Fallingwater
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Posts
- 420
- Likes
- 10
My hearing is good for some things, but not for others. For isntance, I can't for the life of me hear the difference between mp3/320 and mp3/128. Some would call me hearing-dumb, but I consider it a blessing, because it allows me to recompress my music in ogg/80/96 and enjoy it just as I would flac lossless... so that's what I've been doing. Having my music in small ogg files lets me put a lot more of it on my 16GB compactflashed Rio Karma.
However, I was given another (much more pocket-friendly) player as a present, which doesn't support Ogg. It does support wma though, which if I'm not mistaken is more efficient than mp3, so I'm thinking of reconverting my entire library to wma/96 or thereabouts (I kept the original mp3s).
My question is: where does wma fit inbetween mp3 and ogg, efficiency-wise? Or, in other words, would I get similar results to ogg/96, or at least ogg/80, from a wma/96?
Note: all files are compressed vbr with quality settings, I'm just using the average bitrate as an easy way of identifying them.
However, I was given another (much more pocket-friendly) player as a present, which doesn't support Ogg. It does support wma though, which if I'm not mistaken is more efficient than mp3, so I'm thinking of reconverting my entire library to wma/96 or thereabouts (I kept the original mp3s).
My question is: where does wma fit inbetween mp3 and ogg, efficiency-wise? Or, in other words, would I get similar results to ogg/96, or at least ogg/80, from a wma/96?
Note: all files are compressed vbr with quality settings, I'm just using the average bitrate as an easy way of identifying them.