I think that WMA is easier to listent too at lower bitrates because the
distorion tends to mimick old analog recordings. Even at 160 it sounds
hissy, but very acceptable because my ears are used to ignoring the
distortion.
IMHO WMA at 128 is as good as MP3 at 128, if only because the artifacts are
easier to ignore. MP3 is superior above 128.
mark stephens
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Manley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: [MP3 ENCODER] mp3 vs. wma
> what are your thoughts?
WMA sounds very good on casual inspection, far better than mp3 at about
64kbit, probably about the same as AAC/Mpeg4 at that bitrate.
But it doesnt get any better as the bitrate goes up - and there's an
annoying
hiss that reminds me of listening to old cassete tape.
Scott Manley (aka Szyzyg) /------ _@/ Mail -----\
___ _ _ __ __ _ | Armagh Observatory |
/ __| __ ___| |_| |_ | \/ |__ _ _ _ | |___ _ _ | Armagh |
\__ \/ _/ _ \ _| _| | |\/| / _` | ' \| / -_) || | | Northern Ireland |
|___/\__\___/\__|\__| |_| |_\__,_|_||_|_\___|\_, | | BT61 9DG. |
http://star.arm.ac.uk/~spm/welcome.html |__/ \=====================/
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
