More specifically, wma or mp3 or wav?
Im not asking "best" as in compatibility with iPods, for i hate them.
What i want, is to rip my entire CD collection at 128kbs. So i was wondering, if there is a difference between 128kbs WMA, 128kbs MP3, and 128kbs WAV. What do you use? What is the best quality wise? I thank you for your help.
2006-12-18 12:25:09 · 3 answers · asked by Oh, It's, Ohhhh 4 in Consumer Electronics ➔ Other - Electronics
The best format is mp3's, not because of quality, but because it is the universal audio format. It's not a Mac or PC format. It works on any mp3 player and is read by practically any sound program. It compresses really well at the same time maintaining good compression.
WMA is more of a PC format since it was designed by Microsoft. WMA and mp3 formats are practically the same in audio quality though. Wav is too large, while it sounds the best between mp3 and wma because wav is an uncompressed format. Both mp3 and wma formats are compressed, so you will lose the low and high frequencies.
As for what bitrate to record it at, it depends on the space that you have. I personally like 160kbps because it is near CD quality without having the files go over 10MB per a file. The higher bitrate the larger the file, plus the subtle the differences are. 128kbps is FM radio quality. It will sound fine, but all your music will sound rather flat.
An uncompressed WAV file is 40-60MB per a song. Do the math and see what makes sense. I have 1 terabyte of hard drive space, so that is why I can afford to record all my songs in 160kbps.
2006-12-18 13:40:53 · answer #1 · answered by techman2000 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
MP3 or Mpa they both work well for everything. Mp3 has best sound quality. Wma Is the third to these. mp4s do not work well at all.
2006-12-18 20:32:47 · answer #2 · answered by roflcopterBRUTUS 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
its the mp3 its the lightest format the wav&wma heavy and take larger space excuse my languge do you got me?
2006-12-19 00:03:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋