|
Rescue Toaster posted:he claimed that the same CD ripped using EAC would result in different sounding wave files depending on if it was ripped with any old drive and a fancy blu ray burner.... You will see offset compensation settings if you look hard enough in EAC's drive settings, and though you may wonder what the point is, it can matter on a mixed CD if you rip some tracks on one drive and some on another (you may end up with a click between tracks). Your friend's an idiot though, even if the files had a diffent checksum (that they didn't surprises me) it will just be the offset and the files won't sound any different on their own though unless you are ripping a badly scratched CD and one drive copes better than the other (I have an old Teac 32 speed CDROM drive which is excellent for this, can take hours to rip though. I also recently built a PC for a mate with an IDE LG DVD burner which I found was excellent for EAC CD ripping - EAC reported it doesn't internally cache but does report C2 error info - this is the best case scenario for EAC, and it ripped even fairly scratched CD's fast).
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2009 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
evobatman posted:Wouldn't this also be true with the cheap on-board SPDIF?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2009 03:08
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Try to tell that the people, that judge audio compression techniques by looking at what remains (Original minus Decompressed) and how the spectrum looks like, instead of just listening to it. I'm sure there's a decently large cross-section with the audiophile bunch. In my opinion a lot of this idiocy (and those profiting from it) stems from the simple mentality of "more expensive must be better" which some people apply when they don't understand (or feel it's beyond their capability to understand) how to make an objective comparison. I know one guy who has a Monster HDMI cable that he payed over $100 for, he's definitely not someone who can afford to be throwing that kind of money down the drain and I'm pretty sure he was just trying to get the best out of his new TV when he decided against buying the $15 alternative. Take someone with more cash and wasting thousands instead of hundreds in a misguided attempt to get the best becomes a possibility. In addition I think a lot of them (especially the forum posting sort) just want to brag about how expensive their system is, and at the ridiculous end of the scale it pretty much requires buying bullshit because there are no cables that actually deliver tens of thousands of dollars worth of improvement.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2011 02:58
|
|
|
Khablam posted:When people think of this, however, they're thinking of a 128CBR MP3 they downloaded on Napster in 1999. The one that I remember to this day is "xing" - it was really popular due to several easy to use programs using it, unfortunately it spat out mp3's that were often so badly distorted they were actually uncomfortable to listen to through headphones/earphones at all but the lowest of volume levels. Bitrate made no difference either. Things are a lot better now, though I will say that I can still hear the difference between a lame encoded 128kbps mp3 and -V 3 VBR pretty easily in most songs, not that the 128kbps mp3 is bad, but the difference is there and you don't need the best of audio gear to hear it (I personally have a lot more trouble trying hear the difference between -V 3 and the source, most of the time I cant).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2012 06:29
|
|