Window Media Audio Loseless

ceecookie SG

Hi is it worth it to rip CD musics with Window Media Audio Loseless?
Quality is good ard 700+kbps but one cd literally takes 200-400MB of the HDD
If u encode in 192kbps will the difference be big?

ditzy SG

That's as good as leaving it in *.wav format. Laughing

mcfadden SG

rip it ard 256kbps. rip it ard 256kbps, the file size of the songs are just nice to put into ur computer. Rip ard 700kbps++, cause ur computer to lag dued to lack of memory space.

SexyChin SG

wav is almost double the space of the lossless format. Yet, both have the same sound quality.

If you want some decent sound quality, just rip in at least 196kbps in aac or wma format. Above that, I doubt most people would hear much difference.

orionlight SG

You encode at so high for what?You can’t even hear the difference and wastes harddisk space.If you really want good quality sound, i suggest you invest in a better soundcard and a 5.1 speaker

SexyChin SG

Higher bitrate is obviously better, when you got quality earphones from shure or bose. That’s when you can hear the difference.

lifeisgood9989 SG

not really worth it.. the ripping of cd needs to depend on ur cd rom drive too.. if it sux then even if u rip at so good quality it will still have not much effect too..

ceecookie SG

Window media audio only can ho up to 192kbps leh..u refering to mp3 format?

bryanseb SG

I think his trying to say mp3 format.

chanff8 SG

If you want the full quality JUST to listen to it, I’ll recommend you to simply rip it at 192kbps. It’s very very close to CD quality already. There’s no point listening to a lossless format and having it occupying so much space unless you are doing audio production or editing.

ditzy SG

This is ceecookie you're replying to, if he demands it, he gets it. If he wants his ferrari 430 to come with a 1.6l corolla engine, he gets it. Laughing

gigabyte14 SG

i usually convert it to mp3 format, with 192 kbps.

kawasaki2 SG

My sentiments exactly. Since its digital music, and if you want to enjoy music for listening or other purposes, a higher bit rate means more sound clarity. I can't speak for those who have lousy soundcards, poor speaker quality, hardware drivers not updated.
DIGITAL music. More 123/s= clearer sound

Farmerseed SG

Well everyone has different standards and preference when it comes to listening to music. Personally when i am on the move i do not really mind the quality. As long as i have the music i like and its at a decent rate of 128 or a little more will do. But when i am at home and its time to put my music to the earphone then most probably i will want more quality out of the sounds.

Maybe ceecokie can try copying a music sample in a few formats and playback rates and listen to compare for himself. If he finds a difference then he can work towards the one setting that pleases him. Otherwise he can go for a lower rate to save storage space and pack them into the number of CD-rs he will use.

M©+square SG

This may not answer your question directly. It offers some insights to audio quality and appreciation of quality.

Full Quality http://www.audioboxinc.com/quality.html

Size vs. Quality

The moral of the audio quality story is simple: bigger is better. Compression may be useful for sending tunes over the Internet on a slow connection, but extreme compression has no business being hooked up to a PA system. The solution is to get a bigger hard drive and to carry fewer songs. Luckily, drives are getting bigger and less expensive, and music files are staying the same size.

If you are interested in conducting a less expensive self-test for compression and MPEG sensitivity, you can try these two tests:

Radio signal compression vs. CD
If you have a CD player in your car, tune in a station that is likely to play a song you like from a CD that you own. Listen to the radio, and have your CD loaded and ready. When they play the song you have loaded, listen to the radio for a few seconds, then press play on the CD. The perceived "quality gain" that you should hear represents the difference of quality between CD audio and radio quality. The FM signal quality is significantly lower than the quality allowed by modern computer compression technologies, so the change in quality should be very evident to the human ear.

For this test to be accurate, the volume level of the radio and the CD must be equal. A difference in volume introduces other factors that change the perceived audio quality.

MP3 vs Cassette Quality
If you are tired of hearing how MP3 files are "CD Quality," you can test your ears to see if you can tell that MP3 is LESS THAN TAPE QUALITY. Record a song onto your computer, but don't compress it. Make a cassette recording of this song. Now, compress the song to each available "CD Quality" level your encoder has. Typically, these bitrates would include 128, 112, and 96 kbps.

Record the MP3 files onto another cassette. Now, using a dual-deck system, switch back and forth between playing the recording of the uncompressed music and the MP3 encoded music. Be your own judge, and see if you really can hear the difference.

Now, if you can hear the difference on a cassette tape, shouldn't you ask yourself how close to "CD Quality" the compression format you chose is?