BetaONE will rise again! - WMA9 vs. mp3PRO

Quote:

Originally posted by Zone-MR@Oct 19 2002, 05:47 AM
I agree that WMP may be superior technically but I dont use it for one simple reason - compatibility...

I have a much wider range of players, platfroms and hardware that can play MP3. Not to mention if I download files of kazaa all audio files are MP3. I am not short of disk space, and compatibillity is more important to me than compression.

If compression was very important to me, I still wouldnt use WMA but OGG. OGG is less-known but provides better compression than WMA. Not to mention the matter of morals, that I prefer open-source equivelants especially if they are better...

oh oh the compatibility, :(
yea I agree with that. at the time when i was first moved to WMA from MP3, i couldn't find a way (as there was no way :)) to use those WMA to create Audio CDs. also i couldn't play them in Jet Audio Extension with the graphics equalizer working. I contacted JAE for that, and asked if they will have that feature in the future updates. but i was disappointed cos they didnt give a shit about that. Pffft JAE now. :P

ATM i am not playing any of my songs in portable players cos i dont have one :( mostly i play them in this PC, or i wanna go outside, i play them in my laptop. if i am gonna buy a portable player, i will be buying one which supports both WMA and MP3, something like Nomad Jukebox or something.

Ooops, something is wrong there with OGG is better than WMA in compression? :o well, i have tried OGG at 32kbps and WMA9 at 32kbps. cos i needed see which one has more compression. clearly WMA9 had more compression. same with Real Audio 8 with ATRAC3. Remember m8, you have to compare with WMA9 :) not with WMAv2. have you heard of that shitty Windows Media Audio v2? it is hell crap and gives only CD quality at 128kbps. still the CD Quality to me is like 256kbps. :) btw no one uses WMAv2 now, cos it is now already gone.

Last edited by McoreD at Oct 19 2002, 09:46 AM