Windows Media Player...which rip option

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
<> 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?= <>
wrote in news:491B6A6E-6031-412D-B2E0-:

> 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 <>
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 <>
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
<> 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