MP3 quality really is inferior to even WMA. Even though i think AAC is a better format. I won't buy any MP3 files. I guess this is a sign of going backwards. Like a recession.
Yes, MP3 (depending on bitrate and such) its not the best option. However, all songs can be put in MP3 format. That brings supply to 100%.
Demand is for DRM free content, which WMA is often associated with, so its thrown to the side.
In compatability, pretty much anything that can play a song supports mp3. From DVD players to every windows mobile device (like 10 or 100 million) to every ipod to those $20 walmart mp3 players. Theres a HUGE market for MP3's. Only some of those support better formats, and until they start (as a whole) support a better one, we have to go with the best common factor. MP3.
Double blind listening tests have proven conclusively that a good mp3 encode sounds better than a WMA at the same bit rate and only slightly inferior to an AAC ("slightly" meaning indistinguishable for most people).
Some proof, although there have been many other listening tests that have borne this out too: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html</a>
Keep in mind that was at 128kbps - at higher bit rates, there's even less of a difference.
Regardless, an mp3 above, say, 192kbps VBR is going to be transparent anyway - meaning it sounds the same as the original. If you don't believe that... well, that's why they do double-blind tests. People have their biases, and these tests are designed in such a way that those biases cannot interfere with the results.
MP3 quality really is inferior to even WMA. Even though i think AAC is a better format. I won't buy any MP3 files. I guess this is a sign of going backwards. Like a recession.
Yes, MP3 (depending on bitrate and such) its not the best option. However, all songs can be put in MP3 format. That brings supply to 100%.
Demand is for DRM free content, which WMA is often associated with, so its thrown to the side.
In compatability, pretty much anything that can play a song supports mp3. From DVD players to every windows mobile device (like 10 or 100 million) to every ipod to those $20 walmart mp3 players. Theres a HUGE market for MP3's. Only some of those support better formats, and until they start (as a whole) support a better one, we have to go with the best common factor. MP3.
Double blind listening tests have proven conclusively that a good mp3 encode sounds better than a WMA at the same bit rate and only slightly inferior to an AAC ("slightly" meaning indistinguishable for most people).
Some proof, although there have been many other listening tests that have borne this out too: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html</a>
Keep in mind that was at 128kbps - at higher bit rates, there's even less of a difference.
Regardless, an mp3 above, say, 192kbps VBR is going to be transparent anyway - meaning it sounds the same as the original. If you don't believe that... well, that's why they do double-blind tests. People have their biases, and these tests are designed in such a way that those biases cannot interfere with the results.
Google's figured out a way to bring the power of graphics processor-powered hardware acceleration to some older computers, while Chrome 19 dev starts supporting the latest JavaScript code.
A new Apple lawsuit takes aim at Motorola Mobility in the U.S. for breaking a contract both companies have with Qualcomm for the license of one of its wireless patents.
A study by Harlequin--yes, the romantic-book people--says more women are sending naughty texts (shocking) and that 27 percent have sent a nude picture via e-mail or text.
Tor's "obfsproxy" technology would make encrypted data look innocuous and let it dodge government censors. That could help citizens in Iran reach blocked sites as antigovernment protests reportedly loom.
In spite of the boom in smartphone sales, there still seems to be a market for dedicated portable media players. Apple's iPod Touch is the leader, but what about some alternatives for the Android fans? CNET surveys the options.
is a better format. I won't buy any MP3 files. I guess this is a sign
of going backwards. Like a recession.
Demand is for DRM free content, which WMA is often associated with, so its thrown to the side.
In compatability, pretty much anything that can play a song supports mp3. From DVD players to every windows mobile device (like 10 or 100 million) to every ipod to those $20 walmart mp3 players. Theres a HUGE market for MP3's. Only some of those support better formats, and until they start (as a whole) support a better one, we have to go with the best common factor. MP3.
an attempt at a 'do over'. It's 2003 all over again! ;^)
Some proof, although there have been many other listening tests that have borne this out too: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html</a>
Keep in mind that was at 128kbps - at higher bit rates, there's even less of a difference.
Regardless, an mp3 above, say, 192kbps VBR is going to be transparent anyway - meaning it sounds the same as the original. If you don't believe that... well, that's why they do double-blind tests. People have their biases, and these tests are designed in such a way that those biases cannot interfere with the results.
is a better format. I won't buy any MP3 files. I guess this is a sign
of going backwards. Like a recession.
Demand is for DRM free content, which WMA is often associated with, so its thrown to the side.
In compatability, pretty much anything that can play a song supports mp3. From DVD players to every windows mobile device (like 10 or 100 million) to every ipod to those $20 walmart mp3 players. Theres a HUGE market for MP3's. Only some of those support better formats, and until they start (as a whole) support a better one, we have to go with the best common factor. MP3.
an attempt at a 'do over'. It's 2003 all over again! ;^)
Some proof, although there have been many other listening tests that have borne this out too: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html</a>
Keep in mind that was at 128kbps - at higher bit rates, there's even less of a difference.
Regardless, an mp3 above, say, 192kbps VBR is going to be transparent anyway - meaning it sounds the same as the original. If you don't believe that... well, that's why they do double-blind tests. People have their biases, and these tests are designed in such a way that those biases cannot interfere with the results.