WMA vs MP3?

[Pulsar]

Dude, you're missing the point here. You said it yourself.

WMA sucks

I rest my case.

[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]

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

[Pulsar]

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]

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

[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.

[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]

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/

[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.

[GanQuan]

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

[Pulsar]

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

[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]

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

Dan

[psoTFX]

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]

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