MP3 vs. WMA

[noginsk]

Hey all, I am relatively new to the digital media player revolution and just bought my first MP3 ripping software. I experimented with windows media player, but found it couldn't rip MP3s, only WMAs. So, since I want to get a portable player and it seems to me that most players play MP3s, then maybe I should not use windows media player. But, in my research, it looks like WMA files take up less space then MP3 files. So, my question(s) is what do you all use? WMA or MP3? Also, what bit rates do you find where it can't be discerned that it is not the real CD playing for both Mp3 and WMA? I'm leaning towards the creative labs 30 gig player that can double as a backup hard drive for the computer. I kind of like that.

[ColonelPanic]

I actually use an alternative to those two - the open source Ogg Vorbis format. I switched a couple of years ago. I've never used WMA, since I don't have Windows. So I can't make a comparsion between MP3/WMA.Ogg seems to yield a better sound quality and smaller file size of an MP3. Only downside is the fact that the only piece of portable hardware I know of that will play oggs is the Linux-powered Sharp Zaurus PDA like I have... I re-encoded most of my MP3 collection into lower bitrate oggs for use on the Zaurus. That way, I can cram around 130 songs on a single 256 meg compact flash card. They are encoded in a variable bitrate, but seem to average around 70-80 kbit. I was expecting some terrible sounding music, hearing how bad an MP3 can sound at such a low bitrate. I was blown away when I put on my headphones and gave it a listen. At the low bitrate, it still is crystal clear. Isn't going to be CD quality at that bitrate, but then again an average song is 2 MB in size. Blows away MP3s of similar bitrate for sure.In my MP3 days, I preferred the quality of anything 160 kbit and over. 128 kbit was about as low as I would go. There were exceptions, for instance I used 112 kbit when I wanted to burn a CD for my MP3 CD player to get more tunes per disc.

[kostby]

With what hearing I have left at age 51, I can't really distinguish an audible quality difference between similar bitrate MP3 and WMA formats when played through small PC speakers or headphones. (Too many live concerts back in my college days!) I'm pretty well stuck with 'Win-ders' as my PC operating system, but I chose MP3 format over WMA, mainly because it's NOT a Microsoft-controlled format.

[Jahntassa]

MP3 is the standard for digital audio, there's no going around that. Microsoft can push WMA on everyone because of it's influence...so thankfully, it's actually got some "popularity" going.MP3 will be more widely accepted on portable players.WMA does take up less space, and also can be secured (good for the RIAA)Sound quality will be about the same, especially to the undiscerning (read: Non-Audiophile) ear. Most of my stuff is encoded at 128kbit MP3, which seems to be the breaking point between sounding okay, and horrible. If you have the space, 168 or 192k will sound much better. I don't know about the bitrates for WMA, because the only thing I have that can play it is WMP, which isn't as versatile as WinAMP.I stick to MP3, just because I don't want to convert everything I have to a Microsoft proprietary format.

[ALi3N]

I hate Microsoft. That's it. I only have windows xp because my dad got a good deal on a college edition. I will never support WMA, microsoft's attempt to capitalize on someone elses idea.

[Winter]

It's all about what you plan on do with your rips. If you're just using them on your local box (read: any Windows PC), just use WMA since it has tighter compression and greater encryption. Sounds exactly the same as MP3 when comparing over 192kbit (standard/default setting on most ripping appz), however at rates of 56k-128k there is a noticable high and low frequency degredation in WMA format, but your mids will sound good still. MP3 is the leader because it's cross-platform compatible, so I recommend sticking to that if you plan to use Linux or portable music devices. With that said, I also like the IPod...goes well with everything.

[noginsk]

Quote, originally posted by Winter » MP3 is the leader because it's cross-platform compatible, so I recommend sticking to that if you plan to use Linux or portable music devices. With that said, I also like the IPod...goes well with everything. I am thinking MP3 will be my way. I like versatility and will take that over smaller file sizes. Thanks guys. On my way to look at comparing some PDA phones. There are a lot of pocket PC phones that look mighty tempting... PLus built in MP3 player

[Keely]

Quote, originally posted by noginsk » On my way to look at comparing some PDA phones. There are a lot of pocket PC phones that look mighty tempting... PLus built in MP3 playerI'd echo the comments on the undesireability of using a file format that sees Microsoft and RIAA in bed together . I've scribed a couple of anti-RIAA rants in my time: like this one, that one or another one.As for a PDA phone, I would heartily recommend the Treo 600. I've had mine for over a year now and adore it even more than my car. Which is pretty freaky. But anyway, it's definitely the category leader and unless you have specific needs that the Treo doesn't cover, it's the one. I pop in my SD cards and use Pocket Tunes as the software. Love it! Sorry, I already said that.

[Jahntassa]

Verizon now carries the Treo 600, I believe... That might be your best match. I've always had good results with Verizon and service availability.

[ColonelPanic]

Nice rants, keely. Can't say I like proprietary file formats. Especially those where Microsoft is involved. lolI like the Treo... I remember one of the execs at work had an older one with a greyscale screen... Ahh, a cheap palm + fone! Wasn't very impressed with his. But it sure looks like they've come a long way, pretty slick looking lil' devices nowadays.One of 'em would be bad news for me though, I'd end up breaking it in a week.