> > I've never seen test results showing that iTunes produced different bit > streams (in WAV files) for CDs than EAC did. > > ErikM, I'd suggest that you do your own comparison on a few CDs before > you plunge in. >
I've never seen test results either. However, iTunes' stated mission is not to provide bit-perfect copies where EAC's is. I'm sure that iTunes is geared more toward making fast copies for mass-market appeal. We're talking about theoretical differences here anyway. Frankly, I don't think I could hear the difference between a 'slightly flawed' copy vs. a bit-perfect copy. I choose to rip via EAC because I intend to do my rips only once ... and to have those digital files be the best copy theoretically possible. ...especially since I'm choosing a lossles format for my archive. If I were storing in a lossy format ... the point would be 100% moot. > I think that jeffluckett meant "rip" rather than "burn". You are correct ... I meant rip, not burn. > > > EAC didn't provide any magic bullet for either of these cases. I tried. > I never said EAC was a magic bullet, or that it would rip all disks no matter how damaged. In fact, I've had other software rip disks that EAC couldn't. However, that's because they were willing to read through the errors, and in some cases definitely produced audibly flawed results. EAC may have 'given up' on these same disks as unreadable ... or (more likely) I would have terminated the rip process when it seemed like it was taking an 'inordinate' amount of time. I have had disks I couldn't rip with FLAC for sure ... but I've never had EAC produce an audibly flawed file. However, I have had some disks that were 'marginally' damaged with some scratches or other physical problems. EAC has produced "Audibly Perfect" copies of these disks where lesser softwares would have left behind digital artefacts. I don't have the equipment or impetus to do waveform analysis on two different tracks ... but if even my cloth ears and "sub-audiophile" sound system can pick them up, then the differences are real. My reason for recommending EAC->Flac is because *ErikM* said, "[the] MAIN thing is that they sound good as they can." I recommended EAC because while it may not make a quantitative difference on perfect disks, or badly damaged disks, it will definitely make a difference on "marginal to bad" disks which frankly exist in relatively high numbers in the collections of all but the most careful CD owners. I recommended FLAC because it is non-proprietary and reasonably simple to set EAC up to convert to FLAC on the fly. If another lossless format is desired, then he's on his own because I haven't done the research on how to go EAC -> [OTHER_FORMAT]. Also, EAC has been clearly demonstrated to make a bit-perfect archive, so it is (relatively) trivial to go from FLAC to any other format down the road if lossless compression technologies improve, or you need a lossy format for some portable device. Finally, I recommended FLAC because it is natively supported on SD hardware, so no transcoding need occur on the server. -- jeffluckett ------------------------------------------------------------------------ jeffluckett's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28829 _______________________________________________ ripping mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
