I've just bought myself an mp3 player and I'm starting to convert some CDs to stick on it.
I have the option of using mp3 format or .wma.
If I use media player I can encode 56kbps mp3 or 128kbps wma.
Using Real Player I can encode 96kbps mp3 or 128kbps wma.
The player can cope with 128kbps mp3.
So, obviously, higher bitrate is better for quality, but what software can I use to encode 128kbps mp3? Or is .wma better?
Originally posted by VargWell, since it's an MP3-player I'd think encoding it in MP3 makes sense. Also, you'll be able to use the files on non-microsoft-propriated products should the need ever arise.
I've just bought myself an mp3 player and I'm starting to convert some CDs to stick on it.
I have the option of using mp3 format or .wma.
If I use media player I can encode 56kbps mp3 or 128kbps wma.
Using Real Player I can encode 96kbps mp3 or 128kbps wma.
The player can cope with 128kbps mp3.
So, obviously, higher bitrate is better for quality, but what software can I use to encode 128kbps mp3? Or is .wma better?
For windows, I think Audio MP3 maker is a good encoder. You can find it here:
http://www.coxsoft.com/audio-mp3-dvd/audio-mp3-maker.htm
Of course, there's literally hundreds of programs available (both proprietary and open-source). Just google on it and see what you can come up with.
Originally posted by VargMedia Player 9 upwards rips CDs to mp3 all the way to up 512kbps so I don't get what the problem is. Just change the settings to rip to a higher quality mp3.
Yeah, but it is capable of playing .wma and I thought if it was better quality...
Anyway, thanks for your help.
Originally posted by StarrmanAre you sure?
Media Player 9 upwards rips CDs to mp3 all the way to up 512kbps so I don't get what the problem is. Just change the settings to rip to a higher quality mp3.
Actually, just checked my Media Player on my work computer (version 9) and it doesn't seem to do mp3 at all!
Originally posted by VargYou need to buy an MP3 plug-in. You never get anything for free from Microsoft unless they're trying to throw a competitor off market. Didn't you know? 😉
Are you sure?
Actually, just checked my Media Player on my work computer (version 9) and it doesn't seem to do mp3 at all!
Originally posted by VargExact Audio Copy is supposed to be one of the best free audio rippers out there.
I've just bought myself an mp3 player and I'm starting to convert some CDs to stick on it.
I have the option of using mp3 format or .wma.
If I use media player I can encode 56kbps mp3 or 128kbps wma.
Using Real Player I can encode 96kbps mp3 or 128kbps wma.
The player can cope with 128kbps mp3.
So, obviously, higher bitrate is better for quality, but what software can I use to encode 128kbps mp3? Or is .wma better?
I wouldn't recommend using media player.
D
Originally posted by stockenYou're quite right, I had the plugin already.
You need to buy an MP3 plug-in. You never get anything for free from Microsoft unless they're trying to throw a competitor off market. Didn't you know? 😉
Try musicmatch jukebox too, I seem to remember it does okay.
Originally posted by VargIf you encode a high quality MP3 you will get a larger filesize than you're used to with your 128kbps encodings. However, I think that WMA may not be as compressed for quality purposes, yes, but then you won't be able to fit as much music on your player.
Because the file size is bigger?
Which either means not as much compression or not as good compression.
I find that the quality is good enough with 128k encodings.
There was a head to head battle of the formats like Wma vs Mp3
at various compression ratios in a recent copy of PC world where they
had dudes and dudettes who were professional music reviewers
using thousand dollar earphones and then taking cuts that
challange any sound system like George Cromarty's
"Wind in the Heather" an early 80's great acoustic guitar album of
his own compositions that was recorded so well some audiophiles
use it to test out their systems for clarity. So they would listen to
cuts like that and others and get a blind test of MP3 at 320 vs
Wma at the same level and lo and behold, for the most part
they were suprised to find they had a difficult time picking out which
was the uncompressed original on a number of differant artists, not
just Cromarty and the compressed version.
They were able to pick out their own favorite compressions but
had less luck deciding which other type was what.
It was an eye opener for these reviewers when the smoke cleared.
They had not done near as well as they would have thought
beforehand. So I guess the gist of it is, at 320, its very hard to
tell the differance between compressed and original.