[phonatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hoshyoto I just downloaded EAC, and I was wondering if Itunes was better than that for ripping AAC files. If not, what setting should I use on EAC? Thanks, Jeff

Ripping and encoding are distinct from each other. Ripping is simply transferring PCM data from a CD to your computer. Encoding is converting the PCM data to AAC, MP3, or whatever. iTunes can perform both of those functions, but EAC could be better for extracting error-free PCM data from damaged CDs. iTunes does have an optional error-correcting rip mode, which I use, mainly out of paranoia. Most CD drives these days are really good at reading CDs and will typically read even badly scratched CDs correctly on the first try, although there are exceptions.

Most of the time, you don't really need the super powers of EAC.

Hope this helps!

 

[Dylan]

Quote:

Originally posted by the terabyte this should probably go in the source forum, but i rip at alt-preset-extreme with itunes lame

Anyone know of a way to do this with a PC?

 

[3lusiv3]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dylan Anyone know of a way to do this with a PC?

To do this on a Windows PC you need to get a Apple Mac and pretend you're on Windows.

I still don't understand why anyone uses Windows.

 

[stark23x]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dylan Anyone know of a way to do this with a PC?

You can use any number of programs that support the LAME codec. Exact Audio Copy is one...Easy CD-DA Extractor is another.

 

[Dylan]

Quote:

Originally posted by 3lusiv3 I still don't understand why anyone uses Windows.

If you'd like to give me $1500 to cover the hardware and software price difference between a Powerbook and my Compaq laptop then I'd love to try a Mac. I'd still have to suffer with the lower resolution screen of the Powerbook but I suppose I could get used to that.


Quote:

You can use any number of programs that support the LAME codec. Exact Audio Copy is one...Easy CD-DA Extractor is another.

Thanks for replying but I do use EAC today. However, I don't generally need the secure ripping and it would be nice to do it all in iTunes. It's not a big deal, but it would be convenient.

 

[stark23x]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dylan Thanks for replying but I do use EAC today. However, I don't generally need the secure ripping and it would be nice to do it all in iTunes. It's not a big deal, but it would be convenient.

Sometimes I think Apple intentionally butchered their implementation of the mp3 encoder in iTunes to shift people to AAC.

Or maybe I'm a conspiracy nut.

Anyway, one day we'll either be officially able to use a third-party encoder with iTunes, or some kind programmer will figure out a hack. I want LAME in my iTunes too!

 

[3lusiv3]

Quote:

Originally posted by stark23x Sometimes I think Apple intentionally butchered their implementation of the mp3 encoder in iTunes to shift people to AAC.

I think the iTunes MP3 encoder is very good, but I know it can be better. Apple are probably concentrating on AAC though. I would love iTunes to officially support other encoders. Apple seem to be embracing software such as PHP, sendmail, etc so they may end up using LAME or something like it in iTunes.

Sorry about the earlier cheap jab at Windows; I was in mood. Windows has it's place.

 

[ezra2323]

Quote:

Bottom line for everyone else; AAC will not save you hard drive space unless you use a smaller bitrate than you would with an MP3.

And why would you NOT use a smaller AAC compression than a comparable MP3 file?? AAC is PROVEN to be about 25% more efficient. Check out the Hydrogen Audio tests. Apples AAC codec at 128 blows away LAME at 128. Its comparable to LAME at 160.

So whatever you listen to on MP3, you should be able to slide down one level on AAC and keep the same quality. Example, 192 MP3 ~ 160 AAC, 160 MP3 ~ 128 AAC, etc.

Thus you WILL save hard drive space using AAC. Why is everone arguing about this?

 

[rnd]

I encode mostly 192 aac and am very happy with it. The only exception is classical and some high quality piano pieces. In each I can hear the difference in any bit rate I've tried (320 aac, and lame alt-preset insane). In those I find the aac to be a little bright and just missing "something" and the mp3 warmer, but seeming to miss some of the detail the aac has. I'm guessing that is probably my misinterpretation of the aac being brighter though. I wish iTunes and the iPod supported FLAC for situations like that.