MP3s, I Think

Hello all. I'm new here. My status might be called 'permanent newbie', since I don't have anyone around to help me out with stuff and I don't have the ability to absorb computer/ program knowledge just from looking at it the way a lot of folks do.

I had no idea my simple desire to buy an encoder would lead to the morass it has. I have been burning CDs with Nero (on all of the default settings, obviously) since about October of last year, when I bought my P4 and all of the hardware I have. I'm running windows xp home edition and I've got a Plextor 24/40/10A and an ASUS dvd player. I've got plenty of ram to do whateve I need to do, at 512 megs (SDRAM).

When I asked on the Zeropaid discussion forum (I think it was. I'm always hopping around from forum to forum.) about the confusing order form for the MP3 encoder that Ahead presents you with (I emailed Ahead/ Nero too, but received no reply.), I received a lot of answers - and little by way of 'explanation', as is usual. But one respondent noted that encoding to mp3 files wasn't the best way to go in order to get the best quality of audio. I'm sure he's right. But his info wasn't informative.

I also asked about mp3 vs mp3 pro. Getting someone to tell me in plain English 'explanation' which was better quality, ignoring other considerations like file size was like pulling teeth. I continued to read around, of course, and finally, I read a clear statement to the effect that mp3 pro files are better quality, period.

I also asked about whether there were some free encoders available. I was told yes and was given all kinds of suggestions (EAC for example, which I downloaded and can't for the life of me figure out how to use). As I started to look into all of this, I realized that I still didn't grasp some of the basics. But I quite like an essay that was linked to in one forum I was in. It was actually - explanatory! That was at Hardwareavenue.com.

But now that I'm clear that, at least where mp3 files are concerned, I need to first do a good job of ripping, 'before' I encode, I find that I'm getting over my head. I've tried to shoot for acquiring (for free or for pay) the software that will give me the best quality product, but which I, as a newbie, can still operate. But it's looking like I've got to dumb down to 'crappy' product just in order to be able to have a product.

Audiograbber looks like the ripper I need, with it's user-friendly interface (reportedly). Then I read that I needed to use something else :-( to encode, and Lame seems to be the prog. Then on the Lame site, I read that using Lame isn't something a newbie wants to try. Then I read that some software 'uses' Lame. I'm not sure whether that means some software (Audiograbber is listed) 'automatically' uses Lame to encode.

And we are just into the mp3 files here, which, as I noted, someone said isn't the best route to go for the best audio quality.

Help!

ps
I'm using Winamp 2.80, which uses the Fhg (Is that right?) default. Reading around in these sites, I learned that what I want is to download/install a MAD plug in for Winamp. Does anyone have any idea whether I should do that? Should I upgrade first to Winamp 3? I've read around on the Winamp forums to try to get a sense of whether Winamp 3 is a good idea or not. I got only ambiguity from the folks talking about the subject there. And the sample Winamp + MAD file that I opened sounded fine, except for the loud background/hissing noise.

I could go on. But do you need to sleep just now?