I ripped a cd in WMA and MP3 at 128 KBPS, with Windows Media Player 11 and
Roxio 9. The MP3 files came out smaller than the WMA files in both instances,
and the quality is identical. I did the experiment again with another cd, and
I came up with the same results, the MP3 files were smaller and no noticable
difference in quality. Microsoft says "superior quality at a fraction of the
bitrate..." Is that just a jingle to push WMA, or are they trying to say if I
burn WMA at 64 kbps, I'll get the same quality as an MP3 at 128 kbps? Which
format really is the better?

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 23:40:02 -0800, smonteijr
<smonteijr@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I ripped a cd in WMA and MP3 at 128 KBPS, with Windows Media Player 11 and
>Roxio 9. The MP3 files came out smaller than the WMA files in both instances,
>and the quality is identical. I did the experiment again with another cd, and
>I came up with the same results, the MP3 files were smaller and no noticable
>difference in quality. Microsoft says "superior quality at a fraction of the
>bitrate..." Is that just a jingle to push WMA, or are they trying to say if I
>burn WMA at 64 kbps, I'll get the same quality as an MP3 at 128 kbps? Which
>format really is the better?


The only real answer is "it depends" : It depends on the type/genres
of the content, your listening equipment, as well as how you encoded
it and which settings and encoders you used.

If your soundcard is a standard home kit, your speakers are crummy PC
speakers and so on, I'd be surprised if you could qualitatively tell
the difference.

Often, higher bitrates (eg 192kbps MP3 vs 160kbps MP3) will sound
identical, so that's where your saving might come in.


Cheers - Neil
------------------------------------------------
Digital Media MVP : 2004-2006
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/mvpfaqs