Poll: WMA vs. MP3
Radium wrote:
Whenever I buy a CD, I put my favorite songs in my PC. I use Wavelab or
Adobe Audition to convert the stereo file to mono.
Why?
I then combine the audio of both copies together in a new WAV file.
Voila! I get some nice monoaural audio with at least 44.1 khz and at
least 16-bit.
The problem is that it's not true mono, but rather matrixed mono. :-)
Sorry for the above repeat post.
Yeah, so are we.
If you want to place untitled.wav on the internet, chances are you'll
have to somehow compress it becayse WAV files tend to take up lots of
bandwidth. My idea is to convert this file to WMA. Make sure
untitled.wma is monoaural and has a sample-rate of 44.1 khz. To restore
bandwidth make sure untitled.wma has a bit-rate of 20kbps.
Well, that explains a lot behind your question.
Dropping CD quality audio 20 an effective bit rate of
20 kbits/sec is VERY likely going to sound perfectly
LOUSY no matter what encoder you use. That's a
compression ratio of about 70:1.
SO your question "WMA vs MP3" really boils down
to which miserable piece of **** audio are you willing
to tolerate.
The answer is neither, they both suck.
|