MP3 or WMA

I have seen several reference claiming that for the same file size WMA is
better than the original MP3. It seems that most people except the diehard
Microsoft haters accept this now. But what about the newer versions of MP3
with VBR how does this compare to WMA?

--
Thanks in advance

Remove the XXX to reply

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:17:20 +0800, Click wrote:
I have seen several reference claiming that for the same file size WMA is
better than the original MP3. It seems that most people except the diehard
Microsoft haters accept this now. But what about the newer versions of MP3
with VBR how does this compare to WMA?

VBR isn't new. The comparisons you've seen should include an evaluation i
of VBR.

WMA is not disliked because it's from Microsoft but because of
technical reasons unrelated to sound quality. WMA is currently
playable on a limited (but increasing) number of non computer players,
and WMA can include DRM schemes which may limit the ability to convert
the files into other formats. Who needs a format that won't play on
their current equipment and who's portability is controlled by the man?

As far as sound quality goes, the results I've seen in head to head
comparisons have been mixed. Ogg seems to be the most consistent
winner.

Avoiding WMA isn't just hatin'. It's the right thing to do.

Isaac

"Matt Ferrari" wrote in message gy.com...
"Click" wrote in message
u...
I have seen several reference claiming that for the same file size WMA is
better than the original MP3. It seems that most people except the diehard
Microsoft haters accept this now. But what about the newer versions of
MP3
with VBR how does this compare to WMA?

--
Thanks in advance

Remove the XXX to reply

Well really my 2 cents on this, is wma sound ok to me, there smaller etc.
but if you do any file sharing what so ever, they are the pariah of p2p.
Win mx isnt even set up to search for them with out a special search.


Very few devices such as cd/mp3 portable players accept .wma. Some do,
but they tend to cost more.
Dave Cohen

In article ,
said...
I have seen several reference claiming that for the same file size WMA is
better than the original MP3. It seems that most people except the diehard
Microsoft haters accept this now. But what about the newer versions of MP3
with VBR how does this compare to WMA?


WMA still has major problems reporoducing sound at low to medium
bitrates, tinny wishy washy sound are clearly present on many samples
encoded with WMA (almost anything less than about 160). Even some of M
$ own samples are like this.

Now my hearing isnt fantastic and my audio equipment is pretty low end
so if I can hear this then it make me wonder what listening tests the so
called smart guys who developed WMA use. I've also checked on a fiends
very high end studio equipment and the distortions are still there.

Better alternative exist such as a good LAME encoded MP3, Ogg and MPC,
so why bother using WMA, a format with serious quality issues and
digital rights crap (controlled by Bill Gates no less) that is only
wanted by M$ and the RIAA.

The only WMA worth considering is the lossless version but even that the
compression is often beaten by other free formats.

Click wrote:

I have seen several reference claiming that for the same file size
WMA is better than the original MP3. It seems that most people except
the diehard Microsoft haters accept this now. But what about the
newer versions of MP3 with VBR how does this compare to WMA?

As others pointed out, WMA should better be erased from the face of the
earth. Use Ogg Vorbis. If this isn't possible (car mp3-players don't
support Ogg), just use a good mp3 encoder with VBR at 160kbps.


-- Niko

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 23:48:25 +0300, "Nikos Chantziaras"
wrote:

Click wrote:

I have seen several reference claiming that for the same file size
WMA is better than the original MP3. It seems that most people except
the diehard Microsoft haters accept this now. But what about the
newer versions of MP3 with VBR how does this compare to WMA?

As others pointed out, WMA should better be erased from the face of the
earth. Use Ogg Vorbis. If this isn't possible (car mp3-players don't
support Ogg), just use a good mp3 encoder with VBR at 160kbps.


If ONLY MS software supported WMA it would be no-where now, but it is
everywhere

"Click" wrote in message u...
I have seen several reference claiming that for the same file size WMA is
better than the original MP3. It seems that most people except the diehard
Microsoft haters accept this now. But what about the newer versions of MP3
with VBR how does this compare to WMA?

MP3 is the standard file format, it plays everywhere, and can be handled by 99% of all software and hardware.

WMA may be ok for short-term ripping your own disks to transfer them to your portable WMA player.

But if you're looking for a format that's better than MP3, ignore WMA
and try OGG (patent-free and open format) or MPEG4-AAC (that's the
most up-to-date format). But most hardware don't support them yet.