mp3 vs wma

[admin_exported]

Stuff like bit rate being equal which of the two is generally accepted to be better, or should they both theoretically sound the same?

 

[Clare Newsome]

WMA, as a more modern and efficient codec, would typically pip MP3, especially at lower-bit rates (ie where there's more compression involved).

But AAC is better than both....

 

[Anonymous]

My ears have been telling me that wma sounds better, more dynamic.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm a software engineer working with audio codecs every day but you don't have to be to hear that wma is superior to MP3 on all bitrates.
As Clare already stated, have a look at (and listen to) AAC. This codec gives a transparent representation of your hifi stereo recordings at bitrates over 128 kbps (I generally use 160, so that's 80 kbps per channel).
If you're more into smaller bandwidths thus lower bitrates, you might want to check AAC+He2. This codec is not superior to the regular AAC codec in transparency, but offers a surprisingly better quality at lower bitrates (<32 kbps)

 

[Joe Cox]

I'd personally recommend sticking to 192kbps and above, especially with the larger capacity iPods emerging.