|
|
Posted by Harri Mellin on 04/27/06 21:47
In article <VNydnXPbGOSKds3ZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
<normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:
> "PK" <perkrist@broadpark.no> wrote in message
> news:1146147317.483653.125370@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >I have just converted many cd's. I was planning to convert to mp3 in
> > quality 192 kbps, but after I had finished I noticed that it was wma
> > (in 192 kbps)... So I wonder, is wma 192 kbps better or worse than mp3
> > in quality 192 kbps?
>
> I don't know. I use wma because I got started that way, and it's too late
> to change. Make a wma and an mp3 file of the same track and compare them.
> Does one sound better to you than the other?
> > And what if I now convert these wma files to mp3 (in quality 192), will
> > those files be lower quality than if I had converted them directly from
> > wav?
>
> Converting cannot possibly improve the sound, and it will probably make it
> worse. I never recode; I always go back to the original or stay with the
> one I have.
>
> Norm Strong
>
>
mp3 works everywhere and on every os available
wma doesn't
--
---------------------------------------------------
Swedish Webcams <http://web.telia.com/~u85529234>
---------------------------------------------------
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|