Hehe... lol.

to my Knowledge wma may contain imbedded security features that will not allow media player to play the file if you did not make it from your own cd library
However, if you just use winamp you don't have to worry about it.
Besides win amp has all the wonderful AMG skins so why not use it.

As for the quality an mp3 it depends on the person that encodes it originally and unless you are doing audio editing

well, since I use a mac, the only one i can really use is iTunes. And even on my windoze box I use iTunes.

I prefer mp3 / m4a format. I had bad experiences with wmas before. plus, it’s made by the evil empire.

wma are made by the Yankees? No wonder the team is so rich taking advantage of all those poor ignorant Windows users

I chose mp3 because it is universal. It can read in all kinds of pc's like mac, win, and linux. Plus its size is small that you can burn so many in a cd and play it in your discman(which i wanna have), or you can play it in your mp3-compatible cd player for non-stop songs.:bg:

yea Mp3's are good but when i download a song from mi keiboard to a cd i download it with wma i dunno but it's kinda eaiser

you write music too angelfeathers?

It has a feature called rip (copy from cd to pc). If I increase the quality of the ripped mucic from a normal 57 MB per CD (128 Kbps) to 144 MB per CD (320 Kbps) which is the maximum, does the music really sound different?

Yeah, the quality increases if you choose the 320 one. I always choose that everytime i rip musics.

it really depends on the sound...Lower and Higher Frequencies are cutoff and a small amount of distortion will become present (which you can only hear on high-end equipment)

When I mix down one of my songs I usually mix a copy at 41000 and 48000 for wavs. You can definitely tell a difference with wav's, but not so much on MP3's

I see... so there is a difference. But you need high end equipment? Thats a drag... and WAV? Is it different from WMA?

i prefer mp3 because the quality sound is better than wma

Quote

Originally posted by Hikaryu (view)
I see... so there is a difference. But you need high end equipment? Thats a drag... and WAV? Is it different from WMA?

WAV is "lossless" meaning that it retains all the sound within the song as if it was playing right from the CD.
When you choose "lossy" like MP3 and normal WMA; you lose a certain amount of sound quality depends on the bitrate you selected.

As mentioned from an above poster, WMA has the possibility to contain DRM (Digital Rights Managment) which leave the possibility of MP3 players not supporting certain files if they do not have the DRM installed. And as a Microsoft proprietary algorithm, it is just generally a good idea NOT to use it. :p

Go with MP3 for regular ripping, or if you want to retain all the sound, use FLAC (http://flac.sourceforge.net).

i preffer mp3 it keeps me save some money, b'coz it can store many music and songs in just one cd, unlike wma can only stores up to 20 songs in one cd, in terms of quality they're almost the same also.

Quote

Originally posted by Fizzyboy (view)

Quote

Originally posted by Hikaryu (view)
I see... so there is a difference. But you need high end equipment? Thats a drag... and WAV? Is it different from WMA?

WAV is "lossless" meaning that it retains all the sound within the song as if it was playing right from the CD.
When you choose "lossy" like MP3 and normal WMA; you lose a certain amount of sound quality depends on the bitrate you selected.

As mentioned from an above poster, WMA has the possibility to contain DRM (Digital Rights Managment) which leave the possibility of MP3 players not supporting certain files if they do not have the DRM installed. And as a Microsoft proprietary algorithm, it is just generally a good idea NOT to use it. :p

Go with MP3 for regular ripping, or if you want to retain all the sound, use FLAC (http://flac.sourceforge.net).

>>>whats that FLAC? a software?