WMA vs MP3

[FatMan]

I just got a 256mb mp3 player to use as I attempt to workout. I handles multiple formats including WMA. WMA files are half the size of MP3 due to the sampling rate being half that of MP3's, 64 kbps vs 128 kbps. So I can get twice as many files on it with WMA vs MP3. I have found that Microsoft has a bonus pack for Windows XP that converts MP3's to WMA. My question is which format would you go with?

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

OGG if you must be lossy.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I just got a 256mb mp3 player to use as I attempt to workout. I handles multiple formats including WMA. WMA files are half the size of MP3 due to the sampling rate being half that of MP3's, 64 kbps vs 128 kbps. So I can get twice as many files on it with WMA vs MP3. I have found that Microsoft has a bonus pack for Windows XP that converts MP3's to WMA. My question is which format would you go with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, stewardess! I speak nerd.

[lucas9000]

ogg

[stabn]

I use WMA, but you can't go wrong either way.

[bd8802]

they are all lossy ... so just use whatever you want. ogg is the best, but just do whatever is easist for you, or get a hard drive MP3 player and use FLAC.

[emonrad87]

[ QUOTE ]
they are all lossy ... so just use whatever you want. ogg is the best, but just do whatever is easist for you, or get a hard drive MP3 player and use FLAC.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you want no loss, youve got to use .WAV. And that runs about 10 MB per minute of play time.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they are all lossy ... so just use whatever you want. ogg is the best, but just do whatever is easist for you, or get a hard drive MP3 player and use FLAC.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you want no loss, youve got to use .WAV. And that runs about 10 MB per minute of play time.

[/ QUOTE ]
or FLAC, as he said, which is smaller than WAV.

[GuyOnTilt]

128 kbps is bad enough. I would think 64 isn't even bearable to listen to.

GoT