1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

lame vs musicmatch

Discussion in 'Audio' started by gammaray, Sep 21, 2003.

  1. gammaray

    gammaray Guest

    hey everyone,
    just thought i would mention this to ya all, a producer of my favorite band recomendes musicmatch for ripping cds to mp3. now i know there has been alot of negative towards musicmatch but i got to take his word for ripping quality since he is a top producer in the rock/metal music. not trying to piss anyone off but i thought i would share this and also i cant tell at all the diffrence in quality when ripping a cd at alt preset standard and musicmatch 192kbs, and this is on a 700.00 sony home stereo system. so come to your own conclusions.
     
  2. tigre

    tigre Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Messages:
    789
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    At 192kbps like bitrates lame is better for sure. If you want to test yourself no need for high-end equipment, only good headphones needed.
    At http://www.ff123.net you'll find all you need to perform these kind of tests: Training for hearing artifacts, software for performing double blind tests (ABCHR), problem samples (taken from real music, also rock/metal) all mp3 encoders have audible problems with more or less - use them to find out yourself what sounds better to you.
     
  3. gammaray

    gammaray Guest

    ok no problem just want the best quality i can get have 300 cds ready to rip, could you maybe answer this for me why does e.a.c with lame 3.90 somtimes takes forever when ripping a cd? i somtimes have to do 5 tracks first then the next 5 or 6 cause it always stalls or takes over an hour to do one track. .04kbs is what i get. and why is the musicmatch encoder such crap/

    mike
     

Share This Page