Hydrogenaudio Forums > Recommended EAC version?

Hydrogenaudio Forums > CD-R and Audio Hardware > CD Hardware/Software

theUtmost

Feb 16 2006, 18:05

Hi all
I've tried searching but can't find the answer to my question:
Is there a recommended version of EAC to use with LAME?

The only info I've been able to find about relative merits of different versions of EAC was a post mentioning that in newer versions, the "Detect TOC manually" feature has gone.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=16186

As I've used the feature myself twice, should I stick to an older version or d/l the latest version?
Are there any REAL benefits to be had from the latest EAC version?
I'm setting up a newly built PC here...

If there IS a general consensus, or anyone has feelings on this, would a mod consider starting a new topic and pinning it, also linking in the wiki?
Cheers,
tU

Jebus

Feb 16 2006, 23:39

I'd use the latest version, since depending on your drive, you may never need that "detect TOC manually" feature (I haven't). If you need it, you can always fall back.

prp2

Feb 16 2006, 23:48

QUOTE(theUtmost @ Feb 16 2006, 07:05 PM)

Hi all
I've tried searching but can't find the answer to my question:
Is there a recommended version of EAC to use with LAME?

The only real info I've found on this either was from the UberStandard (http://www.ubernet.org/?p=UberStandard), which recommends using EAC 0.9b4.

QUOTE

The version of EAC used SHOULD be 0.9 beta 4. Pre-beta versions (except 0.95 beta 2; it has not been tested and MUST NOT be used) 0.95pb4 and so on are unstable, have important features removed (for "legal reasons") and have known bugs involving the tags; you SHOULD avoid them but MAY use them. (You are responsible for ensuring the tags are OK if you use them as AQScript doesn't have fixes for their bugs yet.) If you wish to go back to 0.9b4 you will need to deinstall and then delete registry key HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\AWSoftware so that 0.9b4 doesn't crash.

Now, this is dated from Wed 20th Jul 2005 19:26, so whether or not that is still considered current, accurate, or ever was to begin with I have no idea. That's the version I've been using since I read that, though.

Not sure if that helps any...

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.