Is there any benefit in recording as MP3 (128 kbps) rather than WMA (64 kbps) or is the quality and use exactly the same, but with more storage potential with WMA?

 

The higher the bitrate the better the sound quality.

I use the AAC option in itunes for CD like quality. It takes up more space, but hard disc space is so cheap nowadays that I don't care. The only drawback is the inability to burn mp3 cds. AACs are not mp3s therefore an mp3 player won't recognize the files. I just burn audio cds from the AAC's...

 

i did a long write up of MP3 players and some other misc stuff. If you want to read it go here: http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?s=&...threadid=105392

When it comes to MP3 (128kbps) vs WMA (96kbps) you can really hear a difference. WMA will yes be smaller then MP3 will be because of how WMA is compressed and the fact that it is using a smaller bit rate then the MP3. Microsoft claims that WMA will sound the same as a 128k MP3 but that is quite false. 96WMA is more comparable to 96MP3 just smaller.

Some people ask how the quality is worse. It is actually kind of hard to explain but I would explain WMA as having almost jingling bells in the background and symbols and other high frequency music tones haveing a blurrying of the notes. I notice it the most when the music pauses for a sec, you can really hear it there in WMA.

Overall MP3 is the better quality of the two of them and I would do mp3 compression over WMA unless you need to conserve space and don;t mind dealing with the lower quality WMA.

My 2 cents


Regards,
Jonathan

 

Thanks Jonathan. I'll stick with MP3 then.

 

i try to rip all my MP3's at 192 or better. while not as good sounding as the original CD, i find it a good compromise between sound quality and space. 128 ripped MP3's do have some sound issues w/ clarity and realism in reproduction.

generally though, if i really want it to sound good - i don't rip it to MP3.