Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Question

wma vs. mp3 quality comparison

Aug 19, 2015 4:57AM PDT

I have an older recorder that records only to wma format. Unfortunately for wider use of the records have to be converted to mp3 so I could play everywhere.
The best wma bitrate with this recorder (OlympusDS-40) is 128kbit. After converting to mp3 same bitrate, the sound considerably worse. Will not improve much even with the big increase. What is equivalent to the quality/size when converting wma to mp3? There is somewhere a comparison of the two formats?
Thanks for response
Peter

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Answer
Re: conversion
Aug 19, 2015 5:12AM PDT

A converted file is worse than the original. The increase in bit rate is hardly relevant, as you noticed,.

If you want to play "everywhere" re-record directly from the source to mp3, preferably with a higher bit-rate. If that needs a new recorder, so be it. Your choice.

Kees

- Collapse -
Answer
Yes, it's true
Aug 19, 2015 9:01AM PDT

Any conversion loses something. I can't guess what you used or tried.

For me I'd revisit the old Audacity discussions on WMA conversion then try stodgy old 44KHz stereo with MP3 in CBR at various rates.

Here's why but be aware that while not spot on, it explains that few could hear past 44KHz.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733.html