Looking to convert CD collection to either MP3 or WMA
Feb 2, 2004 | 4:59 am
#1
Original Poster
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Department of Homeland Sincerity
Programs: WN Platinum, UA 1k, AA EP, Marriott Plat
Posts: 12,319
Looking to convert CD collection to either MP3 or WMA
I've got some older CD's from college that I'm going to convert to MP3 or WMA format for travel.
Any pros and cons of MP3 vs WMA?
And what are the decent rippers for WMA?
Thanks.
Any pros and cons of MP3 vs WMA?
And what are the decent rippers for WMA?
Thanks.
Feb 2, 2004 | 8:11 am
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2000
Programs: BA, AA, DL, KLM, UA
Posts: 37,489
If you have the storage I'd suggest ripping them to a LOSSLESS format first, like flac
That way you will always have an exact copy of your music, formats change all the time, and the more you convert the more you lose. An excellent conversion program is dbconverter, it will let you go from flac to WMA or MP3.
The advantage of WMA is that it supports a variable bit rate instead of the fixed bitrate in MP3 helping you make smaller files.
The problem with WMA is that not all programs support it, MP3 is at least supported by every program and portable player out there.
That way you will always have an exact copy of your music, formats change all the time, and the more you convert the more you lose. An excellent conversion program is dbconverter, it will let you go from flac to WMA or MP3.
The advantage of WMA is that it supports a variable bit rate instead of the fixed bitrate in MP3 helping you make smaller files.
The problem with WMA is that not all programs support it, MP3 is at least supported by every program and portable player out there.
Feb 3, 2004 | 4:52 am
#5
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 6,055
The AAC encoder in iTunes is very good, certainly much better quality than MP3. I use it at 160kbit/s and it's noticeably better. Also, being based on MPEG4, it's more likely to be standard for a lot longer than WMA will be.
Feb 3, 2004 | 6:56 am
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Programs: DL GM, AA Gold, Hilton Diamond, Bonvoy Plat
Posts: 12,171
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ScottC:
If you have the storage I'd suggest ripping them to a LOSSLESS format first, like flac
That way you will always have an exact copy of your music, formats change all the time, and the more you convert the more you lose. An excellent conversion program is dbconverter, it will let you go from flac to WMA or MP3.
The advantage of WMA is that it supports a variable bit rate instead of the fixed bitrate in MP3 helping you make smaller files.
The problem with WMA is that not all programs support it, MP3 is at least supported by every program and portable player out there.</font>
If you have the storage I'd suggest ripping them to a LOSSLESS format first, like flac
That way you will always have an exact copy of your music, formats change all the time, and the more you convert the more you lose. An excellent conversion program is dbconverter, it will let you go from flac to WMA or MP3.
The advantage of WMA is that it supports a variable bit rate instead of the fixed bitrate in MP3 helping you make smaller files.
The problem with WMA is that not all programs support it, MP3 is at least supported by every program and portable player out there.</font>
Feb 3, 2004 | 8:19 am
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2000
Programs: BA, AA, DL, KLM, UA
Posts: 37,489
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by skofarrell:
400+mb per cd! The secret is out! sccttc works for Maxtor!</font>
400+mb per cd! The secret is out! sccttc works for Maxtor!
</font>
That is still 10 full CD's per DVD-R, and at under a buck a disk that isn't bad. Or, get one of these:
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10118
Feb 3, 2004 | 8:20 am
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2000
Programs: BA, AA, DL, KLM, UA
Posts: 37,489
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Dave_C:
The AAC encoder in iTunes is very good, certainly much better quality than MP3. I use it at 160kbit/s and it's noticeably better. Also, being based on MPEG4, it's more likely to be standard for a lot longer than WMA will be.</font>
The AAC encoder in iTunes is very good, certainly much better quality than MP3. I use it at 160kbit/s and it's noticeably better. Also, being based on MPEG4, it's more likely to be standard for a lot longer than WMA will be.</font>
Not according to Microsoft
Feb 3, 2004 | 11:24 am
#9
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 324
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ScottC:
The advantage of WMA is that it supports a variable bit rate instead of the fixed bitrate in MP3 helping you make smaller files.</font>
The advantage of WMA is that it supports a variable bit rate instead of the fixed bitrate in MP3 helping you make smaller files.</font>
Feb 3, 2004 | 7:52 pm
#10
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,035
As far as I know, the most widely supported format is mp3 and all major players support mp3 variable bit rate. If you have the storage space, go for lossless, such as flac.
A great web site for this subject is www.hydrogenaudio.org.
A great web site for this subject is www.hydrogenaudio.org.
Feb 4, 2004 | 6:58 pm
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2000
Programs: BA, AA, DL, KLM, UA
Posts: 37,489
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by aa4ever:
iTunes is great for either Mac or Windows. I would use Apples proprietary format AAC as they claim sound quality is better. If nothing else, it is more compressed than mp3</font>
iTunes is great for either Mac or Windows. I would use Apples proprietary format AAC as they claim sound quality is better. If nothing else, it is more compressed than mp3</font>
Feb 4, 2004 | 9:02 pm
#14
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, Earth (PIT)
Programs: Airline/TSA Avoidance Platinum, Hotel Disloyalty Silver, Hertz 1.7*
Posts: 5,277
I use iTunes (on a Mac, even), and after some thought I decided I would keep ripping any of my CDs that I decide to (I've been ripping them slowly, as I get a inkling to hear certain things while at the computer) in MP3 format instead. It makes things much easier should I ever decide to use different types of other playback devices. For instance, perhaps a new car I get sometime will have MP3 playback capability (from a CD). It would suck if all my music files were AAC. Right now I don't have a portable player, and I would be inclined to get an iPod anyway, but I feel this keeps my options open.
The only advantage AAC really has is in file size. The idea behind it is that at a given file size, AAC is higher quality. Or, to express it another way, AAC can get you the same quality in a smaller file size. If you rip at a high enough bit rate, MP3 is fine enough quality. Depending upon how sensitive your ears are, 192kbit may be enough. That is what I use. Many people claim they can hear a difference up to 256k or even 320k. I can't, and neither can my boss, who is quite into high-quality audio listening.
As for MP3 vs WMA, well, I would use the same rationale. MP3 will preserve the highest level of portability as far as different playback device options. There are few if any devices that can play a WMA and not play an MP3.
Lossless formats are good for the extremely picky. And the one thing that could do that the others can't is preserve options in the case of new compressed formats in the future. But if you rip to a high quality MP3, you can get a high quality audio CD back from that. (See above. For some of us that level is 192kbit with MP3, for others it's a bit higher than that.) It's if you repeat that process (ripping the newly burned CD again) where you will start to lose the quality.
The only advantage AAC really has is in file size. The idea behind it is that at a given file size, AAC is higher quality. Or, to express it another way, AAC can get you the same quality in a smaller file size. If you rip at a high enough bit rate, MP3 is fine enough quality. Depending upon how sensitive your ears are, 192kbit may be enough. That is what I use. Many people claim they can hear a difference up to 256k or even 320k. I can't, and neither can my boss, who is quite into high-quality audio listening.
As for MP3 vs WMA, well, I would use the same rationale. MP3 will preserve the highest level of portability as far as different playback device options. There are few if any devices that can play a WMA and not play an MP3.
Lossless formats are good for the extremely picky. And the one thing that could do that the others can't is preserve options in the case of new compressed formats in the future. But if you rip to a high quality MP3, you can get a high quality audio CD back from that. (See above. For some of us that level is 192kbit with MP3, for others it's a bit higher than that.) It's if you repeat that process (ripping the newly burned CD again) where you will start to lose the quality.
Feb 4, 2004 | 9:53 pm
#15
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: ATL
Posts: 3,219
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by aa4ever:
[B... Apples proprietary format AAC ...[/B]</font>
[B... Apples proprietary format AAC ...[/B]</font>
AAC was developed by Dolby Laboratories, Inc. which was accepted by the MPEG standards group. Apple only licenses the technology.
Microsoft should make their software work with the most popular hardware.