Wma Vs. Mp3 Playback. Mp3 Superior Playback? Need Quick Answer plz
Thread Starter
Driver School Candidate
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: NJ
Wma Vs. Mp3 Playback. Mp3 Superior Playback? Need Quick Answer plz
Hello Everyone!! I just ripped about 40 CD's into WMA at 128 quality. Burn 2 cd's, go into the car and to me it sounds awful. Now i Previously burned 2 cd's in mp3 at same 128 q and to me mp3 sounds better. I thought WMA has better compression then mp3 so in the end by using WMA at 128 i'd be getting better quality. Does the regular player in IS 250 with nav has a better playback capabilities then WMA? Im thinking of reripping all of the cd's which will take hours into 192 Mp3 format if you confirm this. Thank you and appriciate your input!
Driver School Candidate
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
From: Ca
I personally if can, will never want 128kbps quality for music.
(These values vary depending on audio data compression schemes)
4 kbit/s – minimum necessary for recognizable speech (using special-purpose speech codecs)
8 kbit/s – telephone quality
32 kbit/s – MW quality
96 kbit/s – FM quality
192 kbit/s – Nearly CD quality for a file compressed in the MP3 format
1,411 kbit/s – CD audio (at 16-bits for each channel and 44.1 kHz)
(These values vary depending on audio data compression schemes)
4 kbit/s – minimum necessary for recognizable speech (using special-purpose speech codecs)
8 kbit/s – telephone quality
32 kbit/s – MW quality
96 kbit/s – FM quality
192 kbit/s – Nearly CD quality for a file compressed in the MP3 format
1,411 kbit/s – CD audio (at 16-bits for each channel and 44.1 kHz)
M$ stuff? not for me.
I ripped mp3 with 128K and it sounds pretty good. will try 192 next time.
dont want to mess with anything that's related to M$ (unless I REALLY have to).....
dont want to mess with anything that's related to M$ (unless I REALLY have to).....
Driver School Candidate
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
From: CA
Now I wish the Lexus would play FLACs and DVDs (I have a non-ML stereo). That way I could have multiple lossless CDs on a single disc.
All those years of doing live recording on 16/48 DAT and then 24/96 WAV made it near impossible for me to listen to badly compressed MP3s.
Trending Topics
ClubLexus Stories
Celebrating Lexus & Toyota from Around the Globe
Top 10 Most Confusing Things Lexus Has Ever Done!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Lexus ES Review: Lexus Re-Embraces Founding Principles
Michael S. Palmer
10 Lexus Bargains That are Cheaper Than a New Toyota RAV4
Joe Kucinski
8 Weirdest Things Lexus Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
10 Lexus Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
8 Tips for Improving Your Hybrid or Plug-in Hybrid's Efficiency!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Best Lexus Models No One Remembers
Joe Kucinski
TRD Off-Road Premium: Best 2026 4Runner, Except This One Thing
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Lexus & Toyotas to Drive Before You Die!
Joe Kucinski
CL Folding Freak
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
From: Wa
I always record my MP3's at 384 kb/sec. When I play mp3's on my home THX 7.1 channel theater system, as you turn the volume up to window shattering levels, flaws in mp3's at 128KB become ear splittingly apparent. Hard drive space is cheap now, almost to the point where we should go back to .wav
Rookie
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 65
Likes: 2
From: CA
MP3 all the way. I encode at 192 kbps and the tunes are crystal clear. WMA? Look up the spec. Then note that the Windows Media Audio codec container format that Microsoft allows their WMA streams to be encapsulated on (ASF) -- support DRM. Look up Janus ... Yay -- you can some day "RENT" your music (that you may have alreaqdy paid for). ?? DRM is the 1000 lb gorilla that Microsoft has in the WMA closet...
later for wma that **** sucks, def. do mp3. Also, high bit rate doesn't always mean high quality. It's all in the codec you use. I suggest using cdex or EAC as a ripper , and def. use LAME 3.xx codec. VBR is going to give you the most bang for the buck. It will give you high bit rates where you need it and low where you don't. Keeping your file size resonable.
I preferred 192 kbps, but most of my mp3 files are 128 kbps and some at 96 kbps. As far as quality-qwise, 96 is the lowest that I go and you can tell the difference between 96 and 192. 128 and 192 shows slightly some difference.
Lexus Test Driver
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 0
From: MS
Sorry but I have to disagree..
I think WMA @ 192 bits sounds MUCH better. But the majority of my music is WMA, when I covert to MP3 because of my IPOD I lose sound quality simply because MP3 is I guess more compressed. WMA all the way for me.
I don't plan on trading my music and you can remove the *sharing* issues of .WMAs. 
I think WMA @ 192 bits sounds MUCH better. But the majority of my music is WMA, when I covert to MP3 because of my IPOD I lose sound quality simply because MP3 is I guess more compressed. WMA all the way for me.
I don't plan on trading my music and you can remove the *sharing* issues of .WMAs.
WMA @ 192kbit will sound better than mp3 @ 192kbit, but I'm not going to recompress all my crap.
Remember it's all about source. If you are reconverting something, it'll sound awful NO MATTER WHAT.
If you've got the original source, then convert it to the highest mp3 quality you can (320kbit) for best results.
Otherwise, rip in lossless AAC.
Edit: For those who are going to chime in and say that there's no discernable difference after 160kbit mp3s, ****.
Remember it's all about source. If you are reconverting something, it'll sound awful NO MATTER WHAT.
If you've got the original source, then convert it to the highest mp3 quality you can (320kbit) for best results.
Otherwise, rip in lossless AAC.
Edit: For those who are going to chime in and say that there's no discernable difference after 160kbit mp3s, ****.
Driver School Candidate
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
From: CA
Sorry but I have to disagree..
I think WMA @ 192 bits sounds MUCH better. But the majority of my music is WMA, when I covert to MP3 because of my IPOD I lose sound quality simply because MP3 is I guess more compressed. WMA all the way for me. I don't plan on trading my music and you can remove the *sharing* issues of .WMAs.
I think WMA @ 192 bits sounds MUCH better. But the majority of my music is WMA, when I covert to MP3 because of my IPOD I lose sound quality simply because MP3 is I guess more compressed. WMA all the way for me.
I don't plan on trading my music and you can remove the *sharing* issues of .WMAs.