Hello Could someone explain the difference between these formats 1)mp3 2)wav 3)wma and does one offer a better quality sound? thx
Google search or ASK Jeeves... http://web.ask.com/web?qsrc=69&q=What+Is+the+Difference+between+MP3+Files+And+Wma?&o=0
Bascially WAV is the best sound u can get and is uncompressed. WMA and MP3 are smaller but the quality is worse.
ok so what if you convert a wma / mp3 to a "wav", Would you lose any quality in doing so? and do you have any suggestions as to a good conversion program
When a file is converted to mp3 or wma or ogg or any lossy format the converter takes out information that it feels isn't necessary. That's how you compress. So, by taking away info you do lose quality. Some converters do a better job than others. Some formats are better than others. That's where debates get started. To go from mp3 or wma to wav is uncompressing. You don't lose quality. But, if you were to convert to another lossy format(wma, mp3,ogg,etc..) after uncompressing, I believe you would drop in quality substantually. Now, why do you want to uncompress your files? To write to a CD? Most writers will do the conversion automatically.
Well, if you already have the files on your computer, than any good burning software will automatically decode the files to the proper format for CD. If you're looking to download some music files off the internet than it's just a preferance call. If you even have a choice that is. If you're looking to download from a CD to your computer for archiving purposes than I suppose most people on this site will tell you that mp3 with the Lame codec would be the way to go, to maintain the best quality possible.
Wave would be the way to go if you want to maintain the best possible sound quality. If you want quality while space and compatibility are issues then mp3 encoded using LAME is the best option.
LAME: http://www.afterdawn.com/software/audio_software/audio_encoders/lame_mp3_encoder.cfm [bold]LAME isn't an application. To use LAME you need a front-end![/bold]
ok, try this:- go download a track from '*insert random P2P network here*' in MP3 format. then burn it to CD-R. THEN go buy the same track on CD single, and copy it to CD-R. (for personal use only, cough cough) listen to both, many times... can you actually tell the difference between the two? i cant...
>>listen to both, many times... can you actually tell the difference between the two? i cant...<<< I can tell the difference between 320 kbit song file (nero audio) back up/ verses 320 kbit (mp3)
i havent used nero to convert music files so i dont know about that. A few of my mates are DJ's and i get mix cd's from them. i use Express Rip to convert them to mp3 at 128kbps to play on my mp3 player in the car. they dont sound any different to the original CD's to me, other than having 2 second gaps in between the tracks instead of a 'fluid' mix. I might try using nero if the quality is that much different, thanx for the tip
I don't honestly think it would be Nero making the biggest difference. It would make the biggest difference if you went to, maybe, a higher bit rate & used a variable bitrate.
