Computing.Net > Forums > Windows 2000 > MP3 vs WMA

Computer Problems? Computing.Net has over 1,000,000 posts about all things technology related! Over 90% answered within 24 hours! Click here to start participating now! Also, be sure to check out the New User Guide.

MP3 vs WMA

Reply to Message Icon

Name: telecomguy9
Date: May 4, 2005 at 06:50:15 Pacific
OS: Windows 2K
CPU/Ram: AMD 1.6 GHz/512 MB
Comment:

I didn't know where else to put this. Hopefully it's okay to put this here. So I got a new MP3 player a week ago and have been playing around with it a little bit. It supports both MP3 and WMA formats. I have found that using WMA will allow me to store a TON more music files on it than if I were to use MP3. I am currently using dbPowerAmp to convert my MP3 files to WMA. The problem is I don't know what setting to use when converting these files as there are many options depending on how I want it to sound and/or how small I want the files to be. It starts out with something like 8 bit/8 Khz mono and goes all over the place from there. I ended up using something like 22 bit/22 Khz stereo and it reduced the size of my MP3 files immensely. The sound is fine I guess. I'm just curious what setting works best, what any drawbacks might be to using WMA, etc. Any thoughts?



Sponsored Link
Ads by Google

Response Number 1
Name: Mechanix2Go
Date: May 4, 2005 at 06:55:51 Pacific
Reply:

Hi Jon,

I don't know much about WMA, but in general, the more you reduce the audio quality, the smaller the file.

M2


If at first you don't succeed, you're about average.


0

Response Number 2
Name: RanmaP
Date: May 4, 2005 at 08:45:10 Pacific
Reply:

Personally I think its very comparable to mp3.

You can reduce the quality of a MP3 file and make the file small as well.

A good MP3 usually will be at 128bit @ 44hz in stereo mode. A 4 minute MP3 at that rate would be close to 4MB.

If you create the mp3 at 64bit @ 22hz in stereo mode then I can assume it will be less than 2MB.

Keep dividing it... the smaller the size.

HELP DESK


0

Response Number 3
Name: OtheHill
Date: May 4, 2005 at 10:47:41 Pacific
Reply:

In other words there are no free lunches. There is always a price to pay. I have read that WMA files are marginally smaller for the same quality. I would think that would only hold true if the file was created in WMA, as opposed to converting. Converting file types usually results in some loss of quality.


0

Response Number 4
Name: Lodeon
Date: June 7, 2005 at 05:15:36 Pacific
Reply:

wma is mpeg - but a more advanced and researched compression algorithm. So yes, you should use wma/asf if you want to store more music at higher quality. Mpeg layer 3 is a very dated compression now.

Alternatively, there are hacks available under pseudo names - such as OGG Vorbis (audio version of wma/asf) or DivX originally a hack of Windows advanced mpeg video compression wmv

Keep with the times!


0

Sponsored Link
Ads by Google
Reply to Message Icon

Related Posts

See More







Post Locked

This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.


Go to Windows 2000 Forum Home


Sponsored links

Ads by Google


Results for: MP3 vs WMA

wma and wav and mp3 www.computing.net/answers/windows-2000/wma-and-wav-and-mp3/4343.html

Windows Media Player 9 MP3 plugin www.computing.net/answers/windows-2000/windows-media-player-9-mp3-plugin/57051.html

W2k explorer crashes when clicking wma's www.computing.net/answers/windows-2000/w2k-explorer-crashes-when-clicking-wmas/31264.html