Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Windows Media vs. MP3 vs. AAC vs. Real


Recommended Posts



  • Replies 9
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I can't listen to mp3's until they hit 192kps (swirly cricket-like sound in cymbals and such). Thus, using 192kps as a judge, WMA is my preference. Mp3 works fine at 192kps, but with WMA at 192kps I'm hard pressed to hear much difference from the original source, unless I'm hearing it through my monitors.

 

Winner - WMA (192kps)

Fine - MP3 (192kps)

Loser - MP3 (160kps and below)

No matter how good something is, there will always be someone blasting away on a forum somewhere about how much they hate it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WMA and AAC are ok, but the claims that they only need half the bit rate of MP3's is false. 128 WMA or AAC files do not sound as good as 256 MP3 files.

 

256 MP3 is my standard format because it plays in any device I have including my home DVD player.

 

WMA and AAC are next. Neither will replace MP3 for me until they are more widely accepted. Media Player will not play AAC and my iPod will not play WMA.

 

So far I have not found a "lossless" format that is worth the space. Most still take about half the space of an uncompressed file ane there is not much support for the various lossless formats in the players. With HD's increasing in size, if I want lossless then I will just use wave.

 

Robert

This post edited for speling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty obvious that none of you have destroyed your hearing like I have. I used to have a critical ear and I spent about 10 years in the high end stereo electronics snob business back in the day. I used to test equipment and listen for the tinyest nuances of differences. Now, I can't hear much of a difference between the above mentioned formats at anything above 128kps. I'm sure I'll be one of those old guys with hearing aids sticking out of my ears in about 10 years or so.

 

What?

bbach

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by cwfno:

It's pretty obvious that none of you have destroyed your hearing like I have. I used to have a critical ear and I spent about 10 years in the high end stereo electronics snob business back in the day. I used to test equipment and listen for the tinyest nuances of differences. Now, I can't hear much of a difference between the above mentioned formats at anything above 128kps. I'm sure I'll be one of those old guys with hearing aids sticking out of my ears in about 10 years or so.

 

What?

If this was directed at me, you couldn't be more wrong. I have since I was in my teens been very protective of my hearing, I see an audiologist every 6 months to ahve my hearing tested and my ears professionally cleaned, and have impecably good hearing according to the professionals at Mass eye and Ear here in Boston who test me biannually.

Hope this is helpful.

 

NP Recording Studios

Analog approach to digital recording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...