I've been using EAC to rip my CDs and iTunesEncode.exe to encode them, but it takes a really long time and it seems like it would just be easier to do them straight in iTunes. Are there really any big difference in EAC's ripping that makes it more worthwhile than using iTunes to rip?

Also, I have at least one song from every CD that has a track quality of 99.7-99.9%. Why can't I just get an entire CD with 100% track quality? It doesn't seem like those numbers would make a big difference in quality but I'm just wondering why and if that is bad.

Thanks,
Mike

the ONLY advantage with EAC is that it would give you peace of mind if you suspect some of your cds are scratched ... cause EAC has a secure mode that double checks the cd rip, and it would tell you if a cd has something wrong ... BUT if the CDs are perfect (like when just bought) this transforms in a DISADVANTAGE, as EAC is really SLOW compared with dbpoweramp, audiograbber, or others ...

Think this has been asked and answered a few times already... if EAC's log says "no errors occured" then it means just that. Track quality less than 100% doesn't matter then. It just means that EAC needed a few re-reads to get a perfect rip.

The real facts are a bit more complicated than the way our fellow members described, abeit what was said is generally sufficient. You might want to know more if you are perfectionist Either way I think you should read FAQ and use search and spend some time to read the related posts before you post. There are zillions out there about EAC. I doubt anyone resident on this board will bother to give you a detailed lowdown on the ins and outs of EAC. But a few hours of digging in the previous posts will give you great links and a good idea about it. This is the approach I took when I joined last year. It is also more considerate to all of us resident on this board who are literally bored with these sort of questions.

Triza

even if CD is completely brand new, just out of its jewel case, there still may be some problems with it -- and EAC will deal with them. I had one like that: Eva Cassy 'Live at Blues Alley'.

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/eac3.html

I really do think that does a good job of explaining.

don't inerpret me as an anti-eac guy ... in fact MAREO is developed with EAC in mind, and then adapted to CDex, and dbpoweramp, but ... i have been using EAC less and less, cause it is really slow, and i can tell by looking at a CD if it is going to give me problems or not ... so 99% of the time i use dbpa, cause it is really faster ... =)

EDIT: also ... dbpa can cope with Copy-protected CDs way better than lattest EAC ... (at this time, i think spoom should give me a free dbpa license )

If the secure mode of EAC is too slow for your taste, then just switch to "burst mode" and it is as fast as other rippers. The difference is just that with EAC you have the >choice<.

I'm not sure about the following, but it could be that you will have some advantage with EAC when ripping CDs with seamless trackchanges, because of the offset-correction. However, i'm not knowledgeable enough in that department, so i could be wrong.

Anyways, do you use iTunes to encode to mp3 or to m4a? iTunes' mp3 encoder came out as one of the worst current encoders in the previos 128kbit listening test. However, its AAC-encoder came out as one of the best.

So, if you're using iTunes to encode to mp3, then you may want to do the encoding right in EAC with LAME instead anyways. If you're using iTunes to encode to m4a, then your choice is understandable.

- Lyx