Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

WMA versus MP3 for CD Ripping and storing music

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
February 27, 2006 11:24:19 PM

I'm setting up a home music / video system using our wireless network. I have LOTS of CDs that over time I want to rip onto the NAS drive. I'm wondering if there is any significant difference in quality of sound between WMA and MP3 formats for storing the files.

Thanks, guys. :D  Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

--Bob Harris
February 28, 2006 1:07:46 PM

it depends on the qaulity youre after. some say that wma sounds better at lower qaulity levels and thta at say 320kps there is not much difference. my advice would be to listen to the same tune in 1 format at least 10 times then listen to it in the other format and see which you prefer. please note that you'll need a good set of speakers to hear any difference in quality.

i personally use WMA lossless to store all my music so as not to lose any qaulity. if you like music i would advise using a lossless format instead of a lossy one. lossy ones like mp3 are usually only good for media players where space is most important.
February 28, 2006 2:02:52 PM

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. I'll follow your suggestion. I was particularly interested in what people such as yourself are using. My initial format has been the WMA lossless, as you suggest. Interestingly, however, Windows Media seems to play these less well than Winamp, on this PC anyway.

Thanks again. Truely appreciated. :D 

--Bob
Related resources
February 28, 2006 5:29:42 PM

lol you out do me i only use creative s750's. but ye i would go for as accurate reproduction as possible. im not sure what other formats of decent qaulity there are but you should try to make a direct digital copy without any coding or decoding involved. if them speakers are proper audio speakers then using any compression at all would defeat the purpose of having them.
February 28, 2006 9:55:19 PM

Well, I hadn't thought of just making a direct digital copy. That's a logical and interesting idea. I've never tried that.

I'm an ol' time audiophil; back in the days when we used to build our own amplifiers using tubes (EL34's) and LARGE transformers. I have another set of speakers that I built myself in a soundlab at UC Davis back in the mid-1960s. In some ways they sound better than the monster Klipschhorns. So the idea of using PCs for this purpose is still a new thing for me even though my experience with PCs goes back to the very first ones....and before.

I'll try the digital route. I may have additional questions after I try that!

Thanks a lot for your thoughts on this stuff. :D 

--Bob
April 14, 2006 4:51:37 AM

Quote:
So the idea of using PCs for this purpose is still a new thing for me even though my experience with PCs goes back to the very first ones....and before.



Explain to me how this is even possible unless you were a creator of the PC?! How old are you anyway? :lol: 
April 14, 2006 4:09:25 PM

Well, maybe not the FIRST ones, that would be an incorrect statement! You got me! :) 

I'm 63 and have been involved with information technology since the late 1960s. However, I'm not an IT person, I'm a biochemist. We used computing technology early on to process information and crunch numbers.

Sorry it took so long for me to answer. I had stopped looking at the thread.

--Bob
December 12, 2008 9:36:46 PM

I know that MP3 formats compress audio files, and if you where to slow down music that was ripped using an MP3 format you would be able to hear the snapping and popping sounds that you get as a result of compressing an audio file. And i know that WMA (LOSSLESS) will not compress music file unlike MP3 formats, and if you were to rip music using WMA (LOSSLESS) and then you were to slow down one of those songs you would not be able to here the snapping and popping sounds this is because WMA (LOSSLESS) is uncompressed. I think that your best bet on sound quality is to just go with WMA (LOSSLESS), but it will only sound as good as your sound system sounds and or how good your computer and its software is at ripping music.
December 12, 2008 9:47:24 PM

I know that MP3 formats compress audio files, and if you where to slow down music that was ripped using an MP3 format you would be able to hear the snapping and popping sounds that you get as a result of compressing an audio file. And i know that WMA (LOSSLESS) will not compress music file unlike MP3 formats, and if you were to rip music using WMA (LOSSLESS) and then you were to slow down one of those songs you would not be able to here the snapping and popping sounds this is because WMA (LOSSLESS) is uncompressed. I think that your best bet on sound quality is to just go with WMA (LOSSLESS), but it will only sound as good as your sound system sounds and or how good your computer and its software is at ripping music.
March 20, 2009 10:43:58 AM

Try using FLAC with Total media player. Smaller in size and lossless, this format is great! You can always convert it to mp3 or wma later using software converters and use it with MP3 players. Another good format, without worrying of the file size is the WAV format.

Speakers do matter a lot! If you are restricted in space, go for Creative T40 or T20 series II. If you can afford, go for gigaworks T3. If you like to enjoy DVD audio convert the files to WAV - 5.1 channel (use Creative 7.1 or 5.1 speakers) and use Creative X-Fi series (and above) sound cards. You can also use external cards or laptop PCMCIA cards, if you need one.

If you don't care for the price and need the best, go for MK sound speakers. These are the best studio quality listening speakers and offer several ranges according to your pocket.

http://www.mksoundsystem.com/

Hope that heps.

April 7, 2009 12:49:32 PM

MP3 is more compatible with various devices,
!