there is some discussion which one is better...to me,after some carefull listens i found WMA slightly better. I find that 160kbps WMA has a very good quality/size ratio

I've never tried to compare myself, but I found this page here to be interesting:

http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/wma9/

Also, I believe that Microsoft's WMA format is proprietary, meaning that developers who want to include it as pary of their software have to pay Microsoft to be able to do so, as where MP3 compressors are largely free.
Additionally, I think the WMA format has more types of copyright protection, which limits what you can do with it more than MP3, although, I'm sure there are ways around that.

While mp3 is not proprietary, it has been patented and has similar licensing fees. See here. If you read this entry, you'll see that the licensing fees are actually the reason that Microsoft chose to develop wma and why work on ogg started.


Can you explain this?

Frankly, I think that ogg provides the best quality while being completely free in every sense of the word. No licensing fees, completely open, and in the public domain. But mp3 use is so widespread that most people don't care about any of this, to their own detriment.

I also read in an audiophile magazine that Sony has a great music format that in 64kbps sounds better than a mp3 in 128kbps...now that is a BIG difference

ATRAC3? Meh, I guess. I've never used it because I can't stand proprietary formats. I use MP3, FLAC and WAV...if I happen to have anything else its because it was the only option available or the easiest to get.

The only things that support ATRAC3 are Sony players. obviously, you can play them on your computer as well--assuming you use Sony's software player or a plugin for whatever your program of choice is, but after all the shit Sony's been up to lately, I certainly wouldn't trust them at all.

I guess it is ATRAC3 plus ...Well, good for who has a 20GB Sony player

Indeed that is interesting, but is also says in that same article...

"Additionally, patent holders declined to enforce license fees on open source decoders, allowing many free MP3 decoders to develop. Furthermore, while attempts have been made to discourage distribution of encoder binaries, Thomson has stated that individuals using free MP3 encoders are not required to pay fees. Thus while patent fees have been an issue for companies attempting to use MP3, they have not meaningfully impacted users, allowing the format to grow in popularity."



Certainly.

http://www.mediatwins.com/en/support/kb_topic_8.html

From that link...

WMA files can have DRM protection. In this case the file content is encrypted with a key. For playback and decoding it is necessary to have DRM license files on your computer. DRM license can limit your rights for using these functions. For instance, it can allow only playback and prohibit conversion into other formats. This mechanism was developed by Microsoft corp. for copyright protection.



Ogg is fine and good. I have no real problem with it. But I started archiving everything to MP3 a loooong time ago, and it would be a rather large project to do mass conversions of my 100GB collection over, so honestly, for me it would actually be a detriment to use ogg, and I bet the same is true for many people.

I just started copying my CDs for my MP3 device, and I use .wma at 128. I don't notice any drop off in quality. I probably however don't have the best of ears, and I'm no audiophile. But it works for me

It really appreciate it if someone could help me. I'm wanting to post some MP3's on Myspace.com but my files are in WMA format, is anyone able to tell me how I can convert them to MP3?

Thanks in advance.

Assuming they're not protected WMA's, iTunes can convert them.

They're not protected. I'm not too familiar with iTunes, I had a play arfound but couldn't figure it out. When I open up the file it automatically plays in windows media, I tried dragging the files into iTunes but that didn't seem to work. Be great if someone can help out

I've never tried to convert from WMA to MP3, but I know iTunes can do it. If dragging them into the iTunes library doesn't work, go to File->Add to library. I think iTunes will automatically convert them as it adds them to it's library.

Wouldn't there be quality loss in converting between two lossy formats?

Of course. But chances are, most people won't be able to tell the difference.

there is not always quality loss depedning on what program you use. there most likly will be a little bit lost but not enough too hear like he said!

Looks like there is more than just Thomson to worry about..
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/music ... wn_index_2

The bigger story here is that you actually made a POST

Hey there Scott ol' boy.