Better quality - mp3's or wma's?

[dpk777]

which is better, and why?

 

[HJB417]

for mass mp3 conversion, i recommend winamp
some files may not convert, i recommend windows media encoder for those.

 

[EeyoreX]

I like this for file conversions, when I need to do them.

\Dan

 

[chin311]

uhm, WHY would you wanna change mp3s to wma's?

 

[Furor]

Originally posted by: chin311
uhm, WHY would you wanna change mp3s to wma's?

Xbox.

I use All Converter, look it up, works very well.

 

[Sunner]

You do realize this will degrade the quality, right?
Re-ripping from CD directly to WMA will be a far better option.

 

[dpk777]

if you convert from 128 mp3 to 192 wma's shouldn't the quality be better?

 

[EeyoreX]

if you convert from 128 mp3 to 192 wma's shouldn't the quality be better?

No. Re-encoding an already encoded file makes it worse, no matter your bit rate. You lose bits whenever you encode, and encoding an already encoded file just makes things worse. If you rerip from the source CD, as was mentioned, that would be better. 64 bit .wma files are supposed to be equivalent to 128 bit mp3s. Is this true? I have no idea. But I do know that re-encoding mp3s tp .wma (or another bit rate mp3) is going to make things worse and not better.

\Dan

 

[dpk777]

ok, thx for the info.

 

[MaDDaWg1018]

Yes, it's true that lower bit wma's are supposed to be of somewhat equivalent quality as a higher bit mp3. on my pocket pc, i converted all my mp3's to wma's so that i could fit more onto my compact flash card. wma's tend to take up less space, so that's a plus for using that type of file. its all a matter of what you want to use it for. if its just for casual listening on your pc, then i'd just stick with mp3's because of its flexibility and popular use. however, if you plan on listening to music on some sort of limited space storage volume, then wma's may be a better option. its really comes down to what you hope to achieve from this. hope this helps.