I'll be getting my mp3 player for my car monday, and was ripping my cds to .WMA. I was wondering if there were any disadvantages to using WMA? I like Media Players ease of ripping and encoding to WMA, but was wondering if there are any downsides. Thanks.
WMA vs. MP3
- Thread starter KYREDP5
- Start date
PA_MP3_Man
Member
Hmm, that is a good question. I really don't think it'll be much different either way. I would try and rip the same song using both methods. Find out which one can do it using the least amount of space. That way you can fit more onto a cd. That'd be about the only thing I can think of. I think the quality would be the same. Can't you choose the bit rate of the rip in WMA just like for an MP3?
also I would assume that the mp3 player you bought plays wma files also or you wouldn't even be asking this question. But I was just making sure.
also I would assume that the mp3 player you bought plays wma files also or you wouldn't even be asking this question. But I was just making sure.
DooMer_MP3
Member
Its sad that WMA hasn't taken off as much as I thought it would. WMA can give you much better quality at much lower bitrates thus saving you precious space.
Chris
Chris
i use wma in my pocketpc because wma's at 64 bit sound the same as mp3s at 128, and takes up a little less than 2/3 the space, making most my wma's less than 2 megs while the mp3s were over 3. need the space because i only have 64 megs on there, and yeah its really easy in WMP.
if i had an ipod or jukebox with gigs of space, i'd just rip them at at 192+ either format, i probly couldnt tell the difference that much, but with all that space who cares.
if i had an ipod or jukebox with gigs of space, i'd just rip them at at 192+ either format, i probly couldnt tell the difference that much, but with all that space who cares.
A
AGR
for my MAZDASPEED, I'm ripping at 192- 4X. Sounds great!
