WMA vs. MP3 Which one has better SOUND QUALITY?

I've always been ripping music using 192kbps WMA, but it is as good as the 320kbps MP3? I'm just curious as to which format has better sound quality, since I'm getting a new mp3 player soon. (it's 4GB and supports both)

 

i think wma sounds better than mp3 at the same kbps. aac sounds the best though

 

Yes, it makes a huge difference. You can hear things you couldn't before and most of that background noise is out of it. Now what's better is Lossless and since you have a 4gb it's perfect for you. Also remember no talk of piracy here.

 

Too late...


People nowadays, they hear Music and thats the first thing that comes to their minds. wow

I guess the RIAA is doing their job right.

 

Well maybe he...or...hrm. =\ I guess it is to late.

 

Piracy huh?
I though mp3 players doesn't support WMA Lossless...

 

Here's cut and paste from wikipedia (note that WMA is made by microsoft):

"Microsoft claims that audio encoded with WMA sounds better than MP3 at the same bit rate; Microsoft also claims that audio encoded with WMA at lower bit rates sound better than MP3 at higher bit rates. Double blind listening tests with other lossy audio codecs have shown varying results, from failure to support Microsoft's claims about its superior quality to supremacy over other codecs. One independent test conducted in May 2004 at 128 kbit/s showed that WMA was roughly equivalent to LAME MP3; inferior to AAC and Vorbis; and superior to ATRAC3 (software version). Another test performed by ExtremeTech showed different results, however, placing WMA at the top of the list in terms of quality."

 

Wait, I just realized that I can use AAC as well. So does AAC beat both mp3 and WMA?

 

I would go with AAC out of those options IMO. Whether or not it beats WMA or mp3 I've no idea lol, but, I think it sounds better!

But out of any music format I would use FLAC if it were an option or Ogg tho very few music players will play those two formats.

 

AAC beats MP3 and WMA. There is also OGG, but people ignore that as it is not supported by hardware players.

 

The MPEG Layer 3 (MP3) was specifically designed for a smaller file type. When it was a new file type, i remember people sayin that it got rid of the real high and low frequencies that no-one would really hear (unless they have an awsome set of headphones) to save the space.

I would say wma.

 

Zeromancer!!!

I'm Yours To Lose encoded at 192kbps, damn I wish it were 320kbps!!!

And for the record I rip my music at 256kbps CBR w/Lame MP3.

 

only reasonable MP3 quality is V2 or V0. I don't know if WMA supports VBR.

 

I know that my Samsung U3 (and most of the rest of their line) all play OGG. No, the iPod doesn't play it, but there are a lot of other hardware players that do support it.

 

Not wma lossless, flac (which is lossless).

 

Wikipedia says that but i don't know, i would go with 320kbps mp3 and ditch wma but it's your call.

 

A few things:

- It's not just the format and bitrate, but the encoder used too. For mp3 the LAME encoder has a very good reputation (and it's what I use).

- The bitrate matters a lot. Any of the major formats at 320kbps will sound better than anything at 192kbps (if you can hear the difference). The downside of a higher bitrate of course is that the files take up more space.

- Above 192 kbps or so, it becomes difficult to tell the difference from the uncompressed source on typical listening equipment. This threshold may vary a little depending on your audio equipment and your hearing.

- MP3 has better compatibility than AAC or WMA, meaning that more devices and software support mp3 format than anything else. And coverting from one of these formats to another will result in quality loss.

Personally, I rip my CDs to mp3 with the LAME encoder. Yeah, I could probably get slightly better sound at the same bitrate using AAC, but the difference isn't that great, and I can always compensate by increasing the bitrate a little bit. It's worth it to me to be able to play the files back on anything without worrying if it supports some format... since pretty much everything around supports mp3. But if you want the best quality for a given file size, and aren't too worried about compatibility, then AAC is probably best.

 

I use WMP 11 to rip CDs at 320 KBPS. I also have a Creative Zen Vision:M 60 gig so I have a lot of room. And even my 65 year old ears can easily tell the difference between 192 and 320. And also between 320 and the CD. But for portable use, I definitely could not tell the difference between 320 and the CD in the noisy environments I use the mp3s in. And I use either Koss KSC35 (unfortunately discontinued) or Senn HD 535 phones. If I want to carry my Total Airhead amp I can also use the HD 600 cans. And Phillips noise cnceling for airplanes. But no portable lossy player will ever be as good as the CD, and no CD will ever match high quality vinyl on a good table.

 

I'm not sure on that bit, it depends on the sound technicians who recorded the music. If I go though my music collection the sound quality on Pink Floyd albums (either CD or vinyl) beats any of my other albums hands down, either on vinyl or cd. I have some perfect condition vinyl which when played on my 1210s or NAD turntable still sounds rubbish... (could be a poor choice in music on my part though of course lol)

Going back to the file format question I think the restricting factor often is the headphones. Most headphones supplied with music players aren't up to playing music recorded at a high bit rate. You just loose the detail anyway so may as well try a few rates out and see where you start to notice the difference, then go with that.

Incidentally the Cowon iAudio 7 plays ogg and FLAC http://www.cowonamerica.com/products/iaudio/7/

 

Yeah but 8 GB? Not much to go on with that. 16GB supposed to come out sooner or later.


Anyways, I prefer mp3 as you can play it with ALL types of media devices. AAC, and you're stuck unless you're buying an iPod or Zune (which are the only 2 major mp3 players using AAC iirc)

 

I personally am a fan the lossless format FLAC instead of AAC. However, between WMA and MP3, I'd use MP3.

 

I have noticed that my flac albums sound a little, if only a little better than my 320 mp3s. If i could i would get everything in lossless.

 

I prefer FLAC too.

 

Flac Ftw!

 

I use FLAC on Sonos (new toy! ) but mp3 in my car and aac on my iPod. One day I'll manage to sort things out so they all use the same file formats!

 

I've been doing multiple tests on the following formats:
320 kbps mp3 vs. 255-355 kbps VBR wma

I have concluded that VBR wma wins hands down. I conducted the tests on a sony 24 bit d/a receiver and set of high quality polk speakers. The VBR wma has the ability to keep up with the highs, and at the same time provide clean bass and tight midrange when playing heavy metal and hard rock. However, mp3 had less than perfect quality that provided non-tight bass, skipping highs, and lack of presence in midrange. In summary, the WMA provided a more live sound that resembled more like the CD.