• 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.

should I use MP3 or WMA?

S

Sandor

Senior member
I just got a Dell 15GB Jukebox, so now I need to convert my CDs to MP3 or WMA. Since this is my first digital player and I haven't created any sort of library as of yet, I was interested in people's opinions before I started- I've read a few things, but I always appreciate input from fellow ATers. Also, what bitrate would give me the most bang for my buck (or quality sound for my space), and is their an advantage using VBR? I don't need this for archival purposes, just for my player (and I do plan on upgrading my headphones). Thanks!
 
i encode everything in WMA Lossless and if i need to reencode it into something smaller i can without loosing quality.

I'd say WMA in general is a lot better then MP3.

If you dont believe me, encode a bunch of your favorite music and take the pepsi challenge and have a friend enque some music while you sit blindfolded with headphones on, you'll see why the Lame encoder is lame and why the MS Media group is raping the industry left and right.
 
I use AAC because I expect to get an iPod but I'd use WMA if you have that option or MP3. Mp3 d0esn't sound that great in comparison.
 
I use MP3 for everything.

only time I use ACC or WMA is if I download a song and that's its native format (though eventually, once I have enough ACC/WMA songs to make burning them worthwhile, I'll burn them to CD and re-encode them as MP3's).

unless I encode a song at radio-quality, I can't tell the difference between files.
 
Originally posted by: Ameesh
i encode everything in WMA Lossless and if i need to reencode it into something smaller i can without loosing quality.

I'd say WMA in general is a lot better then MP3.

If you dont believe me, encode a bunch of your favorite music and take the pepsi challenge and have a friend enque some music while you sit blindfolded with headphones on, you'll see why the Lame encoder is lame and why the MS Media group is raping the industry left and right.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that to an extent. 160 WMA is pretty much indistinguishable from 192 MP3 to my ear, but alas, no WMA support on my iPod.
 
Originally posted by: Ameesh
i encode everything in WMA Lossless and if i need to reencode it into something smaller i can without loosing quality.

I'd say WMA in general is a lot better then MP3.

If you dont believe me, encode a bunch of your favorite music and take the pepsi challenge and have a friend enque some music while you sit blindfolded with headphones on, you'll see why the Lame encoder is lame and why the MS Media group is raping the industry left and right.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, you can encode to your system harddrive in WMA Lossless, then WMP can re-encode to WM9 Lossey as you copy to your portable (on the fly) saving tons of space.

Windows Media 9 at 112kbit or lower OWNS MP3 no doubt.
 
Don't use proprietary M$ software, which also screws you up with DRM and other useless junk. Use MP3. I still have to meet the person who can honestly differentiate between 192 VBR and the source CD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top