>It certainly sounds better than EAC or even master tape, if you rip >something like the latest Britney Spears hit- artifacts dont destroy >at all "music" like that, rather the opposite...
>Xing is full of artifacts and has virtually no output at all above >15,400 Hz, but its quite possible that your ear aint that subtle. >Being a soung engineer means nothing at all: Beethoven was >totally DEAF when he composed the ninth symphony... I am pretty >sure he would also find Audiograbber 1.50 exchellent if he was >still alive.
Thanks for that constructive criticism, very useful.
1. I was not talking about mp3.
2. My musical taste is a bit more serious than BS.
3.Obviously you're not deaf. I take it that you have done some testing yourself before writing your comments?
>Audiograbber is NOT better than EAC. It is easier to use and setup.
>its worth learning how to use it.
I know how to set up eac and I accept that it is the best ripper as far as accuracy is concerned. But I was talking about the sound quality. EAC is closer to real hifi than most rippers except for 1 thing, the loss of brightness. Playing the cd's on a good hifi set is, at least for me, not enjoyable. It sounds like the speakers are standing behind curtains (exaggerated, but you know what I mean). Change whatever you like in eac (should not be necessary), use different cd's, computers, burners and the problem won't go away. I have done a lot of testing and from that I know that all rippers have their own "sound". Until someone can tell me otherwise I assume that this just is what eac sounds like. And until that moment I'm glad I read this post. Finally I can start copying cd's again.
