Advise me - MP3, WMA

[EyeOfThe]

What (hopefully free) software is my best bet for turning my legally-purchased CD music into WMA files (to play on my portable MP3-player) using a Win98 PC?

Thanks for any tips

 

[amnesiac]

Why WMA?

Easiest way (for CD->MP3) is CDex, but best way is EAC and a LAME encoder.

 

[EyeOfThe]

Originally posted by: amnesiac
Why WMA?

Easiest way (for CD->MP3) is CDex, but best way is EAC and a LAME encoder.

Why WMA - because I read WMA sounds better and/or takes up less space than mp3.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: EyeOfThe

Originally posted by: amnesiac
Why WMA?

Easiest way (for CD->MP3) is CDex, but best way is EAC and a LAME encoder.

Why WMA - because I read WMA sounds better and/or takes up less space than mp3.

That's what Microsoft will tell you. They claim a 64kbit wma is as good as a 128kbit mp3. not true. Although ripping to WMA is far and away the easiest if you have a new version of WMP.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

EAC + LAME

Read the AT FAQs off the main page.

- M4H

 

[EyeOfThe]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: EyeOfThe

Originally posted by: amnesiac
Why WMA?

Easiest way (for CD->MP3) is CDex, but best way is EAC and a LAME encoder.

Why WMA - because I read WMA sounds better and/or takes up less space than mp3.

That's what Microsoft will tell you. They claim a 64kbit wma is as good as a 128kbit mp3. not true. Although ripping to WMA is far and away the easiest if you have a new version of WMP.

I think I read it on an "independent" website. Like a 128 WMA has better sound quality than a 128 mp3......? I'll have to do a google on it.

 

[VBboy]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
EAC + LAME

Read the AT FAQs off the main page.

- M4H

Ogg vorbis, baby! 320kbps of powah!

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: VBboy

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
EAC + LAME

Read the AT FAQs off the main page.

- M4H

Ogg vorbis, baby! 320kbps of powah!

I second that!

 

[ElFenix]

ogg!

 

[EyeOfThe]

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: VBboy

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
EAC + LAME

Read the AT FAQs off the main page.

- M4H

Ogg vorbis, baby! 320kbps of powah!

I second that!

What does it mean?

 

WMA is fine if you don't care how the music sounds or just want to stuff a bunch of 64kbit/s stuff on a portable. For archiving MP3 and OGG far surpass it at higher bitrates.

http://www.r3mix.net/

"About VQF and WMA it is known that they produce distinct artifacts at any bitrate because of their drastic encoding methods."

 

[CraigRT]

CDEX rules... awesome program.. use mp3.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: EyeOfThe

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: VBboy

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
EAC + LAME

Read the AT FAQs off the main page.

- M4H

Ogg vorbis, baby! 320kbps of powah!

I second that!

What does it mean?

OGG Vorbis is another means of compression, like WMA or MP3. Its 0wnage is widely accepted.

Start here

- M4H

 

[Jejunum]

serious question: why is using eac any better than using cdex...both use the lame codec (assuming an unscratched original cd)

 

Originally posted by: Jejunum
serious question: why is using eac any better than using cdex...both use the lame codec (assuming an unscratched original cd)

Read the FAQ:

http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=107

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: EyeOfThe

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: VBboy

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
EAC + LAME

Read the AT FAQs off the main page.

- M4H

Ogg vorbis, baby! 320kbps of powah!

I second that!

What does it mean?

OGG Vorbis is another means of compression, like WMA or MP3. Its 0wnage is widely accepted.

Start here

- M4H

So when are we goinf to get Ogg portables & car stereos??

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: EyeOfThe

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: VBboy

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
EAC + LAME

Read the AT FAQs off the main page.

- M4H

Ogg vorbis, baby! 320kbps of powah!

I second that!

What does it mean?

OGG Vorbis is another means of compression, like WMA or MP3. Its 0wnage is widely accepted.

Start here

- M4H

So when are we goinf to get Ogg portables & car stereos??

One day........

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: EyeOfThe

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: VBboy

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
EAC + LAME

Read the AT FAQs off the main page.

- M4H

Ogg vorbis, baby! 320kbps of powah!

I second that!

What does it mean?

OGG Vorbis is another means of compression, like WMA or MP3. Its 0wnage is widely accepted.

Start here

- M4H

So when are we goinf to get Ogg portables & car stereos??

One day........

LoL ... so they keep saying!

 

[AnitaPeterson]

WMA is absolutely crap!

So what if it's smaller? It sounds very bad. Kinda like recording CDs on Dollarama audio tapes, using an Emerson/RCA ghettoblaster....

Of course, Microsoft will say their PROPRIETARY format is better. Don't they just wish MP3, Ogg and all the other FREE, Open-source formats to die?

Let's face it, WMA is inferior and not as widely spread as MP3. Why would anyone go for it, it's a mystery to me. Remember when both DVD and DIVX came out, and CircuitCity was encouraging people (aka suckers) to buy crappy DIVX players?

 

[Jejunum]

Read the FAQ:

not really it doesnt explain why to use eac over cdex on an unscratched cd...i have no need for paranoid error correction because its unscratched and since its using the same codec it should be the same...right?

 

Originally posted by: Jejunum

Read the FAQ:

not really it doesnt explain why to use eac over cdex on an unscratched cd...i have no need for paranoid error correction because its unscratched and since its using the same codec it should be the same...right?

If you want to take the chance of getting pops and clicks, yeah it makes no difference which you use. Plus the ripping will be faster to use cdex because it lacks error correction.

 

[PhoenixOfWater]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: EyeOfThe

Originally posted by: amnesiac
Why WMA?

Easiest way (for CD->MP3) is CDex, but best way is EAC and a LAME encoder.

Why WMA - because I read WMA sounds better and/or takes up less space than mp3.

That's what Microsoft will tell you. They claim a 64kbit wma is as good as a 128kbit mp3. not true. Although ripping to WMA is far and away the easiest if you have a new version of WMP.

I use MP3 and my Girlfriend use WMA with the same CD and my MP3 always sounds better
And also MP3 is just a EZer format to work with....(outside of Windows Media Player)

 

[EyeOfThe]

I read the FAQ and got set up with EAC and LAME. and it works!

Now I'm wonder if the 320 kbps is more than I need. I have it set to the highest setting, but maybe my ears wouldn't notice the difference if I lowered it?

Even tho I set it to 320... when I look at the properties of the finished mp3s... the number shows up as like 219 kbps or a number around there. What's up with that? Am I doing it wrong or is 219 the best possible quality for the particular song?

 

[Workin']

Originally posted by: Jejunum

Read the FAQ:

not really it doesnt explain why to use eac over cdex on an unscratched cd...i have no need for paranoid error correction because its unscratched and since its using the same codec it should be the same...right?

Not necessarily.

The LAME codec only comes into play AFTER the data is extracted from the CD. No external codec is used to extract the data from the CD.

Just because a CD is not scratched it is still possible to have data read errors. The CD-audio data format includes VERY weak error-correction capabilities, nowhere near as capable as the data-CD format. So EAC (or CDex in paranoid mode) does the additional error checking for us.

 

[Workin']

Originally posted by: EyeOfThe
I read the FAQ and got set up with EAC and LAME. and it works!

Now I'm wonder if the 320 kbps is more than I need. I have it set to the highest setting, but maybe my ears wouldn't notice the difference if I lowered it?

Even tho I set it to 320... when I look at the properties of the finished mp3s... the number shows up as like 219 kbps or a number around there. What's up with that? Am I doing it wrong or is 219 the best possible quality for the particular song?

If you set it up according to the FAQ then you are using a specific command-line parameter string which is passed directly to LAME, over-riding any settings you pick from any of the checkboxes within EAC.

So really you are encoding variable-bit-rate MP3 files, that's why you are seeing odd-looking bitrates. 99.99% of the time you will not be able to hear the difference between a file encoded using the VBR settings from the FAQ and a file encoded at 320 kbps.

320 kbps is more than you need. Extensive listening tests have shown that LAME is "transparent" at 256 kpbs, and is statistically insignificant at VBR quality V1 or better (which is what you are using if you set up according to the FAQ).

Hope that clears it up a little bit, at least.