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: [CLUELESS TROLLING] From: dBpoweramp vs EAC (Read 1800 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[CLUELESS TROLLING] From: dBpoweramp vs EAC

Personally, I've never liked the "faster is better" mentality of dBpoweramp, the rather high amount of memory you need just to do a simple imaging of a CD (useless without a CUE sheet feature), nor how their developers claim that their program is, more or less, an "upgrade" to EAC. Especially when the former ain't that great at reading CD's that aren't exactly pristine. A test I did on a known problem CD I have, in fact, showed that EAC managed to produced a perfect rip with it's error correction technology every single time. dBpoweramp? Couldn't make the cut. And after showing a head developer the results I got, the only thing he could say, flippantly, was "Well, EAC is just wrong, and dBpoweramp is right." I thought that was hilarious. Especially when I ran the same tests on other known problem CD's and got the same results every single time   

I also don't like how they expect you to spend $36 for the program, then have to spend another (at a minimum) $55 for a C2-capable optical drive, just to get the results you want. Especially when all you have to do with EAC is just turn the damn thing on to get what you want...for free.
 

[CLUELESS TROLLING] From: dBpoweramp vs EAC

Reply #1 –
DP3_001, regarding your previous post, sure there are situations where EAC can deliver better results than dBpoweramp, and while I've witnessed a few, there is no question in my mind that for the most part, dBpoweramp is indeed an improvement over EAC in all aspects.  Despite my insistence that it is not always faster, it is extremely efficient, especially with caching drives (with which there is NO CONTEST).  Regarding the comment about EAC not being that great with CDs less than pristine, please tell me which program before EAC was better?  Assuming you name some, would you care to provide us with examples and test data?  The last time you tried, it appeared that you failed miserably.  Here's your chance to redeem yourself.

EDIT: DP3_001 is more than welcome to provide us with a comparative analysis so long as it is supported with test data or reasoned conceptual knowledge if he wishes to post in the topic from which this was binned.

[CLUELESS TROLLING] From: dBpoweramp vs EAC

Reply #2 –
Actually, greynol, I didn't have the chance to "try" anything at all since you and your buddy purposefully, and gutlessly, shut that thread down so that I couldn't respond at all, and you damn well know that (Obfuscation, anyone?)

BTW: I said dBpoweramp wasn't that great with less that pristine CD's. Read next time before you post.

[CLUELESS TROLLING] From: dBpoweramp vs EAC

Reply #3 –
Quote from: DP3_001 on
And after showing a head developer the results I got, the only thing he could say, flippantly, was "Well, EAC is just wrong, and dBpoweramp is right."


At this point I think you are trolling, I do not recall stating the above quote.