Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: I Should Know This....

  1. #1
    Sorry to have to ask this, but I searched and found nothing. I just finished converting a shitload of wma files (rips)to mp3 to share, and I noticed how much bigger the files are (a little more than 2x as big). Is it cool to share files as wma or ogg, or should they be mp3. It's just that I can share and use twice as many files that way.

    Someone said mp3's are better quality, but it depends on the conversion - also, if the mp3's are simply converted from wma, they CAN"T be better quality - you'd do better to dl and convert yourself.

    If someone who REALLY knows about this stuff could inform me or point me in the right direction that would be great. I know lots about sample rate, bit resolution, dynamic range etc., but not much about the guidelines for sharing files.

  2. Music   -   #2
    So I finally found some real info - read about 8 or 10 comparative studies done by both "sides" of the format debate. It appears that aurally and scientifically, according to every study I read, that wma files sound better than mp3's at lower sample rates, and almost exactly the same (no difference) at the highest sample rates. And they are almost exactly the same size depending on their bit rate, with mp3 being a tiny bit smaller. If anyone has different information please let me know. Here are three of the best studies:

    http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/wma9/

    http://ekei.com/audio/

    http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecen...reviews/2606/7/
    http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecen...reviews/2606/8/
    http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecen...reviews/2606/9/

  3. Music   -   #3
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,397
    I dont think anyone will ever change from MP3

  4. Music   -   #4
    It kind of the same, but I don't know why people use mp3 more than wma. Back in the day I usually listen from wma, untill mp3 become so popular and many were sharing them.

    I guess you can share you file as wma.(I found some of them) or convert to mp3(which popular). Almost people(not me) didn't care much about bit rate of the music as long as it higher than 96 or128, so you can share the good stuff you have.

    SHARE WILL KEEP KAZAA ALIVE!

  5. Music   -   #5
    Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,233
    WMA can have copyprotection and trojans placed in them...

    MP3 only can by being mis-named WMA/ASF/RA files...

  6. Music   -   #6
    Originally posted by Switeck@23 May 2003 - 06:57
    WMA can have copyprotection and trojans placed in them...

    MP3 only can by being mis-named WMA/ASF/RA files...
    Say again...

    Are they executable upon opening, I heard not so, but...

  7. Music   -   #7
    jetje's Avatar former star
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    4,604
    WMA s*cks. It's the way microsoft tries to get a hold on audiofiles in the market. Someone sad be4, they can add copyprotection to that and stuff.


    KEEP IT MP3

  8. Music   -   #8
    Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,233
    I've gotten a VBS script virus that was renamed as a MP3 file.
    Microsoft's Windows Media Player ran it without giving an error of any sort...

    WMA and WMV files can have some VBS script inside their file and that *IS* executeable.

  9. Music   -   #9
    If WMA had no DRM crap in it then it would be used by everyone.

  10. Music   -   #10
    Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    195

    hi there !
    not sure if this helps, but i have Nero mp3pro encoder and i encode everything to mp3pro which is about half the size of an mp3.
    regards
    m8t

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •