MP3's, WMA's, Wave Files, CD's blah blah blah...

you can make mp3's of songs off your own cd's using a program like musicmatch or real player

you can download free versions at the respective websites

There are heaps of freeware (& even more commercial) programs that rip from CD audio to MP3, WMA, WAV, etc.

Djjd mentioned a couple options...some others that immediately come to mind are Exact Audio Copy, DBpowerAmp, CDex, Easy CD-DA Extractor, Audiograbber....etc., etc.

By the way, Windows Media Player, which you should already have with Windows, rips CDs to WMA quite capably (& to MP3 if you buy a plug-in).

Thanks to you both for the advice.

Can anyone tell me if there is any significant difference (either playback quality, file sizes etc) between WMA and MP3? Is one 'better' than another?

according to musicmatch 128kbps mp3 = cd quality and 64kbps wma = cd quality

i usually use 96kbps wma

In the long run, your ears are the end of the chain, and every link from them all the way back to the original recording session is going to impact your listening experience. Listening over a typical computer sound system, portable player, entry-level auto sound system, or one of those "apartment sized" stereos isn't going to benefit much from higher bitrates ... say, 192kbps for MP3, 96 for WMA, would be "About as good as its gonna get", though neither sample rate/format combo really even begins to approach real Redbook/CD-A compliance.

The advantage WMA files have over MP3 files is that for an equivalent listening experience, a WMA file will require half the memory required by an MP3 file. On the other hand, MP3 files are far more common, especially when it comes to P2P file sharing.

I'd suggest you experiment a bit, using a CD/RW if you want to hold down costs and if your player will handle it, and determine what sounds good enough for you ... after all, its your music and your ears, so you're the only judge that matters.

Personally, with my equipment, I hear a distinct, and unfavorable, difference between a 256kbps MP3 file and the original CD, less so with a 320kbps file, but still "not quite the same". Anything below 192kbps is all but unlistenable. I find similar results comparing equivalent (read "half-the-size") WMA files to originals, too. If I were to make a choice between the two, with memory capacity a deciding factor, I'd go for WMA. I'm picky, though, and don't much care about how long a disc will play, I care about how well it plays, and I don't use any of the compressed formats. I get 74 minutes of music on a 74 minute disc, and that's goood enough for me.

Thanks to you both.

I have Real Player already so I'm going to give it a go. I guess it's mainly a case of experimenting with the balance between quality and quantity.

When I get it sorted I'll post back in case anyone has the same question in the future.

Buy an ipod. Forget that 10hrs nonsense and go for 10 days.

i have discovered how to rip music from a CD.
from this day forward, i doubt my life will ever be the same...

I just wanted to backup Timber's post about 256 and 320kb bitrates being much better. I can't believe that anyone would say that 128kb is 'cd quality'. It's bearable but it aint CD. Maybe average FM? For music I just don't bother with anything under 128 (podcasts maybe).

What I hadn't noticed/known is Timber's observation that a 128kb mp3 is about the same quality as a 64kb wma. I hadn't noticed that at all. I thought bit rate was bit rate and the wma compression was just a little more efficient than the mp3 one.

Will have to do some more reading and listening.

Region - you're life won't be the same. Now you are going to rip your entire collection and then worry about backups because you don't want to go through that tortuous process again. And you'll learn to hate unreliable internet libraries of track listings....

my ultimate goal is to eventually stop lugging music CD's to work.
so far i'm pleased with 256kbps...