Should i rip to wma or mp3

Menu Menu. Search Everywhere Threads This forum This thread. Search titles only. Search Advanced search…. Everywhere Threads This forum This thread. Search Advanced…. Log in. Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4.

Support UI. X Donate Contact us. New posts Trending Search forums. What's new. New posts New profile posts Latest activity. Current visitors New profile posts Search profile posts Billboard Trophies. JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding. Previous Next. Harris Distinguished. Dec 1, 4 0 18, 0. I'm wondering if there is any significant difference in quality of sound between WMA and MP3 formats for storing the files. Thanks, guys.

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Jan 31, 0 18, 9. Thank you very much for your comments. Yes, some of the speakers are significant; in my listening room I have two large Klipsch speaker systems. Your suggestion about listening makes complete sense. Selecting the file format is also left to you. Now most of the players play almost all types of files and well know file format is mp3. Higher the audio quality you select the quality of the sound also increase and also its size.

You may have a look at the following article which tells you more about ripping music from CDs. For more information about iTunes I would recommend you to contact its support team. Information about the Multimedia file types that Windows Media Player supports. How satisfied are you with this reply? Tim De Baets. In reply to Tim De Baets's post on July 20, I promise that if you are a audiophile, you want kbps to be your minimum quality rip, and you want to use mp3 as your format if you want to maintain the tagging system for future use believe me you do, nothing's more annoying than having a 30 gig ipod with tracks that you know had a name, but only show up as "unknown track " even though people say inaudible quality loss, if you are going to be archiving these songs for you to enjoy for years , Strongly consider kbps as your bitrate.

It still is not as good as FLAC, but you can't use flac for most portable players anyway. The analogy of taking a photocopy of a photocopy has helped me to visualise what takes place inside the machine. Having read all the answers I have decided, as the general consensus suggests, to bite the bullet and re-rip all the CD's using Windows Media Player to MP3 at a bit-rate of , as I should have done in the first place! What is the point of WMA I might ask? At a rate of ten a day I should be done by March.

What I would like to do however is find a way to copy the album info from the old WMA files to the new MP3 files, as some of it had to be manually input ad tedium. Shouldn't be too hard to figure out. Then I will be able to get rid of the CD's. Well perhaps hold onto some favourites for old times sake. I can't say Jetaudio is better or not, but I have used jetaudio whenever I needed to rip a cd. It is possible in some cases, but I don't think conversion always lose quality, like photocopy.

Bruce Epper You are, in effect, converting from one lossy file format to another. In most cases, there will be additional loss during the conversion, but most people will not be able to discern the difference.

Having said that, the main factor that determines your quality is precisely kbps, and kbps will give you a very high quality. Supposing that the conversion is performed correctly that is, excluding buggy converters , you will not be able to notice any difference. Even with more aggressive conversions it would be difficult to notice any difference. Despite the increase in electric vehicles, liquid fuel hybrids remain available. But what is a hybrid car, and should you buy one for your next car?

Indeed, it will reduce audio file quality during the conversion, but you should know that, the difference is hard to be noticed, so if you really want to convert MP3 files to WMA, just do it.