Posted by <normanstrong on 04/27/06 16:02

"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

[Back to original message]