.


I rip to Monkey Audio files these days, with lame -aps for my ipod. Works great.
 
Dec 16, 2004 at 7:44 PM Post #42 of 53

Mr.PD

Lives to Take It Outside.
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Posts
6,581
Likes
13
I'm still a bit confused here.
I have just set up EAC with the chris Myden cfg file using lame 3.90.
I also have set EAC to use native win32 interface and lame 3.97a3 alpha.
Using the standard setting for both profiles, I get MP3s off the same size. The newer version of lame seems to run faster.
I also have lame 3.92 in another folder.

Okay fine.

Here is my question. Why does lame use joint stereo and low pass filter? Would not joint stereo be detrimental to us headphone users? Kind of like a cross feed?
 
Dec 16, 2004 at 7:49 PM Post #43 of 53

scottder

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 4, 2002
Posts
3,485
Likes
17
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.PD
I'm still a bit confused here.
I have just set up EAC with the chris Myden cfg file using lame 3.90.
I also have set EAC to use native win32 interface and lame 3.97a3 alpha.
Using the standard setting for both profiles, I get MP3s off the same size. The newer version of lame seems to run faster.
I also have lame 3.92 in another folder.

Okay fine.

Here is my question. Why does lame use joint stereo and low pass filter? Would not joint stereo be detrimental to us headphone users? Kind of like a cross feed?



Here is a pretty good explanation of why joint isn't bad:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=28141
 
Dec 16, 2004 at 8:04 PM Post #44 of 53

Routa

Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Posts
98
Likes
0
I use LAME and EAC in secure mode, results have been very good. I tried APX but after I didn't notice any difference on my gear to APS rips, I just started ripping APS.
 
Dec 16, 2004 at 8:05 PM Post #45 of 53

Super-Gonzo

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 1, 2003
Posts
137
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by uzziah
unanimous support for lame mp3 over ogg vorbis and aac? that's surprising. would expect more competition. of course, mp3 has most compatability by far


Personally, I use EAC to rip to FLAC, which I then use to encode to ogg vorbis... but then, I have a Karma, not an iPod.

When it comes to lower compression rates, I think Ogg Vorbis beats MP3 any day. And in my personal opinion, beats WMA as well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top