Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

.mp3 vs .wma - on a ripping mission


Scoot

Recommended Posts

I have a large amount of cd-ripping in my near future thanks to a 20GB digital player I'm purchasing for my car. But before I get started, I wanted to get a few opinions from the gallery.

 

.mp3 vs .wma - Any preference when A/B'ed?

 

Program - Any one program that sounds better? Any to avoid?

 

Bitrate - I'm planning on ripping at 192, but would 128 be good enough for my car stereo (which is pretty good, but nowhere near audiophile status)?

 

And I have read Bump's thread about ripping, but it only had his opinion* on this. Just wanted to get the opinions of others.

 

(* - and a very valued opinion it is. ;) )

Ah, nice marmot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Bitrate depends on how much music you have and how much you plan on getting in the future. Personally, i'm satisfied with the quality for size that i get from 160k.

 

Do you plan to use your mp3 player as a backup for your hard drive? Do you realistically see yourself using ALL 20gigs?

 

File format doesn't mean much save a neglible size difference. But mp3 is more universal than wma. Most apples do not support wma files.

 

jason

2cor5:21

Soli Deo Gloria

 

"it's the beauty of a community. it takes a village to raise a[n] [LLroomtempJ]." -robb

 

My YouTube Channel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think all cd players will play wma files.

 

Go for the mp3's.

 

And try a view different bitrates and see what you can live with. Your car environment may be so noisy that a low resolution won't be noticeable.

 

And when you finish, please come over to my house and put my entire record collection on cds.

 

The tapes, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd definitely say .mp3 over .wma.

 

I once heard that CD quality sound was 192 kbps. This has since been my standard. That being said.... I don't remember where I heard it and am probably an arse for bothering to adhere to it. 20 GB is a lot of storage space so you can do whatever you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ripped all mine onto iTunes using AAC at 192kbps. Sounds very good, possibly unnecessarily so. I think for in-car only use, I'd go for lower resolution as my 40GB iPod already has 30.9GB used up for just over 16 days of music.

 

Does a much bigger drive cost noticeably more or are the in-car drives those small and thus expensive sort?

 

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

itunes/ipods will play wmas. i made a big mistake in allowing itunes to put all my songs in aac format. i didn't have an mp3 player yet, but once i looked to buy one i found that the only one that would support my aac files was ipod.

 

not that that is so horribble as ipods are great and all, but there are many other mp3 players out there for cheaper and with many more functions.

 

anyways, don't think there is much difference between wma's and mp3's.

:wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon my ignorance, but I understood that the .mp3 format was going the way of dinosaurs, URL's and html. Something new was on the horizon. Anyone who has both a clue and understanding of evolving technology?

 

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CD quality is 16bit @ 44.1kHz sample rate.

 

so lets try to figure out the math. I dont know where to start :D

http://www.briantimpe.com/images/LDL/dots/blue.JPGhttp://www.briantimpe.com/images/LDL/dots/black.JPGhttp://www.briantimpe.com/images/LDL/dots/fuscia.JPGhttp://www.briantimpe.com/images/LDL/dots/grey.JPGhttp://www.briantimpe.com/images/LDL/dots/orange.JPGhttp://www.briantimpe.com/images/LDL/dots/purple.JPGhttp://www.briantimpe.com/images/LDL/dots/red.JPGhttp://www.briantimpe.com/images/LDL/dots/yellow.JPG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd go the MP3 route. It's more of a de facto standard than Microsoft's proprietary WMA format (can you say "re-invent the wheel...again?"). There are no WMA players that I know of, but there's tons of MP3 players. Many of the portable CD players are also becoming MP3 players as well.

 

MP3 gets my vote!

 

Dave

Old bass players never die, they just buy lighter rigs.

- Tom Capasso, 11/9/2006

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are very few .mp3 players that do not support .wma, but most of them also support .ogg, so i guess it's not much of an issue.

 

my parents bought an iriver iFP-599T for my wife, and the firmware upgrade supports .mp3, .wma, and .ogg, so i'm thinking i'll go the .ogg, if only to encourage diversity. of course, all of my emusic files are VBR .mp3s, so i'm kind of torn. my future will likely contain an ipod, so perhaps VBR .mp3s will be the most prudent. whatever, i'll decided two days after i have to.

 

i think i will acutally spend money on a commercial ripping program, because the freeware stuff is pretty weak. i haven't found a program that feels right that i won't have to end up buying in the future, anyway.

 

robb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

robb

i think i will acutally spend money on a commercial ripping program, because the freeware stuff is pretty weak. i haven't found a program that feels right that i won't have to end up buying in the future, anyway.
What are you looking for in a ripper, and what os do you use? I would be surprised if there isn't a free (as in freedom) ripping software to satisfy you. let me know a bit of what you're looking for and I'll gladly scare up some candidates for you to check out.

 

peace,

john (ultra-beginner of the bass, but long-time proponent of open software)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've done a lot of comparisons of MP3 and WMA. Above 192k, it doesn't matter much. But at lower bit rates, I prefer WMA for sound quality (but not compatibility, where MP3 still rules). For example, I have a Creative Zen player, and have found that 96kHz WMA sounds about the same, if not a little better, than 128kHz MP3. I wouldn't mind ripping at a higher rate, but I want to fit as much stuff on there as possible, and 96k WMA sounds okay (especially for someone raised on cassettes for portable music ).

 

Now, another thing about MP3 is you can double the fidelity for a given bit rate by recording in mono. In other words, a 128kbps MP3 file is really two channels of 64kbps. If you do the same file in mono, you get full 128kbps fidelity. The main application for this is if you have one of those little flash players with limited memory, and use it for jogging or whatever where stereo imaging isn't a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by John Shepherd:

What are you looking for in a ripper, and what os do you use? I would be surprised if there isn't a free (as in freedom) ripping software to satisfy you. let me know a bit of what you're looking for and I'll gladly scare up some candidates for you to check out.[/QB]

John -- i'm using XP on one box, but i'm also looking to transition to linux (likely MEPIS) on my web box. i'm comfortable with open source software. what i'm looking for specifically is a good sounding .ogg encoder and VBR .mp3 encoder -- again, i already have a sizeable VBR .mp3 collection from emusic, and i'd like to stick with .ogg as long as it's feasible.

 

thanks for any guidance.

 

robb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...