LinuxQuestions.org
Register a domain and help support LQ
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 12-03-2003, 12:26 PM   #1
Imek
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: England
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 71

Rep: Reputation: 15
Is WMA better than MP3


Hi, First I'd like to say that I'm not ripping off the other thread.. I was thinking of buying an MP3 CD player for a while, and my friend has a one which can also play WMA files and I wanted to get some opinions on WMA.

From what I've heard, WMA files are better quality at smaller bitrates than MP3 files. Is this true? I know it's a bit silly of me to try to get unbiased opinions on a product of the Evil MS Empire but hey, I'm not hurting anyone. What do you guys think?
 
Old 12-03-2003, 12:36 PM   #2
Megamieuwsel
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: Haarlem , the Netherlands
Distribution: VectorLinux SOHO 5.1
Posts: 465

Rep: Reputation: 35
I have no experience with WMA , but the part of "Better quality at lower bitrates" sounds (quite a tad more than) a little bogus to me.
Lower bitrate = stronger compression.
To the best of my knowledge , compression is achieved by leaving out bits , following certain algorithms.
So ; The more you compress something , the more data will be "cut out".
....
....
....
....
....
Unless M$ figured out how to use black magic or other occult means of compression.
Hey! Maybe they even found a complete , intact copy of the Alexandrian Library , the holy grail AND the Arc of Convenance as well.....
 
Old 12-03-2003, 01:06 PM   #3
fancypiper
Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Sparta, NC USA
Distribution: Ubuntu 10.04
Posts: 5,141

Rep: Reputation: 58
I remember when Windows first competed with the real player and they had a page of comparisons where they claimed the superiority of wma over ra.

If you actually took the time to listen to each sample they offered, you actually found ra was the clear winner.

Ignore the Windows hype and do some comparison listening. I find ogg vorbis is the best.
 
Old 12-03-2003, 01:19 PM   #4
MasterC
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Location: Salt Lake City, UT - USA
Distribution: Gentoo ; LFS ; Kubuntu
Posts: 12,612

Rep: Reputation: 64
In the tour I once took, I saw no signs of the Holy Grail, however, I did see more than 1 room with the sign "Keep Out: Secret Arc Inside"

Cool
 
Old 12-03-2003, 08:35 PM   #5
williamwbishop
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: god's judge
Posts: 376

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by MasterC
In the tour I once took, I saw no signs of the Holy Grail, however, I did see more than 1 room with the sign "Keep Out: Secret Arc Inside"

Cool


Too funny. I wonder how many will get that one? Then again, I wonder if you meant it as a joke inside a joke?
 
Old 12-03-2003, 09:28 PM   #6
RolledOat
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: San Antonio
Distribution: Suse 9.0 Professional
Posts: 843

Rep: Reputation: 30
http://www.phataudio.org/modules.php...rder=1&thold=0
Reference, why I like ogg over all, smaller and better sound. That said,

http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/wma9/
'For low bitrates, WMA seems to be a better compression scheme than MP3. But the difference is not as huge as Microsoft would like us to believe.'
but
'Those parameters are selected to try maximizing quality and to reach the same filesize as the WMA samples, because the WMA samples are always bigger than the MP3 samples encoded using the same target bitrate.'

Of course, when MS does a study 'We could argue that the test samples could be carefully choosen in order to provide good quality with WMA and bad quality with MP3. But as there is no clue about this, we are ignoring this possibility, even if it is likely to be the case.'

So I would not believe what MS has to say at face value.

and
http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardw...eviews/2606/7/
'It seems that at every bit rate tested the MP3 audio file comes out smaller, but only slightly.'
and
'It comes as no great surprise that WMA beats MP3 in terms of audio quality,'

But, that is with older MP3 encoders.

The rock solid conclusion that I can come to is try encoding both with the latest encoders, see which one sounds best to you.

R.O.
 
Old 12-04-2003, 03:02 PM   #7
randomblast
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Manchester, England, UK, The World....
Distribution: Gentoo/SuSE 9.0
Posts: 291

Rep: Reputation: 30
my dad used to rip all his CDs with windoze media player (before i wiped his box with a winXP pro upgrade - M$=crap)
the default bitrate is 64kbps and it's fair to say, it sounds like crap
i raised the bitrate to 256kbps, slightly better, but the same CD ripped with Grip in 256Kbps OGG sounds way sweeter and the files are smaller.
and you have to pay M$ more if you want MP3/OGG riping in media player, what does that tell you?
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wma to Mp3 Knowledgements Slackware 23 09-23-2006 10:07 AM
wma to mp3 pulsez Linux - Newbie 5 10-27-2005 08:17 PM
MP3 to WMA spotslayer Linux - Software 5 10-08-2004 05:45 PM
how to convert a wma to mp3?? yenonn Linux - General 2 04-26-2004 08:25 PM
converting wma to mp3 rolanaj Linux - Software 2 08-16-2003 04:46 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:32 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration