Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: EAC + LAME (Read 8502 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EAC + LAME

On my PC i have Windows 7 64bit and i have installed EAC 0.99pb5
The PC in automatic has installed Eac in the folder C:\Programmi (x86) \ Audio Exact copy (I imagin because it is not application 64bit)
I want to install LAME 3.99a2 (01/03/2010) the zip file contain 3 folders: doc, x64 (it contains lame.exe and two files DLL) and x86 (also this contains lame.exe and two files DLL).
Which lame.exe i must use?

Thanks
Excused my English

EAC + LAME

Reply #1 –
Welcome to the Forum!

The folder where EAC installed is fine.

You'll find all the EAC/LAME configuration details in the wiki:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC_and_Lame

I'd recommend you use the latest stable LAME build which is 3.98.3:
http://rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php

Also, given the low cost of disc drives these days I strongly recommend you rip your CDs to a lossless file format such as FLAC, Apple Lossless or Windows Media Lossless.  Once you've encoded the original data to a lossy format such as MP3, whatever is discarded can never be recovered.  With lossless you always have an exact replica of the original CD and you can convert those files into any lossy format you need now or in the future.

EAC + LAME

Reply #2 –
IIRC 32-bit LAME compile from rarewares is still faster than 64-bit one.

And, why do you want to use alpha version?

EAC + LAME

Reply #3 –
Thanks!
I have unloaded the alpha version because it is last version. I don't have a specific reason.
Then I will use verisione 3.98.3
But ... "3.98.3" or "3.98.3 using libsndfile 1.0.18pre22a" ?
I don't use flac files .... I think "3.98.3" is better ..

EAC + LAME

Reply #4 –
Adding to the answers of Apesbrain and lvqcl, there would be no problem in using either of the versions.

The only case where there are problems between 32bit and 64bit applications is in the use of .dll's.  I.e. you wouldn't be able to use the x64 .dll of libmp3lame in EAC (x86).

EAC + LAME

Reply #6 –
I do not use flac files, in the majority of the cases I use wav file.
In the other cases I use mp3 (320 kbs) files
For these reasons i think that for me is better to use "3.98.3"

EAC + LAME

Reply #7 –
Quote from: danieleIT on
I do not use flac files, in the majority of the cases I use wav file.
In the other cases I use mp3 (320 kbs) files
For these reasons i think that for me is better to use "3.98.3"

Why would you use WAV, instead of FLAC?

And why would you use 320kbps, instead of LAME -V0 ?

EAC + LAME

Reply #8 –
Most lossless audio comes from an originating source that has a bit-by-bit file that actually maps all the points on a sound wave. The two main formats of choice for complete recording are
- WAV
- and AIFF
Both file formats are devoid of any sort of compression

Wav (1141 Kbps) is better
Flac in better then mp3
mp3 320Kbps is better than Lame -V0 but it occupies very more space

The wav files have large dimensions, but I have few songs and I don't have space problems
 

EAC + LAME

Reply #10 –
Quote from: danieleIT on
Most lossless audio comes from an originating source that has a bit-by-bit file that actually maps all the points on a sound wave. The two main formats of choice for complete recording are
- WAV
- and AIFF
Both file formats are devoid of any sort of compression...


Please note wav and aiff are NOT better than Flac. Flac is a lossless codec it holds exactly the same information as a wav or aiff. Flac is a lossless format, it is capable to hold exactly the same "quality" as an wav or aiff. It just doesn't waste space with redundant information (like wav and aiff)