MP3 Virgin Needs Help

MacB

Lover of things that come in 3's
So, I have had my first ever MP3 player for a while now, a Sansa Clip that plays MP3 or WMA files. Over the last week I've put 132 CD's onto my computer via Windows Media Player. I just went with the default which was WMA files. However we have a mix of media players in the house including Ipods. Apparently they need AAC files but both types can play MP3???

So have I just wasted my time and do I need to redo them all as MP3, can I convert them without reloading or what?

Apologies if the query is poorly, or incorrectly, phrased, I've only just learnt that copying files should now be called ripping:blush:
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
It's not poorly phrased, ipods famously don't support WMA. It's easy enough to convert them to mp3s, as you have several iPods I'm guessing you have itunes and you can do it on that (and plenty of other things).

If you want better sound quality you're best of redoing the lot or even as AAC, I'll leave it up to you to decide whether it's worth it or not.
 
OP
MacB

MacB

Lover of things that come in 3's
ok, mass conversion, that makes sense and lifts my sense of foreboding. Is their a benefit to each file type re quality of play etc, or is it just what it will play on?
 
MacB said:
ok, mass conversion, that makes sense and lifts my sense of foreboding. Is their a benefit to each file type re quality of play etc, or is it just what it will play on?
I think there is a benefit in different types with regards to the compression quality, I couldn't say what was best though. I think the different types only developed as they were developed by different manuafacturers each wanting to put their own brand stamp on the thing.
 
AAC is known for being better quality using a smaller bitrate than mp3.
e.g aac at 92kbps supposedly sounds better than a 92kbps mp3 file
However, for a good quality rip, then you should be using at least 150+mbps and at larger bit rates mp3 sounds better, allegedly.

File sizes obviously increase with the increase in bitrate, so you pays your money...
Mp3's can also be played by more stuff also, so is my preferred format and I can't tell the difference at over 128kbps anyway. :sad:

Hope that helps.
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
It's hard saying what someone else would find acceptable, but from you're pov MacB you might just be best batch processing the lot to mp3. You can always redo them later/for particular songs/all - it's what most people end up doing out of laziness/whatever :sad:.
 
OP
MacB

MacB

Lover of things that come in 3's
2Loose said:
AAC is known for being better quality using a smaller bitrate than mp3.
e.g aac at 92kbps supposedly sounds better than a 92kbps mp3 file
However, for a good quality rip, then you should be using at least 150+mbps and at larger bit rates mp3 sounds better, allegedly.

File sizes obviously increase with the increase in bitrate, so you pays your money...
Mp3's can also be played by more stuff also, so is my preferred format and I can't tell the difference at over 128kbps anyway. :sad:

Hope that helps.
thanks folks, yes it does make sense, so now I have the decision, I've already ripped at 128 WMA. If I mass convert can the bit rate be altered or am I stuck with the original load rate?

My player supports 32-192 for WMA and 64-320 for MP3 - would it be best to re-load/convert it all to MP3 at 320?
 
OP
MacB

MacB

Lover of things that come in 3's
marinyork said:
It's hard saying what someone else would find acceptable, but from you're pov MacB you might just be best batch processing the lot to mp3. You can always redo them later/for particular songs/all - it's what most people end up doing out of laziness/whatever :sad:.
ah, but I'm totally anal Paul, it would always be bugging me, so if it means labouriously reloading the whole shebang then I'll do it - all the while self flagellating:biggrin:
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
MacB said:
My player supports 32-192 for WMA and 64-320 for MP3 - would it be best to re-load/convert it all to MP3 at 320?
They might end up a bit large at 320. I'd do a quick calculation about how many songs you want on your player. Remember 8 bits =1 byte for your context.

So size of file is more or less (bitrate in kbs / 8) * seconds.
So say 320kbs/8 x 3 minute track is around 7 Meg. So if you have 2 gigabytes of memory you're going to get in the region of a bit below 300 songs.
 
MacB said:
thanks folks, yes it does make sense, so now I have the decision, I've already ripped at 128 WMA. If I mass convert can the bit rate be altered or am I stuck with the original load rate?

My player supports 32-192 for WMA and 64-320 for MP3 - would it be best to re-load/convert it all to MP3 at 320?

When you convert them you van chage their bit rate (you can in dbpoweramp anyway) but you only get benefit from compressing ie 128 down to 92. You've already lossed quality so there is no point in expanding from 92 to 128. So conversion from 128 wma to 320 mp3 could be done but would be pointless, if you want 320 its best to re record. I hope that makes sense.
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
MacB said:
ah, but I'm totally anal Paul, it would always be bugging me, so if it means labouriously reloading the whole shebang then I'll do it - all the while self flagellating:biggrin:
There's massive difference in sound quality depending on encoding, you might not fit as many songs on as you want that I've illustrated above.
 
OP
MacB

MacB

Lover of things that come in 3's
yep all makes sense folks, the palyer has an 8gb limit so can accomodate plenty of songs at the 320 rate. I see a world of pain in my immediate future:biggrin:

Chuck them all on again at the 320 MP3, I can then use them at that rate or choose to compress down if necessary. By not loading like that in the first place I've reduced my options....what a w*nker springs to mind:blush:
 

potsy

Rambler
Location
My Armchair
why don't you just re-do a couple of tracks in the 320 and see if you notice any real difference? If it's just for listening to on the move or in the garden etc I doubt it would really matter.
 
Top Bottom