I personally am a believer in mp3s due to their overall popularity, however some claim that wma series 9 codec delivers superior sound quality at the same bit rate (example 128). As a side note, I personally save my mp3s at 192 bitrate, while most people seem to use 128.
Recently when using Windows Media Player 10 to convert a cd to mp3’s it tried to convince me to they their new wma codec stating “Windows media player includes the following new windows media audio formats for ripping music from cds…Windows Media Audio losses, which provides the best audio quality. Useful for audiofiles and for achiving CDs”
Now I am not inclined to believe anything that Microsoft claims, however research does indicate that this medium is pretty good.
While I am not planning on switching at the moment, I am interested to hear some opinions on who thinks which format is better, and why.
WMA probably has better sound quality per unit of space (on average). You also have to balance that against the fact that mp3s are much more portable. If you use wma and want to play them in your car stereo or on a portable player, you’ll have to make sure you get a player that supports wma. But everything that plays compressed digital audio supports mp3 and will for the foreseeable future.
But, really, it doesn’t matter what the rest of us think. Do a blind listen test of some music you like, and see if you can even tell the difference. Most people can’t.
Do you mean “lossless”? It’d probably be more accurate to describe that format as a competitor to WAV, not MP3.
As for “regular” WMA, Microsoft claims that it gives you better sound quality for the same file size (or smaller file size for the same quality) as MP3. I’ve never heard anyone claim otherwise—but then, I’ve never heard much about it one way or the other, so I’d be interested in hearing other people’s opinions. The latest versions of Windows Media Player also offer to rip CDs in “variable bit rate WMA”: you specify a range of bit rates, and it picks the appropriate level based on the complexity of the music. This is the format I personally use most often.
As noted, the big advantage to MP3 is that it is recognized by more devices and software than WMA. Devices that’ll play WMA files aren’t too hard to find, but they’re only a subset of devices that play MP3’s.
Oh, I know what I think, and I am not likely to be easily swayed by others.
I just think that this is a valid question for a good debate, and you pointed out the issue perfectly.
While the quality may be better on an wma, mp3s are far more accessible due to present and foreseeable future popularity and I dare say most people can’t tell the difference. I have noticed however that new home cd players are starting to support wma, as well as mp3 formats.
Yes, I did mean lossless, “losses” was a typo. While WMA, certainly could also be considered a competitor to WAV as well, it is certainly a competitor of mp3, due to the compact format and the fact that it is more widely supported in consumer hardware(not professional/semi professional uses) than wav files.
As MP3 and WMA are both patent-encumbered allow me to promote Ogg Vorbis. It is supposed to be patent-free and, though I am hardly an audiophile, sounds much better to my ears than MP3. Whereas I can tell a huge difference between a 160kpbs MP3 and the original, I find Ogg Vorbis at -q5 (which is slightly less than 160kbps) to be indistinguishable from the original.
I vote MP3. And, to be even-handed, I still vote MP3 if we toss Apple’s proprietary iTunes format (aa-something-or-other) into the mix.
An MP3 encoded at 320 kbps is pretty much indistinguishable from the raw AIFF or WAV or SND file you start off with. Given a decent encoder, a VBR MP3 is going to sound every bit as good as a 320 kpbs MP3 except the file size averages below 2/3rds.
And they pretty much go anywhere and can be played on anything (except maybe a System 7 Quadra or a Windows 3.1 DX-486 Gateway).
Ogg Vorbis would be my second choice but it isn’t as universally supported. Not every CD burner app is set up to be able to burn a standard music cd from a collection of Ogg Vorbis files, for instance.
On a technical basis, WMA/OGG/AAC all give more quality per bit due to being more recent and, as much as it pains me to say this, I would still reccomend you go with the inferior MP3 format. space is so mind bogglingly cheap nowadays that the utility of extra compatibility far outweighs the maybe 50% extra space needed for MP3’s to sound equivilant. Then again, my music selection is miniscule and I’m sure that there are many people who could fill a 40GB Ipod with 128Kbps AAC files.
He meant that WMA lossless compression is a competitor to WAV. Wav and WMA lossless (presumably) are lossless formats, whereas mp3 and WMA are lossy formats.
Just to nitpick, but AAC (Advanced Audio Coding) Audio is not an Apple-proprietary format. It was actually developed by Sony, and is part of the current MPEG specification. Apple does have their proprietary “Protected AAC” format, which they use for their iTunes Music Store, but it’s not the same thing.
As for the OP, I’ll take MP3, hands down, just because it’s wide open and unprotected. Besides, WMA sounds like ass.
MP3’s for me. As others have said, it’s widely recognized by different storage devices and the modifiable bit rate helps a lot. I reloaded my puny 64 MB workout MP3 player tonight and was able to fit twice the amount of songs on it this time by lowering the bit rate from 128 to 64 when I transferred the files fom my C drive. Going to 32 bit rate cuts the quality too much to make it worthwhile, but I can live with 64 bit quality while excercising.
Sorry if I’m using the wrong terms, I only know enough about these things to be dangerous.
Well, even though this seems to have gone to IMHO, why should I accept outdated technology and poorer performance? You either have space as a premium, in which case the fact that the vast majority of modern devices support WMA and it’s worth the slight incompatibility issues for the extra performance, or else space is so cheap right now that you might as well go with a lossless format. Sure, you can’t really hear the difference, but doesn’t it just bug the hell out of you knowing that what you’re hearing isn’t full quality.
So I vote WMA. Some people, frankly, just dislike it because it’s Microsoft.
I use variable bitrate MP3 that averages around 150kb/s. For almost all purposes I find this an acceptable compression that is compatible with most devices with acceptable sound. The day I buy a humungous disk drive I may encode all my CDs in a lossless format. Until then I see no need to change or limit myself to another less popular format that might sound a little better. That goes for WMA and OGG.
The eagerness with which Microsoft is embracing DRM for WMA also puts me off them. I’m not interested in suddenly discovering I’ve lost the right to play music I’ve bought.
If you have an ipod, AAC all the way! 96K is more than acceptable for listening to with headphones (GOOD headphones, not those crappy earbuds which so many ipod users seem to want to use anyway), even when converted over from a high-bit-rate mp3, and all the space saved really adds up.
If you don’t use itunes/ipod, than I’d stick with mp3
