android
  #1  
Old 01-01-2007, 09:56 AM
gobucks2 gobucks2 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5
Default MP3 format versus windows Media audio files

When I rip files from a cd should I save as a Windows media Audio file or should I save in the MP3 format? What are the trade-offs? What about file size? Which takes more space?
Reply With Quote

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

  #2  
Old 01-01-2007, 01:02 PM
shadowfx78 shadowfx78 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6
Default

well mp3 takes more space. Its really up to you what format to use. I myself use wma when i can.
Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 01-01-2007, 01:13 PM
scru scru is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 92
Default

I use 64k wma mostly, but for some songs its not tolerable. THe thing is that per song i get an average of 1.6mb. And most sound acceptable, but using a 128k mp3 sounds richer, I can tell you that.
Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 01-01-2007, 10:39 PM
tah46 tah46 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 35
Default

Microsoft tells us (and has a demo site to prove it) that WMA outperforms MP3 in audio quality at the same bit rates. You could get similar qualities by using a higher bitrate for MP3 - high enough that your ears are satisfied - at the sacrifice of storage. MP3 is the more universal - I think you could exchange MP3's between iTunes and Windows Media Player bidirectionally and that's not the case for WMA or AAC.
Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 01-02-2007, 07:07 AM
scru scru is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 92
Default

I agree with the previous poster. The smart thing to do will be to keep all the files on your computer in mp3, but when you are sending over to the player, have wmp put them into wma for you if you please. That way you will save some precious space on your device, while still having your universally acceptable mp3 files on your comp.
Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 01-02-2007, 07:20 AM
dfkt's Avatar
dfkt dfkt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 15,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tah46 View Post
Microsoft tells us (and has a demo site to prove it) that WMA outperforms MP3 in audio quality at the same bit rates.
Yup, that's cause they used a several years old MP3 codec to compare to WMA... It's just a marketing trick.

The recent LAME 3.97 codec is far better than WMA, even at lower bitrates, like 96 or 128. (I don't know for sure if LAME is better at 64kbps, but only few people wouldn't mind listening to music at 64kbps quality... except maybe in Ogg Vorbis.)
__________________
Please don't PM me with questions that can be answered in a forum thread. Don't be an idiot.
My Gear and Reviews | My RMAA Tests | IRC: #anythingbutipod on Freenode | Last.fm | Album Art Exchange | Rockbox | Replaygain
Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 02-17-2007, 04:29 PM
thefirstone thefirstone is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9
Default

I tried WMA 64kbps versus mp3 128kbps and if there is a difference I couldn't notice it. I suppose if I concentrate enough I might notice a difference but the sound quality was good enough for me to switch to WMA and have double the amount of files loaded onto my Sansa
Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 PM.