is quality of wma greater than mp3?

I have heard that wma has better quality than am mp3 file... and that an aac file has better quality even than wma...

what i mean is that a file encoded in 64 kbps in aac format has better quality than a 64 kbps wma file, i.e.

aac > wma > mp3 (for a file encoded in 64 kbps in all cases)

is it true?

yes less size and better quality thats what iv heard too but my ipod doesnt allow me wma so cant give a subjective opinion

Arun the Gr8 said:
aac > wma > mp3 (for a file encoded in 64 kbps in all cases)

is it true?

Yes its true.

iMav said:
yes less size and better quality thats what iv heard too but my ipod doesnt allow me wma so cant give a subjective opinion

Charan said:
Yes its true.

so is aac better than wma?

^^ yes aac is way better than MP3 or WMA

Charan said:
^^ yes aac is way better than MP3 or WMV

AAC could be better than WMA but not WMA

^^he he typo .. WMA

MusePack >> vorbis > AAC >> WMA >>> MP3 >>> MP2

A.R Rahman >> Atif Aslam >> britney spears >> MusePack >> vorbis > AAC >> WMA >>> MP3 >>> MP2 >> me :lol:

^^

S

A.R Rahman >> Atif Aslam >> britney spears >> MusePack >> vorbis > AAC >> WMA >>> MP3 >>> MP2 >> me

LOLZ

I have ripped RODM by DJ Aqeel at 320kbps VBR Mp3 and also in FLAC,(Both with Sound Juicer in Ubuntu) but i havent noticed any difference in sound quality, though the file size is huge, 14 MB in VBR and 45 MB in FLAC per track.
Is it suppose to happen like this?

B

MP3 is more popular~~

rahimveron said:
I have ripped RODM by DJ Aqeel at 320kbps VBR Mp3 and also in FLAC,(Both with Sound Juicer in Ubuntu) but i havent noticed any difference in sound quality, though the file size is huge, 14 MB in VBR and 45 MB in FLAC per track.
Is it suppose to happen like this?

yep,flac also has the sound frequencies normally unheard by human ears i spose.

rahimveron said:
I have ripped RODM by DJ Aqeel at 320kbps VBR Mp3 and also in FLAC,(Both with Sound Juicer in Ubuntu) but i havent noticed any difference in sound quality, though the file size is huge, 14 MB in VBR and 45 MB in FLAC per track.
Is it suppose to happen like this?

convert both to wav.
then convert both to 100 kbps wma.
see any difference ?
320kbps mp3 is quite transparent, but you still need FLAC if you want the original audio quality(which only a machine, or a transcoding process can detect.)

.

My faves:
FLAC = open source lossless codec
ogg vorbis = open source lossy codec.

तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय:
*wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/

..:: Free Radical ::.. said:
My faves:
FLAC = open source lossless codec
ogg vorbis = open source lossy codec.

तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय:
*wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/

you too in Hydrogen Audio ?
anyway, you need to be careful in choosing the codec due to format support issues.
I personally recomend either FLAC or WavPack for audio archieving.

WavPack has got a Hybrid Mode in which you can rip the audio in two files, one a high bitrate lossy file(usually 384 kbps) thats transparent and small in size, and another a "Correction" file that when combined with this lossy file gives lossless audio, and thus you needn't rip anything twice. Just rip in hybrid mode, copy all files to DVD(archiving) and only the main lossy files to HDD(playback).

.

I prefer EAC FLAC -8 for all my rips. Sometimes get 50% compression, even on electronica, house and trance