i've noticed that in general my mp3 files are twice as big as my wma files. these are regular 4-5 mintute songs, 128kps. sound quality wise they sound the same. whats the deal.
mp3 versus wma
- Thread starter jjyiz28
- Start date
Windows media player just uses a different algorithm to encode the files. wma files are not as widely supported as mp3.
The WMA encoding is a little bit more efficient and it takes up less space. For example, a 96kbps WMA format file is equal in sound quality to a 128kbps mp3 format file. So really it's personal preferance because I'm pretty sure that the disc space gain is minute. Personally, I'll stick with my mp3's.
Are you sure the WMA files are 128k? The point of WMA was supposed to be that a 64k file sounds as good as a 128k MP3.
hmm, actually for my mp3 files its 128kbs, and wma its 64kbs. heh. my bad, hmm. to me it sounds the same. i was ripping my music cds on harddrive at 64kbs which is default for win media player
hmm, i guess if wma is more efficient, it makes more sense to encode in wma. is there a way to convert mp3 to wma files and then use a lower bitrate for wma and then able to squeeze in more songs? thinking of getting the iriver which supports both formats
hmm, i guess if wma is more efficient, it makes more sense to encode in wma. is there a way to convert mp3 to wma files and then use a lower bitrate for wma and then able to squeeze in more songs? thinking of getting the iriver which supports both formats
This is not true. Not at all. I can clearly tell the difference. There's no substitute for that missing data. WMA encoded at 64 is very warbly and distorted on the high end and does not sound anything like mp3 at 128 which, of course, is not the highest quality either. I find that it takes an equivelent ammount of samplings 128wma=128mp3 for an eqivelent sound. You simply cannot cut back on the ammount of samplings and maintain the same sound quality without going VBR. Some portions of a track may not have a high or low end thus enabling you to use a lower bitrate in that portion but if you apply this to the whole track you get garbage.
Uhhh yeah...WMA really isn't that great of a codec. If you are really looking for small filesize with good audio quality I higher reccomend OGG Vorbis.
But I'm suprised that some of you are vouching for WMA especially since it is a poor choice to encode your audio in.
But I'm suprised that some of you are vouching for WMA especially since it is a poor choice to encode your audio in.
Jeff7181
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
I normally encode MP3's @ 192... no noticeable sound difference between that and 128, but I have the hard drive space to spare, and if I ever get a really high quality sound system, I don't want to have to encode all my music over again to get the best quality sound. I mean, I've got my entire CD collection on my computer, plus a bunch I've downloaded (2850 total song), and they're using less than 14 GB out of my 80.
Sure, if by as good you're comparing it to an 32kbps mp3. Here's a good test for you. Get the portishead CD, "Dummy." Try using windows media player to rip track 2 into mp3. Then do the same with wma. Big difference, isn't there. The WMA has all sorts of artifacts because of that really high pitched sound in the song. WMA can not produce the same results as Mp3 with less space. It's just not possible without going vbr.
I couldn't tell teh difference between 128 and 192 MP3 files, until I got my Altec Lansing 4100 speakers, and yes.. there is a huge difference. And could hear the difference between using onboard vs my fortissimo II as well, all these factors could effect why you can't hear the difference between teh two formats.
But in the end, if you think they are the same, and one takes up 1/2 the space, there's no arguement !
But in the end, if you think they are the same, and one takes up 1/2 the space, there's no arguement !
eh .. his ears and your ears aren't probably the same. I even highly doubt your soundcard and speakers are the same as yours. If wma 64 sounds transparent to him, power to him. Saves him on hard drive space.
right...but he's asking about mp3 vs wma not my ears and system vs his. There's no question, there's a quality difference. Besides, he's prolly going to upgrade someday and not want to have to re-rip his whole collection.
I am a music fan and either listen to music on my VideoLogic Sirocco speakers or Sennheiser headphones. I can assure you that there is a noticable difference between CD quality music (original) and 128Kbps MP3 or 64-128K WMA. I personally can sometimes detect a difference between 160Kbps MP3 and CD quality (depending on the track) but cannot tell the difference between 192Kbps MP3 and CD quality. This is why I encode at 192Kbps VBR. But then sound quality is a priority for me. I can afford to buy a larger hard disk if necessary and my 20Gb portable MP3 player (Creative) is only 65% full (I don't spend hours Downloading music and enlarging my collection just because I can).
Don't forget that the quality of your soundcard and the type of CD ripper/ MP3 encoder also makes an enormous difference to sound quality. The type of music you listen to also matters - poor quality Classical music sounds a lot worse than poor quality Rock music.
MP3 has become a real standard but is not without flaws. Like the JPEG format it is a Lossey-based compression and in time someone will come up with a better compression technique (I don't think WMA is a significant improvement over MP3). Digital music is here to stay but MP3 may be replaced in time.
Don't forget that the quality of your soundcard and the type of CD ripper/ MP3 encoder also makes an enormous difference to sound quality. The type of music you listen to also matters - poor quality Classical music sounds a lot worse than poor quality Rock music.
MP3 has become a real standard but is not without flaws. Like the JPEG format it is a Lossey-based compression and in time someone will come up with a better compression technique (I don't think WMA is a significant improvement over MP3). Digital music is here to stay but MP3 may be replaced in time.
WMA is higher quality at the same bitrate (assuming that the sampling rate is the same) simply because the encoding algorithm is not as lossy as MP3. I find that 128KBPs WMA is roughly equivalent to 160KBPs MP3 in my opinion.
i'd forgot to add, even though i defend the above user's comment of using lowend wma, i would never presonally use or reccomend such things. im a lame -aps -Z person and in the near future switching to mpc -q7
In WM9, there is an option for WMA lossless compression; it uses VBR and is around 470-940 kbps... and its free.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter