WMA vs. MP3?

[Verto]

Can someone explain to me the differences between WMA and MP3? Pros, cons, personal preferences?

[chequita guevara]

WMA is smaller, faster, and better quality. MP3 is free and widely supported.

[Asher]

Che's pretty much got it.

WMA is far more advanced than MP3 is. It requires more processing power to encode and decode, accordingly, but still miniscule compared to today's computers.

The new WMA9 is the best version, it even supports unlimited channels of sound rather than just 2 like MP3. That's why you can stream videos with 5.1 and 7.1 surroundsound with Windows Media, it uses WMA9 for audio.

WMA also has an (optional) digital rights management feature, so many misinformed people stay clear of it for that reason. You can choose whether to enable it or not when you rip music (consumers wouldn't ever enable it).

[alva]

How does vorbis(?) compare to these

Not sure about the name.

[Asher]

It's pretty good, last time I used it.

Unfortunately it has crap support for portable audio players, so I never pay attention to it.

[Caligastia]

I have a question...

I just moved a bunch of wma files from one computer to another, and they play in Windows Media Player without a problem on the new computer, but when I try to play one of the files on another computer it says it needs the license. Now, when I first got Windows Media Player to search for the wma files on the new computer, I must have had the "aquire licenses automatically for protected content" option checked because I am able to play (on any computer) every track copied after unchecking that. So...how do I get rid of the licences that are attached to those wma files that have them?

[mrmitchell]

All I know:

I only have WMP7 for WMA files. There's probably a better proggie out there to run them, but WMP7 is a huge memory eater (destroyer might be a better word) whereas in comparison Winamp quickly loads and gets to playing.

Also, doesn't--as usual--MS have another licensing system for WMA playback programs that probably violates the Geneva Convention? I think there's something similar for mp3s but just a mere tiny fee instead of a full human rights abuse ("hra" and "software license" are interchangeable )

[Asher]

Winamp will play WMA files.

And WMA licensing is actually cheaper than MP3. It's free on Windows (MP3 is not), and still cheap on Linux.

They also undercut MP3 and MPEG4 pricing for hardware makers, which is why so many DVD players coming out now support Windows Media.

[mrmitchell]

Winamp will play WMA files.

Thanks!!!

But it's not free on Linux? I know they're running a business, but they're already swimming in money and they don't need the EXTRA unethical anti-competition moves.

[Asher]

How is charging for a product anti-competitive?

[mrmitchell]

You said it's free for Windows but "cheap" on Linux, making the distinction that they charged for Linux.

I'd make an analogy but I hope it's not necessary.

[Asher]

And how is that anticompetitive when MP3 charges on both Windows and Linux for encoder licenses?

Further, how is it anticompetitive when MP3 is by far the largest codec in use?

Are you saying in order to be "fair" to MP3, all competitors must be forced to match their pricing and business model?

[mrmitchell]

Well...at least I wouldn't feel right doing it. They're using their weight to push a new format and get the advantage of being able to use that format's pricing model to push their OS.

And as far as DRM is concerned...it might be optional now, but (a post at /. was made about this if I could remember it) it won't for long if it gets into wider use.

[Asher]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
And as far as DRM is concerned...it might be optional now, but (a post at /. was made about this if I could remember it) it won't for long if it gets into wider use.

Don't believe everything you read on Slashdot, it's a notoriously anti-MS FUD site.

If MS ever forced DRM (which is outrageous), people would simply revert to say, the WMA9 encoder which has it optional.

[mrmitchell]

Don't believe everything you read on Slashdot, it's a notoriously anti-MS FUD site.

By that logic, I also should only selectively believe what you say since you're a notoriously pro-MS person They had good logic to their arguments. Now, if I could remember their arguments, I'd have it made.