WMA vs MP3?

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
Pulsar
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 9:08 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Pulsar »

Dude, you're missing the point here. You said it yourself.
Draegonis wrote: WMA sucks


I rest my case. :wink:

User avatar
Draegonis
Former Team Member
Posts: 3950
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 3:12 pm
Location: Kµlt øƒ Ø
Contact:

Post by Draegonis »

Uhm, I really don't know where to start on that post - well, without an explitive anyway. The point may be that WMA sucks, but your logic and argument for this is flawed beyond all reason.
You may rest your case, but a better argument than "lol it sucks" would be better in future methinks, eh?

Gud
Former Team Member
Posts: 597
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 11:02 am

Post by Gud »

The reason WMA sounds about as good as MP3 is because it raises the volume with ~3dB.

Pulsar
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 9:08 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Pulsar »

Draegonis wrote: Uhm, I really don't know where to start on that post - well, without an explitive anyway. The point may be that WMA sucks, but your logic and argument for this is flawed beyond all reason.
You may rest your case, but a better argument than "lol it sucks" would be better in future methinks, eh?


Dude I was kidding. I recognised that my reasoning posted was really lame. Sorry if you thought I was rude or whatever.

Pezzoni
Registered User
Posts: 706
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 8:25 pm
Contact:

Post by Pezzoni »

calebrw wrote:
Pezzoni wrote:Doesn't the first word put you off? Coupled with the DRM they implement, I'm staying well, well, away from WMA's.
Which wouldn't be a problem is people didn't steal/share/however-you-rationalize-it on the internet...althoug i can't say i've never gotten music off the internet...besides if MSFT released WMP w/o DRM, then the RIAA would be down their throats in an instant.

First of all, DRM stops my MP3 player working.
Secondly, DRM is not a legal requirement, they are free to Implement it or not. WMA isn't going to stop anyone but he most computer illieterate users sharing music if they really want to.

Dan

User avatar
SHS`
Former Team Member
Posts: 6615
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 9:13 am
Location: Yellow Beach, Nine Dragons, Hong Kong
Name: Jonathan Stanley
Contact:

Post by SHS` »

WMA (v9) has it's uses since it also supports lossless compression, unlike MP3... though FLAC is a purely lossless codec and supports 24bit/96kHz audio.
Jonathan “SHS`” Stanley • 史德信
Image

User avatar
GanQuan
Registered User
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:19 am
Contact:

Post by GanQuan »

wma is much better than mp3 when the bitrate < 64kbps, but when the bitrate goes higher, the quality of mp3 goes higher while the quality of wma doesn't.

boyinUK
Registered User
Posts: 320
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 6:16 pm
Location: West Country, UK
Contact:

Post by boyinUK »

What about M4A/AAC? :)

It has the same quality as MP3 at one stop lower. ie. a 192kbps MP3 will be virtually identical to a 160kbps AAC (IMHO). I use it for all of my rips from my CD collection and coundn't be happier.

http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/aac/

User avatar
Draegonis
Former Team Member
Posts: 3950
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 3:12 pm
Location: Kµlt øƒ Ø
Contact:

Post by Draegonis »

Anything encoded at 192kb/s will sound virtually identical to something else encoded at 160kb/s. Most people can't tell/don't care about the difference between 128 and 320, nevermind 192 and 160.

User avatar
GanQuan
Registered User
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:19 am
Contact:

Post by GanQuan »

Draegonis wrote: Most people can't tell/don't care about the difference between 128 and 320, nevermind 192 and 160.

exactly! but 320 makes me feel better though :lol:

Pulsar
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 9:08 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Pulsar »

lol Yeah it has that effect and makes it sound good when you tell your friends 'Yeah it's 320kb/s" lol

User avatar
smithy_dll
Former Team Member
Posts: 7630
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Name: Lachlan Smith
Contact:

Post by smithy_dll »

I can't tell the difference between 128 and 192, don't call me an audiophile, never had any decent audio reproduction gear anyway, so meh to me

Pezzoni
Registered User
Posts: 706
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 8:25 pm
Contact:

Post by Pezzoni »

There is quite a big difference between 128 & 192, although after 192, any difference is negligable.

Dan

User avatar
psoTFX
Former Team Member
Posts: 7425
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 8:50 pm

Post by psoTFX »

smithy_dll wrote: I can't tell the difference between 128 and 192, don't call me an audiophile, never had any decent audio reproduction gear anyway, so meh to me

That's the key point everyone should keep in mind ... it's an individual "thing". If you can't tell the difference between a CD and an MP3 at 128kbps/44khz that's fine for you. Equally some people can still differentiate in ABX testing between a CD and a "transparent"ly encoded AAC or MPC file ... it's all down to the individual. Equally remember that not all codecs are created equal. For MP3 I believe lame (for typical "high bitrate" settings) is still considered the "best". Whereas for AAC CBR 128kbps Apple is thought of as being superior to the competition (in like for like tests)

My personal preference now is transparent (150kbps+) AAC (MP4 audio if you like) using Nero's encoder.

ZoliveR
Former Team Member
Posts: 11899
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 7:36 pm
Location: floating in the light, never forgotten

Post by ZoliveR »

Pezzoni wrote: There is quite a big difference between 128 & 192, although after 192, any difference is negligable.

Dan


It's up to anyone to know if they can listen a mp3 encoded to 128 or 192kbps. Now the space is not a constraint, so you can have thousands of mp3, so it doesn't matter if they encode mp3 to 64, 192 or 320. So all depend to their listening, if they need a mp3 encoded to 192 or if they can listen an mp3 in 64kbps.

But back to mp3 vs wma, don't forget that wma is a Windows Media Player format. MP3 is an universal format and so don't have constraints
No more Team Chocolate Member. I decided to leave, it's my choice. Thanks to all for all these years.
I'm always near if you need news of me. But no more support is given (private notification disabled)

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”