[ZARIM]

I just want to know which format and bitrate (protected WMA 192kbps VS AAC 128kbps) shows more details in music.

 

[ManAtWork]

AAC, as it is not a destructive compression technology. If you can choose, I suggest you go for 192kbps VBR in AAC.

 

[Febs]

Huh? What do you mean by "destructive compression technology"? AAC is certainly a lossy compression technology.

 

[bluenote]

for the best sound, albeit at the price of less compression, use apple lossless. This should be essentially indistinguishable from the original CD. Also suggest using the cradle connetion out rather than the headphone to an amplifier like Ray Samuels Hornet and you should have something amazingly sweet.

 

[vcoheda]

This looks like a Yahoo Jukebox v. iTunes question.

 

[ChaseD13]

yeh..he wants to know which store has better quality i think.

i dont buy music online.

Why not just get cds for the same price?

 

[craiglester]

well, if both encoders are considered equal, ie equal efficiency, both using a constant bit rate etc , then the 192 should, by logic alone, sound better.it contains 50% more data, and the decoder has to "fill in" a lot less info. there is only one test that will determine which sounds better to you though, and that's listen to them both. Pick the one you like, and enjoy the music.

it's a shame there's no wma support on the ipod or itunes aac support on the samsungs you have OP. Interoperability would be so much better for you.

 

[vcoheda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by craiglester /img/forum/go_quote.gif Interoperability would be so much better for you.

Is that a real word. I like that.

192 should be better. But that assumes the same encoding, which these formats are not. Hard to say which sounds better. Have heard the 192 format as I use Yahoo Jukebox. It sounds very good. Don't know if that helps.

 

[rlanger]

192 wma is significantly better to my ears.

 

[Gurra1980]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManAtWork /img/forum/go_quote.gif AAC, as it is not a destructive compression technology. If you can choose, I suggest you go for 192kbps VBR in AAC.

I guess you mean ALAC is not a destructive compression technology

I have done some blindtesting AAC vs WMA9.2 and there is a quite big difference to my ears, the WMA was better, to my ears 128Kbps AAC was equal to 96Kbps WMA9.2. WMA9.2 is the version used in Windows mediaplayer 11.

I can't hear the difference between 192Kbps WMA9.2 and lossless with my iriver and HD-595.

 

[craiglester]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Interoperability

yep it's a real word

and yeah, all in all the wma *should* sound better. It does to me anyway.