[wallijonn]

I'm presently doing comparisons of the two and while EAC takes a long time to convert, CDEx is much faster. As to quality, the DEX hq=0 seemingly makes a larger file and has a jitter guage. They both use the same LAME software. They can both set compression threshold levels. So I have to wonder if EAC is truly better than CDEX.

I've even updated LAME to 3.95 to see if there is a discernible difference; DEX is using 3.90. I upgraded to 3.95 as I could not detect a difference.

Has anyone else done any side by side comparisons?

edit:

Yes, I meant CDEx.

 

[averydonovan]

Do you mean CDex? I used to use CDex rather than EAC since it actually had fewer problems ripping, but with my CD burner (the better ripper on my computer) EAC does better but it's slow. EAC usually has better detection of ripping errors, but that process also causes rips to take much longer. CDex only has jitter control, which may not detect a lot of ripping errors.

Keep the LAME version at 3.90.3 since it is the most optimized version of LAME for sound quality.

 

[pbirkett]

I also wondered if he meant CDex.

 

[wallijonn]

Do you guys also use the EAC edit feature to make better cuts in and out of the song?

 

[pbirkett]

Nah, I just stick with the tracks they way they were.

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally posted by wallijonn Do you guys also use the EAC edit feature to make better cuts in and out of the song?

For cutting a wave file, nothing beats CDWave (www.cdwave.com). For editing, I use DC5 (www.tracertek.com), but there are less expensive editors out there (more expensive ones too). Those are the main tools I use for analog ripping.

I tried CDex briefly, but stuck with EAC. I just didn't get the sense of security I do with an EAC rip.