Find tech advice for business here
MP3 players: MP3 or WMA ?
Re: MP3pro
by - 4/9/05 5:10 PM In reply to: not supported... by serverI disagree. MP3pro is not widely supported either, and furthermore, it does not provide good sound quality either. Add to that the fact that it causes confusion because MP3pro files are externally identical to MP3 files, and it is really not a format worth using practically.
It's more of an experiment or a toy than anything.
Re: M4A
by - 4/9/05 5:08 PM In reply to: How about M4A by anaproM4A is very similar to WMA in terms of what you can and can't do with it and its sound quality... except for one big issue - many more MP3 players play WMA than M4A.
Let's continue with m4a
by robinofnotts - 5/9/05 9:17 AM In reply to: Re: M4A byI'm interested to know what people really think of m4a.
By the way, m4a is not the same thing as mp4. m4a is the MPEG-4 Audio layer, whereas mp4 is an MPEG-4 file (can be video or audio or both).
For more info see http://www.m4a.com/.
It seems to me that m4a is smaller, better quality and more lagally viable.
Does anyone know of a site that compares audio formats and gives some kind of statistics on all of them, in terms of percentage compression and quality loss.
Plus any thoughts on m4a.
Robin
Re: Audio formats
by - 5/12/05 5:12 AM In reply to: Let's continue with m4a by robinofnottshttp://www.hydrogenaudio.com/
This is an audio discussion forum.
For your needs... being comparison of compression formats... (?) you will probably be interested in performing a forum search for "listening test". Blind listening tests are HydrogenAudio's method of comparing audio formats.
MP3 vs WMA
by H.Maier - 4/8/05 7:14 PM In reply to: MP3 or WMA ? by rodpA national audio magazine some time ago ran a double blind test on MP3 vs WMA using a group of reportedly expert listeners. WMA won the test. Some research should be able to recover the test; if you know, post it here for all to access.
graphic test results
by jonah jones
- 4/9/05 1:17 AM
In reply to: MP3 vs WMA by H.Maier
slightly out of date 
but...
http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecentral/reviews/2606/8/
and here:
http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecentral/reviews/2606/9/
It comes as no great surprise that WMA beats MP3 in terms of audio quality, as it is a much newer standard. In fact, there are many emerging standards that provide lower data rates and higher quality audio, such as AAC, but MP3 has widespread acceptance and availably.
Re: Test
by - 4/9/05 5:15 PM In reply to: graphic test results by jonah jones
That test is invalid because it uses Rio Audio Manager to encode to MP3, rather than an optimal MP3 encoder such as Lame or Fraunhofer Pro.
It's just not a fair comparison at all.
Links!
by robinofnotts - 5/9/05 9:34 AM In reply to: graphic test results by jonah jones
Cheers for the links.
I don't understand why it only went up to 128kbps tho. Also, it should have compared wma's 96kbps sound quality to mp3's 128 to find out if you can actually get the same quality at a smaller size.
WMA or MP3
by wizdom75 - 4/9/05 3:15 AM In reply to: MP3 or WMA ? by rodpI would suggest WMA but do not take my word for it see what is suggested at http://www.flashmp3players.net
WMA or MP3
by wizdom75 - 4/9/05 7:26 AM In reply to: WMA or MP3 by wizdom75Sorry I meant http://www.flashmp3players.net/faq.php
Re: WMA or MP3
by - 4/9/05 5:18 PM In reply to: WMA or MP3 by wizdom75Agaim though - that site is misinformed or misinforming its readers: WMA is NOT twice as efficient as MP3. It's maybe 1/3 more efficient.
denial?
by robinofnotts - 5/9/05 9:38 AM In reply to: Re: WMA or MP3 byhmm a bit of denial methinks
Re: Denial?
by - 5/12/05 5:10 AM In reply to: denial? by robinofnottsNo, not at all.
WMA9pro approaches the "twice as good as MP3" claim, but it still doesn't meet it.
And WMA9pro is not compatible with most MP3 players.
MP3 is best and Will be
by devtiamo - 4/9/05 8:22 AM In reply to: WMA or MP3 by wizdom75MP3 and its other versions (Mp3 Pro, Lame MP3) outshines WMA in all respect. Dont go for WMA and be on mercy of Microsoft. The matter of discussion here is regarding two codecs, MP3 and WMA although there are other format also that competes with MP3 and even better.
Below is the link where you can have statistically tested result where MP3 beats WMA.
Select which suits your ears !! its your collection !! select right bit rate and make a choice.
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html
MP3 or WMA
by Ephraim D. Capucao - 4/9/05 10:33 AM In reply to: MP3 or WMA ? by rodpI prefer WMA format for better quality sound reproduction than MP3. I converted all my favorite music cds to WMA using windows xp media player. I noticed MP3 sounds are inconsistent in particular, at very low notes such as bass, wherein it produces gurbled and noisy tones whereas, WMA copies the same quality sound as the original CD. File size? almost the same as MP3.
Ephraim
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
