Just started to copy my CD collection in anticipation of my new rio car 60 gig.

I am using Microsoft Media Player 8 (shipped with XP), and am using a bit rate of 64 KBPS to copy to WMA, which it states as CD quality.

Is this believable ? Can't find much (non microsoft) info on format comparisons of WMA to MP3.

Also - any updates on the ETA for WMA in empeg ?

Many thanks

I'd just like to point out that WMA isn't supported in v1.x, and isn't (yet) supported in v2.x.

We're waiting for MS to sort out licensing terms before we can include it in v2.x. This means that your music collection will be of no use to you until we do.

Yeah, I made that mistake whilst waiting for my empeg

Even if we believed Microsoft marketing, 64kbps WMA would be equivalent to 128kbps CBR MP3, where even I can sometimes hear artifacts without listening too closely.

OTOH, hearing is beliveing, so why don't you pick several chalenging tracks, rip them, encode them, and them compare WAVs to WMAs (through a good set of headphones). Try various stuff (vocals, choirs, synths, full orchestra, lots of percussions...) The usual procedure is to find encoding quality level where one cannot hear any difference (or in the worst case decides he can live with it), and then use one higher.

I found 64kbps to have too many artifacts on wma. The lowest setting I could live with was 96kbps. I found that setting to be the best compromise between file size and clarity with my Nomad Jukebox. That said, I'm now in the process of re-ripping my collection to 160kbps mp3 for my empeg. I'm not willing to wait for the wma support. If I had more experience with VBR I would probably try that.

Jeff
10GB Blue Mk2a <<< should be delivered today!

Bummer.

I have already copied maybe 50 CD's and I think I may have wasted my time.

Wish I had done some homework first.

The question now is : should I recopy the CD's in WMA format at a bit rate greater than 96kbps, or abandon all hope and go for the good old fashioned 160 kbps MP3.

Any thoughts would be appreciated

Right now, I'd recommend that you encode everything as VBR MP3 files.

I would think that if you are thinking about a bitrate greater than 96kbps for WMA, then you should definitely be thinking towards something higher quality than 160kbps for MP3s. I have recently found that the --alt bitrate standard setting in Lame is identical to my ears to a cd, at least with the cds I've tested so far.

At first I did all my mp3's at 160cbr (I thought it was a good balance between quality and space). But after finding out how easy it is to upgrade the drive space, and noticing on a handful of mp3's a lack of detail, I am now re-encoding all of my collection to 192cbr. Part of me wishes that I had gone with VBR, but I use MusicMatch and their VBR option is kind of weak. So, I only do CBR because I don't want to give up the convienient features of MusicMatch.

So, coming from someone who has done 160 and 192CBR, if you are not stuck any particual software yet, I'd say go with VBR. Drive space is too cheap to worry about file size. My time is more valuable and I'd almost consider my mp3 collection to be "archive" quality and I've sold a few CD's I never listend to anymore but felt guilty getting rid of until I had it on mp3.

I initially hated MusicMatch when I only used it as a Jukebox because I felt it hijacked my PC, so I stuck with Winamp until the day came that I ordered my empeg.

you know, i always ripped to 192 cbr and it was "ok" but not great.. i am ripping at 192 WMA and it is MILES ahead of mp3, until 320. 320 is just too big..

PLEASE O PLEASE let wma support happen soon.