andy b Wrote: > >I put it down to the extraction software. EAC vs WMP. Not the > compression system WMA vs FLAC. > > What I'm saying is that for most disks, EAC and WMP will read the same > data, even if you *don't* have error checking switched on in WMP. > > Most clean CDs will read with 0% errors. That's why they're used for > computer data so much... > > EAC has an advantage over earlier versions of WMP, but only in cases > where the disk was damaged enough to cause read errors. > > Nobody on here has objectively evaluated the ability of WMP10's error > correction facility to rip bad disks in competition with EAC, but even > if EAC *is* better, it's still only going to make a difference on a > very small percentage of a disk library - if at all.
I fully understand what your saying, and agree, but the fact remains that after re-extracting my collection with EAC, myself and others (whom I blind test with the results) quite clearly hear the difference between the two. Cheers, -m -- greedy_grendel _______________________________________________ ripping mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
