Poll: WMA vs. MP3
Radium wrote:
wrote:
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.
Well, if my bandwidth is suffering I don't mind 20 kbps of WMA.
Like I said. They both suck big time. It appears that
you like the miserably ****ty sound of 20 kbs WMA
better than the miserably ****ty sound of 20 kbps MP3.
Hey, more power to you. Just please refrain from making
your usual sweeping generalizations as you have in the
past, because it's clear you have ignored or missed some
rather important points, like the quality of ANY bit-rate audio
compression is almost totally dependent upon how well
the encoder is implemented, more so than on the actual
format, and that it's easy to get miserable results if you
don't use the encoder properly.
And, yeah, your bandwidth probably is suffering, but
not the way you think. Your earlier threads (e.g. "I am back,"
"bit resolution and clipping," "linear pcm vs common pcm,"
"theoretical acoustic experiment" just to mention a couple
of your gems) indicate you have some serious bandwidth
problems.
To save precious bandwidth, don't bother replying. It'd
be content-free anyway.
|