MP3 vs. WMA



kerrisky
07-09-2005, 10:53 PM
Which file will compress the most MP3 or WMA? Are which file will be the
smallest once saved?
--
THANKS, Live long and thrive.

Downunder
07-09-2005, 10:53 PM
MP3 is compressed and WMA is not. So you can fit more MP3's onto your media
than you can WMA's

"kerrisky" wrote:

> Which file will compress the most MP3 or WMA? Are which file will be the
> smallest once saved?
> --
> THANKS, Live long and thrive.

Paul W
07-09-2005, 10:53 PM
It really depends on the type of music.

As an experiment I saved an MP3 out to a WMA and the WMA was larger by a few
bytes - certainly not enough to warrant a batch convertion.

You can make the file smaller by using a smaller bit rate but at the expence
of quality. 128 seems to be the norm these days

BTW both formats are compressed


"kerrisky" <kerrisky@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:978494AA-A949-4B98-B8F9-31F8FFA60BEC@microsoft.com...
> Which file will compress the most MP3 or WMA? Are which file will be the
> smallest once saved?
> --
> THANKS, Live long and thrive.

Steve Campbell
07-09-2005, 10:53 PM
They are indeed both compressed formats. Of the two I have a clear
preference for WMA as MP3 encoding seems more uneven in terms of frequency
response.

However, I now use Ogg almost exclusively as the quality / compression is
extremely good. 192 kbps gives reasonable recordings although I tend to
encode at around 320 kbps. 128 kbps is far too low in my opinion to be
commercially acceptable as the quality just isn't good enough.

Try and avoid converting from one compressed format to another as all
compression algorithms lose different elements of the sound and you'll always
end up with something worse, never better.

Steve

"kerrisky" wrote:

> Which file will compress the most MP3 or WMA? Are which file will be the
> smallest once saved?
> --
> THANKS, Live long and thrive.


MP3 vs. WMA