Is there a quality difference between using iTunes-LAME and MAX? I find iTunes-LAME a lot easier to faster. But if MAX sounds better I'd start using it.

If you can't tell the difference, it doesn't matter

If iTunes uses the final version of Lame 3.97 and MAX uses the same then no, there isn't a sound quality difference between the two as long as you encode to the same settings (ie -V 2, -V 4, etc.). The main difference is that MAX is a more secure audio ripper for Mac OS X while iTunes isn't very secure at all. This means that if MAX comes across an error while ripping a track, it could go back and re-read that bad sector on the CD until it gets an accurate rip (that is how EAC works, I am not sure if MAX works 100% like that or not but you get the point). If iTunes comes across an error, it will simply plow through it and that error will end up in the final file. It could possibly mean audio distortion or you hear a bleep/bloop type sound.

You really only have to worry about this though if your CDs are in bad shape. You can effectively use iTunes if your CDs don't have any dust, smudges, hair, or any type of scratches.

Speaking of MAX and ripping, I just asked this in another thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=542315

FWIW, EAC reads 27 sectors at a time during re-reads; not individual sectors:
http://www.digital-inn.de/103881-post9.html

Is this true if using the program iTunes-LAME? Some times when ripping using iTunes-LAME I get error messages because of a damaged disc. For some reason I find MAX to be a lot slower. I guess this is because it checks for more errors?

iTunes does not have the same error correction schemes as other secure rippers such as Max. iTunes can give you errors for damaged discs but it won't do that every time. Most of the time, if it encounters an error, it will just plow right through it not giving you any time of notification. There have been some songs in my library that I had to go back and re-rip again using something like EAC or dbpoweramp (both only for Windows). Max runs slower probably because it likes to take its time and rip accurately. The main goal of iTunes is to rip an audio CD as fast as possible, not as accurate as possible.

Are you using a PowerPC or Intel powered Apple computer? I believe that Max works better on Intel Apple computers than PowerPC ones. Then again, I don't use my Mac for ripping my audio CDs unless I boot it into Windows Vista.

I suggest that you use Max is you are worried about hearing audio flaws in your music. It would be a pain to go through and listen to every song just to try to find bleeps, skips, or bloops.

Thanks for the help. I'm using a Intel Powered MacBook. However, I just got BootCamp set up with Windows XP. I'm currently trying to rip a CD with EAC and it's finding errors (i think), which is good. However, it's taking forever (which isn't so good). It's been going for an hour and not even half way done. My current dilemma is this: I'm not exactly an audiophile. I have to be honest, some times it's difficult for me to even distinguish between 128 kbps and 320 kbps. This is most likely because I'm not able to buy higher end listening equipment yet. However, as crazy as it sounds, I want the peace of mind of knowing that my music collection is at a "CD like" quality. With that said, if it's going to mean waiting 2 hours for a CD to encode, I'm not sure I'm willing to make that sacrifice. Any advice?

Are your CDs scratched, dirty, or have any type of flaws? It sounds as if your CDs are in bad shape. If that is the case then I recommend purchasing a SkipDr. It repairs damaged CDs by resurfacing them and you can use it an unlimited number of times on a CD. I have a SkipDr. and I have used it on multiple CDs that I thought were too scratched. It took 3 runs through the SkipDr. but it did the trick.

You also might want to have a look at dbpoweramp as it is supposed to be just as secure (or even more secure) that EAC. From my experience, dbpoweramp doesn't stress your optical drive over a long period of time as EAC does (or used to, I haven't used EAC in a good couple of years ever since getting dbpoweramp). I have actually lost two optical drives due to EAC stressing them out too much over a period of two years. I have used dbpoweramp since 2005 and it has yet to ruin any of my optical drives.

Don't worry many people here would find a good ~128kbps VBR file difficult to tell from a 320kbps (there was a test a while back to prove this). And, many of us, although LAME -V5 seems fine, still use lossless codecs to store our music. Share the love.

Are their tests that show a noticeable difference between using EAC and just using iTunes-Lame. Because honestly, I have a big CD collection and not all all of them are in the best shape. Using EAC could take me a very very long time.

Again, as long as they both use the same version of Lame and the same settings then everything will come out at the same quality (minus the disc errors of course). Lame in EAC is no different than Lame in CDex or dbpoweramp or iTunes-Lame. The difference is the CD rippers themselves, not the encoder.

So, for instance, if I have a CD that has some minor surface scratches on it and it plays fine on a CD player is it okay just to use iTunes-Lame? I guess what I'm asking is when is EAC recommended over iTunes-Lame?


Again, sorry for all these rookie questions.

You can setup EAC to be used in burst mode with accurate rip. That way you still get fast rips and EAC will tell you if they were accurate or not by comparing the rips to an online database.

There really is no way to look at a CD to tell if a scratch will cause an audible flaw or not. iTunes also won't really give you any indication that it came across an error either unless it is a major error and it cannot rip the track. So you are pretty much either stuck with using iTunes-Lame and guessing which CDs you think need to be ripped with EAC or just rip with EAC from the very get go.

As I previously said, you can always purchase a SkipDr. if you are paranoid. Run your scratched CDs through that device first and then use iTunes-Lame. I suggest getting a SkipDr. anyway to repair those badly damaged CDs. Rip with EAC in burst mode with accuraterip setup. The rips will be fast and most should come out accurate unless there is a major problem with the CD. Take the problematic CDs and run them through SkipDr. and try ripping them again.

I have encountered several MP3s that were not ripped securely with obvious pops and skips. If you have a badly scratched cd in your collection, you can try ripping it in itunes to see for yourself.

Unless you have a deadline to rip all your cds, I recommend ripping securely. You can also try ripping with foobar2000 which in my experience is faster than EAC. It doesn't have accuraterip though which is a tradeoff for its speed.

Does anybody have any experience with MAX? I've used it on a few CD's and it goes a lot faster than EAC. Is MAX a solid ripper?