pfarrell;236691 Wrote: > I think you misread me, perhaps I wasn't clear. > > Some folks believe EAC is much better because it can get the bits right > more often than more casual software. I'll grant that EAC gets the bits > 'more correctly' from the CD. > > My opinion is that getting the bits 'better' is not important. At least > not to me. EAC isn't worth the hassle. > > I've not seen any scientific testing, but I expect that any ripper will > get all of the bits right most of the time. And I'll grant that EAC can > get more of the bits right more of the time. > > But the bits on the CD are not necessarily the bits that the musician > wants, and are not necessarily the bits that the Mastering Engineer > wanted. > > So I'm not convinced that getting more bits off the CD right is > important. > > When you say you care what is "better" it begs the question of how do > you measure "better". And that raises the question of is the > measure/metric important? > > For me, the important definition of "better" is gets the CD music into > my SlimServer so I can listen to it faster as long as it is good > enough.
I agree about EAC not worth the hassle. I did not know that you are a Bob Dylan fan. If you get some of the bits right some of the time.... Just let's get the bits right most of the time - I said that. You don't measure better as it is not 'quantifable'. Which metric are you referring to? That on the 12 fold manifold in string theory or that in the 4D time / space metric? Just joking. Best Ivan -- IvanSlade ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IvanSlade's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12094 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39485 _______________________________________________ ripping mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
