WMA vs. MP3

by **Owyn** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 7:01 am

FWIW.
I agree with statement about MP3 for portability. I have had various problems over the years with other formats in other software/devices.

With my ears (old) and listening equipment I find I can not hear differences above 192KB VBR on my Sansa Clip and above 256K VBR on my PC connected to home audio. I listen to a lot of Jazz and Classical so I am particularly sensitive to dynamic range available. VBR seems to handle this well. It also works very well for compression of older mono recordings via Joint Stereo.

But, if you are really interested, then go where they are anal about this.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/

by **phateless** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:17 pm

smithdavid4321 wrote:Hi Letsgoaz,

This is Smith from UK, here's the difference between WMA & MP3. There are two of the most popular audio formats are WMA (Windows Media Audio) and MP3 (Moving Pictures Experts Group, Audio Layer 3). WMA is the older audio format, produced by Microsoft, to work with Microsoft's Windows media player. The WMA compression format was designed specifically for this format, and thus can not be converted to other audio formats. The audio quality of WMA and MP3 audio formats tends to be noticeably different. WMA is a decent quality audio format when streaming at phoneline speeds (maybe 30kbps or so). At such speed WMA almost reaches an FM level of audio quality, although not quite. At 128kbps, Microsoft claims the WMA is nearly CD-quality, although many would deny this. But MP3 has become more popular and widely used. Thanks for creating such a nice thread.

So you're saying that WMA is higher quality at the same compression, or smaller file size at the same quality? I've been using MP3 for years and I usually opt for 192k ish bitrate.

by **Squargle** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 3:27 pm

rovingcowboy wrote:but if you have huge hd's
then the space does not matter you can make all the songs 320 bpm, mp3's and get great sound.

I wouldn't advise speeding up all your tracks to 320bpm! Don't worry I knew what you meant

letsgoaz wrote:Hi, what are everyone's opinions on using mp3's vs. wma's? Sound quality? Disk space? Versatility?

File sizes in my experience are negligent between mp3 and wma audio formats. Sound quality is a trickier question to answer. I agree with smithdavid4321 above, I've heard wma handles lower bitrates better, but mp3 can perform better at the other end of the scale. But I'd recommend reading some online articles comparing the quality mp3 and wma at various bitrates, variable and fixed options.

Ultimately if it was between mp3 and wma I'd go with mp3 as it offers greater compatibility/support amongst portable devices. If compatibility/versatility was not an issue, however, I'd probably prefer Ogg Vorbis as a lossy format over both mp3 and wma.

by **smithdavid4321** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:32 am

Hi Letsgoaz,

This is Smith from UK, here's the difference between WMA & MP3. There are two of the most popular audio formats are WMA (Windows Media Audio) and MP3 (Moving Pictures Experts Group, Audio Layer 3). WMA is the older audio format, produced by Microsoft, to work with Microsoft's Windows media player. The WMA compression format was designed specifically for this format, and thus can not be converted to other audio formats. The audio quality of WMA and MP3 audio formats tends to be noticeably different. WMA is a decent quality audio format when streaming at phoneline speeds (maybe 30kbps or so). At such speed WMA almost reaches an FM level of audio quality, although not quite. At 128kbps, Microsoft claims the WMA is nearly CD-quality, although many would deny this. But MP3 has become more popular and widely used. Thanks for creating such a nice thread.

by **Neil Parks** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:55 pm

I have an iPod, which does not play WMA files. So in my case I need either MP3 or M4A. If that's not a consideration for you then there probably isn't much practical difference between the various formats.

People with ears more sensitive than mine might notice some subtle difference in audio quality. If you are one of them, then you'll just have to experiment to see which one sounds better to you.

by **rovingcowboy** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:03 pm

i think wma sounds better in lower bit rates.

and mp3 is too over rated.

however wma is a power hungrey format. and can run the portalbles batteries down fast.

so its up to what you really want, in the portable you don't normaly get good sound unless
you have good powered headphones or external powered speakers.

so the better sounding is depending on how you play them to listen too, at work on low volume you
won't hear much of it that way.

at home on the computer through the stereo then you might want the better sound. but if you have huge hd's
then the space does not matter you can make all the songs 320 bpm, mp3's and get great sound.

by **nohitter151** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:58 pm

I like mp3 because it is compatible with just about everything.

by **letsgoaz** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:38 pm

Hi, what are everyone's opinions on using mp3's vs. wma's? Sound quality? Disk space? Versatility?

WMA vs. MP3

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: WMA vs. MP3

Re: WMA vs. MP3

Re: WMA vs. MP3

Re: WMA vs. MP3

Re: WMA vs. MP3

Re: WMA vs. MP3

Re: WMA vs. MP3

Re: WMA vs. MP3

WMA vs. MP3