• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: MP3 or WMA9?

R

RaynorWolfcastle

Diamond Member
I get the feeling that WMA should be better, but I want to get an opinion before encoding. So what does ATOT say? Either will play fine on my portable and will have roughly the same file size.

No Ogg or AAC unfortunately since my Rio won't play them. 🙁
 
Originally posted by: Sid59
mp3 ... ipod doesnt play wma.
Click to expand...
I don't have an ipod, so I have no reason to worry about what it does and doesn't play. If I did have an ipod I'd be encoding everything in AAC without asking.
 
Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Originally posted by: Sid59
mp3 ... ipod doesnt play wma.
Click to expand...
I don't have an ipod, so I have no reason to worry about what it does and doesn't play. If I did have an ipod I'd be encoding everything in AAC without asking.
Click to expand...

you'd re-encode your whole collection?

personally i rip to APE and then transcode to mp3 for my ipod
 
I ripped everything i owned to WMA Lossless and then if i need a lower bitrate i use that to transcode from. I like WMA much better then mp3, i find that it is higher quality at the same bit rates
 
Originally posted by: Ameesh
I ripped everything i owned to WMA Lossless and then if i need a lower bitrate i use that to transcode from. I like WMA much better then mp3, i find that it is higher quality at the same bit rates
Click to expand...

While APE, FLAC, or WMA Lossless would work, they just take too much hard disc space for the improvement in sound quality over 192kbps WMA9 or LAME MP3. I've found that 192 kbps is a good equilibrium where I can listen to music on my computer or portable and be satisfied with quality without taking up an outrageous amount of disc space. In other words, I'm personally satisfied with the transparency of these codecs at 192 kbps for my uses (as long as I have the full-quality CDs, in case I ever feel the urge to buy a $2,000+ set of speakers)
 
Originally posted by: Ameesh
I ripped everything i owned to WMA Lossless and then if i need a lower bitrate i use that to transcode from. I like WMA much better then mp3, i find that it is higher quality at the same bit rates
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I do...I transcode to 160 to transfer to my Karma. Works and sounds great.
 
WMA is a technologically superior codec as far as it and MP3 goes, so at the same bitrate, the WMA version will be of some higher quality.
 
Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Originally posted by: Ameesh
I ripped everything i owned to WMA Lossless and then if i need a lower bitrate i use that to transcode from. I like WMA much better then mp3, i find that it is higher quality at the same bit rates
Click to expand...

While APE, FLAC, or WMA Lossless would work, they just take too much hard disc space for the improvement in sound quality over 192kbps WMA9 or LAME MP3. I've found that 192 kbps is a good equilibrium where I can listen to music on my computer or portable and be satisfied with quality without taking up an outrageous amount of disc space. In other words, I'm personally satisfied with the transparency of these codecs at 192 kbps for my uses (as long as I have the full-quality CDs, in case I ever feel the urge to buy a $2,000+ set of speakers)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it depends what setup you are using. I'll tell you, my stereo isn't that great, but what I do not notice (other than the horrible shreeking) from my Dad's computer Klipsch 4.1 is quite appearant on mine.
 
MP3, while you may be able to play WMA fine on everything NOW, things can change...encoding in WMA is like buying a Mac.
 
Originally posted by: jagec
MP3, while you may be able to play WMA fine on everything NOW, things can change...encoding in WMA is like buying a Mac.
Click to expand...
As a Mac owner, I resent that comment.😛
 
Originally posted by: jagec
MP3, while you may be able to play WMA fine on everything NOW, things can change...encoding in WMA is like buying a Mac.
Click to expand...

Well that's a stupid mentallity.


What is wrong with ripping into WMA if it is easily tanscodable?
 
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Originally posted by: jagec
MP3, while you may be able to play WMA fine on everything NOW, things can change...encoding in WMA is like buying a Mac.
Click to expand...

Well that's a stupid mentallity.


What is wrong with ripping into WMA if it is easily tanscodable?
Click to expand...
That unless you're ripping to a lossless format, you lose a bit with transcoding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top