Windows Media Player...which rip option

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark Bohlsen
  • Start date Start date
M

Mark Bohlsen

I want to rip dosen's of CD's to a file format with the best quality and
least amount of space hard disk space taken up. Which should I choose, mp3
(128 kbps), wma (128 kbps) or wma pro at (128 kbps)? Any help would greatly
be appreciated along with an explanation as to why a certain choice would be
better than the other. Thanks in advance.
 
I want to rip dosen's of CD's to a file format with the best quality and
least amount of space hard disk space taken up. Which should I choose, mp3
(128 kbps), wma (128 kbps) or wma pro at (128 kbps)? Any help would greatly
be appreciated along with an explanation as to why a certain choice would be
better than the other. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Your question can be easily answered BY YOU: rip the same title in
each format and look to see which is smallest.

Your ears won't know the difference - IF there is any - in the
quality. Your dog might, but you won't.
 
I want to rip dosen's of CD's to a file format with the best quality
and least amount of space hard disk space taken up. Which should I
choose, mp3 (128 kbps), wma (128 kbps) or wma pro at (128 kbps)? Any
help would greatly be appreciated along with an explanation as to why
a certain choice would be better than the other. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Don't rip anything at 128kb/s. Choose 192kb/s mp3 to get near cd quality.
 
Don't rip anything at 128kb/s. Choose 192kb/s mp3 to get near cd quality.
Again, only your dog will hear the difference.
Click to expand...

No offence Paul, but go have your ears checked! lol
I used to rip my CDs to 192 Kbps MP3. Then I ripped some to 320 Kbps,
and I could certainly hear the difference. At that time I did not have
much CDs ripped yet, and I decided to re-do them ones I had to 320
Kbps.
I'd say 192 Kbps is the minimum, they sound fine. But a higher bitrate
is even better.

--



Met vriendelijke groet,
Mark Veldhuis.
 
Don't worry about offending him!
He is a just a smart*ss here.
3 names!

paul montgomery>nonnymoose>barney fife!
 
I want to rip dosen's of CD's to a file format with the best quality and
least amount of space hard disk space taken up. Which should I choose, mp3
(128 kbps), wma (128 kbps) or wma pro at (128 kbps)? Any help would greatly
be appreciated along with an explanation as to why a certain choice would be
better than the other. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...


The mp3 format is supported by more players. A CD containing 130+ mp3
files with Juliet selected will play on my (9-year old) DVD player.
 
Mick,

Thanks for the three names. I've added them to my newsreader blocking
filter.  
Click to expand...

Who you think you're fooling!?

You're not using a news reader, you're using the exact same web-
interface on the Microsoft servers that Mick the Dick is using:

X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3119
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
NNTP-Posting-Host: tk2msftibfm01.phx.gbl 10.40.244.149
 
Along with the "size", you probably also want to listen to the various files
to see which ones sound best in the method you will be listening to them.
Anything less than 160kbps sounds horrible to my ears. This kind of thing
really comes down to a personal decision - what is your acceptable trade-off
between compression and quality? =)
 
You are welcome, Oscar.
He is worse then the trolls!
At least they sometimes try and help!
 
Paul Montgomery said:
Your question can be easily answered BY YOU: rip the same title in
each format and look to see which is smallest.

Your ears won't know the difference - IF there is any - in the
quality. Your dog might, but you won't.
Click to expand...

You need to clean your ears out and/or get better speakers or headphones, or
accept that your hearing is screwed.

ss.
 
Hey, deaf man.  How old are you then?  I had you down as a kid.
Click to expand...

That's twice you've been wrong about me, but only once that you've
admitted it. I'm older - and more honest - than you are. I'm
probably older than anyone in this thread.
 
Back
Top