Any difference in WMA rippers?

[fbrdphreak]

The title pretty much says it all. All of the music I rip from my CDs are in MP3 and I recently moved it down to 128kbps to fit more MP3s on a CD in my car. But I hear that WMA quality is better than MP3 at the same compression, so I would probably want to keep the WMA's in 128 or if they sound good any lower, I might try that. Or am I just wasting my time 'cuz its not a big deal?
If WMA is that much better, I assume there is no difference in WMA rippers as they all have to use M$'s codec? Free is nice, but I am interested in non-free programs also.
The deck in my car plays both MP3's & WMA's, which is why I'm interested. If anyone has any suggestions for fitting more music on a CD, I would be greatly interested. Am I wasting song quality @ 128 in my car? I have reasonable speakers (2-way Sony 6x9's, 2-way Pioneer 6.5's), so I don't want less quality: just more music on a single disc
Thanks in advance!

 

[madthumbs]

WMA is only better at sub 128kbps. At 128 music sucks, so anything less would be horrid. Above 128 mp3 is superior. I'd stick with mp3 and above 128 if you care at all about quality.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: madthumbs
WMA is only better at sub 128kbps. At 128 music sucks, so anything less would be horrid. Above 128 mp3 is superior. I'd stick with mp3 and above 128 if you care at all about quality.

I use 128 MP3s, 32,000 sampling rate. Sound OK to me, but I'm talking FM here. No complaints.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: madthumbs
WMA is only better at sub 128kbps. At 128 music sucks, so anything less would be horrid. Above 128 mp3 is superior. I'd stick with mp3 and above 128 if you care at all about quality.

That's good to know! I would love to fit more MP3's on a CD, but I don't want to lose quality. I used to rip my MP3's at 160, but really wanted to fit more in my car.

Even though I think I've explored all options, can anyone suggest any particular way to cram more MP3's on a CD?
I'm personally waiting for a car deck that will play MP3's off of a DVD, and not one of those stupid LCD displays one either.

 

[Schadenfroh]

i sample at 128, sounds good enough to me. Anything less than that is robot.

 

[madthumbs]

At 128kbps I can quickly and easily discern they're mp3 even on a cheap stereo.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Maybe I will re-rip my fav CD and burn MP3 & WMA at 128, 160, 192? Play each to see how much of a diff.
BTW, if anyone's still taying appention, any favorites for an MP3 codec? As I understand it, the ripper app really only provides the interface & options so that is up to users preference, but the codec is really what determines mp3 quality. Any favs? Thanks again!

 

[Fulcrum]

My vote is for creating MP3s using LAME 3.90.3 at alt-preset standard (VBR around 200kbps). And, if you need to rip, do it using EAC properly setup in secure mode.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Does VBR make a noticeable difference in quality while saving space? If I understand correctly, the idea of VBR is to use as much precision as necessary up to the set amt (i.e. 200kbps). So when there are parts in the music that do not need that much data, it doesn't use it and for the parts that do need the data, you've got that much precision. If it saves space over a 128kbps or 160 with comparable or better quality, then I'll have to play with those
Thx