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.
 
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:35:03 -0700, Mark Bohlsen
<MarkBohlsen@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>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.

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.
 
=?Utf-8?B?TWFyayBCb2hsc2Vu?= <MarkBohlsen@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:491B6A6E-6031-412D-B2E0-02172A57AE0F@microsoft.com:

> 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.

Don't rip anything at 128kb/s. Choose 192kb/s mp3 to get near cd quality.
 
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:11:21 GMT, Basil <b.fawlty@noemail.invalid>
wrote:

>Don't rip anything at 128kb/s. Choose 192kb/s mp3 to get near cd quality.

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

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!

--
Mick Murphy - Qld - Australia


"Mark Veldhuis" wrote:

> >> Don't rip anything at 128kb/s. Choose 192kb/s mp3 to get near cd quality.
> >
> > Again, only your dog will hear the difference.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
 
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:40:04 +0200, Mark Veldhuis <me@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

>>> Don't rip anything at 128kb/s. Choose 192kb/s mp3 to get near cd quality.
>>
>> Again, only your dog will hear the difference.
>
>No offence Paul, but go have your ears checked! lol

They're admittedly quite old <g>
 
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:35:03 -0700, Mark Bohlsen
<MarkBohlsen@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>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.


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.
--
oscar :)

....Right click is your best friend...


"Mick Murphy" wrote:

> Don't worry about offending him!
> He is a just a smart*ss here.
> 3 names!
>
> paul montgomery>nonnymoose>barney fife!
>
> --
> Mick Murphy - Qld - Australia
>
>
> "Mark Veldhuis" wrote:
>
> > >> Don't rip anything at 128kb/s. Choose 192kb/s mp3 to get near cd quality.
> > >
> > > Again, only your dog will hear the difference.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
 
On Aug 4, 6:05 pm, oscar <os...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Mick,
>
> Thanks for the three names. I've added them to my newsreader blocking
> filter.  

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? =)

--
Speaking for myself only.
See http://zachd.com/pss/pss.html for some helpful WMP info.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
--
"Paul Montgomery" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bbqe9415rcj3pdnp30lj4eknuf9ohi93qd@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:35:03 -0700, Mark Bohlsen
> <MarkBohlsen@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> 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.
 
"Paul Montgomery" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nose94do2j5rm2t9v2u486vh2ir7gp4l7r@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:11:21 GMT, Basil <b.fawlty@noemail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Don't rip anything at 128kb/s. Choose 192kb/s mp3 to get near cd quality.
>
> Again, only your dog will hear the difference.

Incorrect analogy and statement. There is a reason most DVDs are 224 kbps
Mpeg2.
 
You are welcome, Oscar.
He is worse then the trolls!
At least they sometimes try and help!
--
Mick Murphy - Qld - Australia


"oscar" wrote:

> Mick,
>
> Thanks for the three names. I've added them to my newsreader blocking
> filter.
> --
> oscar :)
>
> ...Right click is your best friend...
>
>
> "Mick Murphy" wrote:
>
> > Don't worry about offending him!
> > He is a just a smart*ss here.
> > 3 names!
> >
> > paul montgomery>nonnymoose>barney fife!
> >
> > --
> > Mick Murphy - Qld - Australia
> >
> >
> > "Mark Veldhuis" wrote:
> >
> > > >> Don't rip anything at 128kb/s. Choose 192kb/s mp3 to get near cd quality.
> > > >
> > > > Again, only your dog will hear the difference.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
 
"Paul Montgomery" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tmve9456osb9l4gai26sfob888d0soofan@4ax.com...
>
>>>> Don't rip anything at 128kb/s. Choose 192kb/s mp3 to get near cd
>>>> quality.
>>>
>>> Again, only your dog will hear the difference.
>>
>>No offence Paul, but go have your ears checked! lol
>
> They're admittedly quite old <g>

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

ss.
 
"Paul Montgomery" <nonnymoose@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bbqe9415rcj3pdnp30lj4eknuf9ohi93qd@4ax.com...
>>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.
>
> 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.

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

ss.
 
On Aug 5, 4:43 am, "Synapse Syndrome" <syna...@NOSPAMsyndrome.me.uk>
wrote:
> "Paul Montgomery" <nonnymo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:tmve9456osb9l4gai26sfob888d0soofan@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> >>>> Don't rip anything at 128kb/s. Choose 192kb/s mp3 to get near cd
> >>>> quality.
>
> >>> Again, only your dog will hear the difference.
>
> >>No offence Paul, but go have your ears checked! lol
>
> > They're admittedly quite old <g>
>
> Hey, deaf man.  How old are you then?  I had you down as a kid.

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.
 

Similar threads

AWS
A closer look at Qakbot’s latest building blocks (and how to knock them down)
Replies
1
Views
291
Tony D
Tony D
allheart55 (Cindy E)
  • Poll Poll
Poll: Should “Locked” Digital Content Be Labeled So You Know What You’re Buying?
Replies
0
Views
544
allheart55 (Cindy E)
allheart55 (Cindy E)
allheart55 (Cindy E)
$15 million fake IRS call center busted by police
Replies
0
Views
650
allheart55 (Cindy E)
allheart55 (Cindy E)
S
Windows (7) Media Player
Replies
0
Views
294
stephenmartland
S
DSTM
  • Locked
  • Sticky
WINDOWS OFFLINE UPDATE TUTORIAL
Replies
0
Views
1K
DSTM
DSTM
Back
Top