Re: WAV versus WMA
- From: "Jack Handey" <nothere@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:30:27 -0500
I'll just say upfront i'm more of a fan of mp3 than wma. I think it sounds
much better. Also there's a free add in available at winamps website called
'enhancer' that will make mp3's sound MUCH better than any wma played though
media player.
Now, that said, the truth is wma and mp3 are both 'lossy' codecs. Any time
you convert music to these formats it loses some of the unneeded bits. What
those bits are differs between the two. I personally convert all my cd's
into mp3 at a bitrate of 256bps and have noticed no decrease in quality that
my ears can differentiate. There's even a higher setting for studio quality
sound.
I think if you go and look at portable music players you will find more of
them play mp3 than wma. Wma is closing the gap but it's still not as big. So
if you ever plan on using these on a portable device you might want to take
a look at the market options.
Wav is the best option as far as sound quality but it's at a tremendous
trade off of space.
Since only you can decide which you are going to be happy with just do a
simple test. Take two or three songs. I would suggest one that has some high
pitched notes and one that has a lot of low bass sounds. Then convert them
into both wma and mp3 at the highest bits per second you can and listen to
which one sounds the best to your ears. Then convert them at a lower bits
per second and listen. Gradually as you lower the conversion rate you will
start to notice a lot of the sound quality decreasing (all of the sudden the
trumpets just sound horrible). Pick which format and conversion rate you
like the best.
As far as converting back to the original cd format, well, the higher bps
you start with the better it will sound when converted no matter which way
you go. Starting off with 128 i notice it's not quite as good as the
original cd. But if i convert an mp3 from 256 to wav I can't tell a loss.
"Craig A." <CraigA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:FB05F3EA-F0DA-4A0D-B284-517804044086@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I asking this question in the General Discussion forum, because it has
> more activity.
> I have been saving files to my Hard Drive under the File Extension of
> Wav. I did this beleiving I wanted the fullest and most accurate form of
> the
> file on my drive and if I needed to copy them to a CD, I would then decide
> to
> use a compress format.
> I not not that Windows Media does NOT allow me to Rip in Wav any longer
> and only gives me choices of WMA.
> I need a Knowledgeable Geek to help me here. Is Wav still not the best
> Format / Codecs? at 128 cps. If I start to use WMA format, one of the
> Three
> Choices will it be as accurate andbe able to be compied to a CD and be
> able
> to be played in Most CD Players and or computers?
> I have done some searching and have found very little reference to my
> question. It seems that there was a conversion to WMA and WAV is now being
> ignored. I must have fallen asleep during that Glass.
> Any help would be very much appreciated. I have copied over 4000 songs
> from my LPs, 10" Reel to Reels, VHS-HiFi and CD collection to my secondary
> hard Drive, I really do not want to start with a new format, again.
> 4-track
> 8 track
> Reel to Reel
> 45 rpm
> 33 1/3 rpm
> Cassette
> Beta one
> Beta two and three
> ElCassette
> VHS
> 8 mm
> C
> and now has WAV gone by the wayside as well?
> Thanks
>
.
- References:
- WAV versus WMA
- From: Craig A.
- WAV versus WMA
- Prev by Date: logging off in win XP
- Next by Date: Re: Opening folders
- Previous by thread: WAV versus WMA
- Next by thread: Re: WAV versus WMA
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
