mp3 or wma?
13 January 2004, 01:38 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Swindon, Wiltshire Xbox Gamertag: Gutgouger
Posts: 6,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting aticle, although I'd take the results with a pinch of salt. They claim that recording an mp3 at 192kbs is sufficient to cd-quality recording for classical music (and 160kbs for pop/rock), however even when I encode at the highest bitrate (320kbs) I can clearly hear the difference.
Both mp3 and wma are good for quiet background "while you work" situations (I've got a load on my computer at work which I listen to whilst programming away), but cd quality they aint. I've noticed that wma does seem to handle the quality issue slightly better than mp3, but I suspect that is more down to the encoders being used than the format itself.
Both mp3 and wma are good for quiet background "while you work" situations (I've got a load on my computer at work which I listen to whilst programming away), but cd quality they aint. I've noticed that wma does seem to handle the quality issue slightly better than mp3, but I suspect that is more down to the encoders being used than the format itself.
13 January 2004, 01:45 PM
#4
Moderator
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not all those who wander are lost
Posts: 17,863
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed Iain. Best way is to runs some test of your own with your own music and your own sound system. Anything less than 192kbps in my car sounds pants.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post