why is WMA so much better than mp3?

[creative]

so WMA is half the size of an mp3 song, yet WMA has the same quality?

i don't understand, this makes mp3 seem really bad to me...

what is it about mp3 that makes people still have mp3 files?

[Wayne]

Re: why is WMA so much better than mp3?

I use MP3 because it has (or had) wider support amongst players than wma. For example the CD drive in my car will play MP3 CDs but not those with wma.

I also associate wma with DRM :(

Wayne

[xoas]

Re: why is WMA so much better than mp3?

I prefer .mp3 because it sounds better to me than .wma at higher (but lossy) frequencies. Although .wma has been viewed as providing superior results at lower frequencies my own listening suggests that .wma sounds about as good as an .mp3 of the same track at maybe a 50% greater bitrate (ie., a .wma track at 64 kbs sounds like an .mp3 track at 96 kbs, not like an .mp3 at 126 kbs, I stress that this is to my ears) and that by the time you reach 160 kbs .mp3 seems to me to be clearly superior.
And I have tended to prefer better quality, larger files.

But then I also tend to use Ogg Vorbis or Musepack for higher quallity lossy files and I reserve .mp3 for use in my car or portable .mp3/.wma player.

However, I stand by the appropriateness of any user to make their own choices on the file size vs. audio quality situation and I do think that .wma is worth serious consideration by any user.

That's my take on your question.

Best wishes,
Bill

[creative]

Re: why is WMA so much better than mp3?

ah.. i love really pure sound, by high frequency do you mean pitch as in treble? cause i love that, i do like deep base too though :x

what is "lossy"?

hm, i have 40GB, i think i would rather less, but high quality songs, than more low quality.

[LtData]

Re: why is WMA so much better than mp3?

See here for an explanation of some audio format terms: http://www.dbpoweramp.com/spoons-aud...de-formats.htm

[xoas]

Re: why is WMA so much better than mp3?

I prefer .mp3 because it sounds better to me than .wma at higher (but lossy) frequencies. Although .wma has been viewed as providing superior results at lower frequencies

What I meant to say had to do with bitrates, not with frequencies. My apologies for any confusion I may have introduced into this discussion.

Best wishes,
Bill

[creative]

Re: why is WMA so much better than mp3?

ah thanks for the link LTDATA

i'm going to go with mp3pro then, as my player does support it :P

[creative]

Re: why is WMA so much better than mp3?

are there any plans to make a mp3 pro codec? i would like to convert to mp3pro now :x

[LtData]

Re: why is WMA so much better than mp3?

Just for reference, mp3PRO is designed for low bitrates, mp3 is better at higher bitrates. I believe mp3PRO only goes up to 128kbps, so it would probably be a good idea to do something like 160kbps mp3, unless you need space.

[xoas]

Re: why is WMA so much better than mp3?

I agree with LtData on this one.
If you do need lower bitrates, I would recommend .wma over .mp3pro. Sounds better overall and some players will play mp3pro files as mp3 with a resulting loss of some of the quality that mp3pro does provide.

Best wishes,
Bill

[creative]

Re: why is WMA so much better than mp3?

my mp3 player supports mp3pro, but i think ill just use mp3 with a higher bit-rate then.