Itunes or LAME + EAC

[enwar3]

What do you think?

I always import my music in 192kbps-minimum VBR mp3s (don't have enough space for anything lossless on my laptop) and I used to do it with Exact Audio Copy (ier?) but lately I've been getting lazy. Itunes names all the songs for you and stuff. Is there a real difference in the imported music between the two programs?

 

[Baked]

Uhhh, you can setup EAC to ID all your MP3s during encoding as well. Of course using google to search for such simple instructions is a lost art. If you think Itunes is easier, by all means stick with it.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

EAC + LAME > iTunes

As a matter of fact, when I'm not ripping to MP3, I use some nice command line parser to rip from EAC and then encode as Apple Lossless using iTunes.

 

[enwar3]

I know lol.. my main question was whether there was a difference in output quality using the same requirements (192kbps-min VBR). Is the LAME codec better than the one Itunes uses?

 

[sandorski]

iTunes does a great job. At one time EAC was a big thing, I really doubt there's any difference these days though.

 

[LtPage1]

I sure can't tell any difference, and the difference in convenience is huge.

 

[0roo0roo]

lame
riipping is a lot of work.
itunes aac just limits your future options.
go alittle higher on bitrate and use vbr. ~220

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
lame
riipping is a lot of work.
itunes aac just limits your future options.
go alittle higher on bitrate and use vbr. ~220

You can rip to mp3 via itunes. It's in the settings...

Also, I use iTunes for the network sharing feature. I can play anyone's music on the local LAN (provided they've enabled sharing with iTunes), but I'm in a dorm so it's probably more a plus for me/other college students.

 

[enwar3]

Yea the network is so sweet... especially at college, where you have basically everybody's library =D

Haven't figured out an easy way to copy over music from other libraries though.

 

[Jeff7]

CDEX + LAME = win

I like customizable settings and tweaks. My CPU can do work without any effort from me, so I put it to work. q = 0 for LAME.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
lame
riipping is a lot of work.
itunes aac just limits your future options.
go alittle higher on bitrate and use vbr. ~220

You can rip to mp3 via itunes. It's in the settings...

Also, I use iTunes for the network sharing feature. I can play anyone's music on the local LAN (provided they've enabled sharing with iTunes), but I'm in a dorm so it's probably more a plus for me/other college students.

you can, but its generally acknowledged that the lame encoder is superior

 

[TwiceOver]

Anything has got to be better than iTunes.

Junk software.

 

[gorcorps]

The LAME encoder is still better, but most people even with really nice hardware can't tell the difference. The only thing EAC does have above everything else is the 'secure mode'. It'll rip things slower to ensure that any pops and clicks caused by scratches on the disc don't happen. Worth it if not everything you own is in flawless condition.

 

[dartworth]

iTunes is fast and is about as simple as you can get...

If you want to use EAC, here are the guides: http://xs.vc/eac/Install/install1.html

 

[HannibalX]

God I can't stand iTunes.

 

[EGGO]

Listening even with my UE-5's had me noticing no difference with trance music or rock, whether it's live or recorded in a studio. Probably at that point, I can't tell the difference, and I'm almost certain that your speakers won't output the difference even if you can tell.

 

[alkemyst]

I don't use itunes but just about everyone I know does. On a portable it really comes down to easy vs high performance.

I burn my music for non-portable playing though. I cue it up and let EAC/LAME handle it.

 

[tranceport]

EAC + FLAC

 

[aircooled]

I like CDEX + LAME as I like the interface better, but EAC + LAME is great.