Posted by iws on 04/27/06 16:01

"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?
> 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?
>
> PK

IIRC, wma may have some advantage over mp3 at lower bit rates but it's
probably minimal or non-existent at 192 kbps. If you now convert the wma
files to mp3's the result will be inferior to having converted directly from
wav. Whether the degradation is all that noticeable depends on how you're
playing the files: probably wouldn't matter for a car stereo or mp3 player
but might for a home audio system. If wma files are compatible with your
playback system, I'd just leave them as is. If not, try converting one or
two files and see if the results are acceptable.

[Back to original message]