SOUND ARGUMENT

[Scooter Lesley]

As an onlooker, I saw the two computer geeks part from their friendly, yet competitive conversation, stepping off in opposite directions, with a final jab from each: "Mac user!"..."Vista Queen!". So, after I briefly pondered, I arrived that it was just another Mac verses PC, Apple verses Microsoft, Apple verses Windows, type argument. Now, stereotipically, most of the geeky/nerdy/dorky variety couldn't get laid in monkey whorehouse, if they had a bag of bananas, and a bucket of peanuts.
I know guys have both the knowledge, and the looks. However, these two...fit the profile that we are all more acustom to.
So, since most of us Broadcasters have large music collections,...which is the best format...MP3...or...WMA?
For me, I know very little about this, so I look forward to reading, and learning, but before you post, let me say this:
Opinions are welcome, but don't post something as fact, if you do not know! What are the pros & cons of the two formats, and what is the difference in the bit rates? What's best for Broadcast? What's best for home use?
OK,...Have At It!

 

[ATOMO]

I don't qualify as a computer nerd but I am a quality audio enthusiast. Absolutely no question if you are talking for broadcast there is no room for mp3's. Even at 320kpbs you still get a little of the 'swimmy' sound. Then, once it goes through a processing chain, that swimminess only gets magnified. I'll throw out my stations as an example. Listen to JD, 10-2p on 103.3. He most always plays mp3's...although he certainly can get away with it playing classic country, it would sound soooooo much better as uncompressed wav files. On the other side of the hall I play a wave based hispanic mix on 103.9 outside of brokered time. However, most all brokers play even subpar mp3's at times. It sucks all the fidelity and life right out of the music and smashes it all the same. At ClearChannel files used to run compressed and were, at times, worse than mp3's. Then CC invested in the NexGen platform with uncompressed files and it was noticably improved. I will concede the average listener may not pick up on it. However, no question that over time wave files are less fatiguing and will help with tsl. As far as being fact based - it comes down to if you care anything about sound quality...Mp3's are several steps back in sound quality but do offer huge space savings and easier transfer. If you're a broadcaster playing mp3's I hope you're being paid to play 'em...which is the case at the 103's. If you are a club dj - who cares...they're drunk.

 

[Paul_Warren]

The sad thing is that even .wav files (or .aif for Apple enthusiasts, both are uncompressed PCM) at "CD quality" (44.1 kHz/16-bit) doesn't exploit the available fidelity of an analog FM signal. CD is a legacy format which made compromises in quality to get an hour onto a compact disc, and FM could sound much better in 24-bit, even if the sample rate wasn't increased. 48k/24-bit on analog FM could sound sensational!

But it may be moot point. Aggressive audio processing, multipath artifacts and marginal receivers are bottlenecks for quality.

 

[Scooter Lesley]

Question:
I was told that a WMA rip at 192 sounds better than a MP3 rip at 320.
They added that the MP3 is so tightly compressed that the WMA wins-out, even though it's only at 192. So, what's the true skinny here?

 

[Al Timiter]

My opinion is that mp3's are o-k for DJ work (weddings, parties, etc) but for Broadcast, go with Wav files. There IS a noticeable difference. (I still prefer Wav files for personal listening although that sure takes up more storage on a hard drive)

I have heard a couple of stations trying to play downloaded mp3's-they sounded horrible.

 

[ATOMO]

Hey Scooter,

Here's a link to a review - complete with breakdown and all the mumbo jumbo of why one sounds better than another. There's a killer pixilation of Sgt. Pepper that says in vision what mp3's say in audio. It's right here at Stereophile http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd.

 

[Ssummers]

WAV files mos def. mp3s splatter.

 

[freqdev]

for digital wav files are better. vynal is warmer. i admit hearing loss from years of headphones. thank god for optimods to correct it.

 

[Scooter Lesley]

OK,...so far, WMA is Windows, MP3 is Mac,...What in the Flyin' Fudgecake is an ACC file?

 

[thatwasradio]

Definitely use .wav files, MP3's not only splatter, but are consumer-type files, not professional, and cause listener fatigue due to their compression and "hardness".

 

[Scooter Lesley]

With a Sheeesh, and a Whooosh...opinons have riddled this topic, but I have yet to hear from the truely Geeky & Unlaid about my main question: Which one delivers better playback... WMA at 192 or MP3 at 320? One of these is compressed more than the other...which one?

 

[Ssummers]

Actually, that wasn't your "main" question at all. It was just one of many. And most of your others were answered accurately. As for opinions "riddling" your thread, you invited them, too.