What are the differences between AAC and WMA in terms of quality, bitrates, and how much memory they take up?

Also, what are they both like compared to Mp3 encoded at 128kbps?

well they are both much better at encoding than mp3. its hard to do a direct comparison because it all depends, as you say, on bitrates etc. I personally find the wma9 prof codec to be excellent.

I'd say that 128kbps WMA is a bit better than 128kbps AAC if you use the latest WMA codec. 64kbps WMA sounds like 96kbps MP3 to me, and 128kbps AAC sounds like 160kbps MP3.

So what bitrates for WMA and AAC are comparable in quality to 128kbps Mp3?

cant u read ?, the person above ur post has just said..
128Kbps AAC = 160Kbps MP3
and according to Windows Media they say the 64Kbps WMA is the same as 128Kbps MP3, either way m8, they are both higly better than MP3, especially if u are converting From Audio CD.
Id recommend using WMA, but then again im biased since i havent used AAC, another thing, when u say how much memory it takes up, im assuming u mean Size, well Size of the file will stay exactly the same for the bitrate, so lets say if 128Kbps 1min MP3 is 1MB, a 128Kbps 1min WMA file will be 1MB, the size will all be the same, ur just looking for quality difference.
Another thing (soz if im goin on abit), there are 2 ways of Converting WMA, there is 1-Pass, then there is 2nd-Pass, use 2nd-Pass since this creates more accurate quality in areas like Bass and Mid-Bass.
Also, if u get the chance, try and use WMA9 Professional.

My only issue with WMA is that it seems to take an awful long time to encode from CD, for example:

CD to Mp3 192kbps takes about 30 seconds using dbPoweramp.
Cd to WMA 64kbps takes 5 minutes using dbPoweramp.
CD to WMA 64kbps doesn't seem to work using Windows Media Player.

This is using a PC running windows ME, 600MHz intel celeron with 394Mb of RAM.

Haven't tried AAC, although there isn't any point as I don't have any devices that will play AAC files. Typically I use an Mp3/WMA compatible rio cd player, or my iriver flash memory mp3/wma player.

mikey, ur problem is that ur comp is quite slow (soz to say), MP3 has been around for a long time which is why all computers can handle it (MP3 first appeard on Windows Media Player 6.4), as for WMA, that is a more advance codec sinmce it uses better compression techniques to get a better sound quality (WMA(9) first Appeard on Windows Media Player Series 9)

AAC's not as slow at ripping as WMA, I'd say it's halfway between MP3 and WMA in terms of length it takes to rip.

The trouble with MP3 is that any frequencies below 128kbps create the "wet cymbal" effect, particularly in rock songs. It turns drum loops into jelly.

On the contrary my oh so learned friend, can't YOU read? I asked:
That's 128Kbps, NOT 160Kbps Mp3.
Try looking in the mirror before you have a dig at people mate, you might JUST avoid looking like a bit of a fool.

Let me know if you need any help reading this Ash_735...

Sorry mate, your assumption is wrong, again.

What I mean is, at the average quality of both AAC and WMA, where file size is reduced without compromising sound quality too much, which one takes up more memory? I admit I should've been clearer, so I can't blame no-one but myself here really. I was in a bit of a hurry you see.

Oh, and another thing. I know the bit about same bitrates and duration equals same file size, and I'm NOT looking for the quality difference. I'm looking for the right quality, with the right file size. I'm not stupid mate, just curious. I haven't used AAC and WMA before, but both my new phone and the Mp3 jukebox I want to get are AAC and WMA compatible respectfully.

MAYBE you've been looking in the mirror too long...

jeez m8, sorry for trying to help ya

anyway since u seem to have an attitude problem wit me, and im sorry for saying 'Cant u read, etc, etc' i was in abit of a mood that day, anyway...

64Kbps 2-Pass WMA = Gives off Same Quality as 128KBps MP3
i think 80Kbps AAC = Gives off the same quality as 128Kbps MP3
as for memory terms, i cant really calculate that for playing, but for encoding, WMA takes up roughly 3x or 4x more memory to convert, once again i dunno about AAC, and i never said u were thick, its just that sum ppl dont know that, and how am i suppose to know that u know it ?

There is absolutely no need to talk to anyone in these forums like that, particularly when it is you has the wrong end of the stick, not the person you're flaming. and whilst i'm on the subject Ash_735


....Was written just above the place where you wrote your post in 'txt spk' You can read, can't you???

--------------------------------------

Now back to the question... It is dificult to get objective information on this subject. now personally i'm quite a fan of MP3. (not least because it doesn't support copyright protection and) it's easy to convert to someting else unlike say AAC which you're stuck with.

But with regard to the sound quality, i think this is subjective. I did an experiment a while back with .mp3 .ra & .wma now originally the .wma sounded best but when i played it back and compared it to the .mp3 it had deleted the high hat.

Remember with MP3, the default options of your enceder are not necessarily the best. if you use cdex for example you might want to enable j-stereo and increase the quality to two.

I'm weighing up the pro's and con's of using something other than the Mp3 format.

I'm pretty sure that EVERY 'digital jukebox' on sale - including music players on mobile phones - are Mp3 compatible, unlike the other formats. This is a major plus for me as I have mentioned earlier that I want to have some of my music on my phone but ALL of it on an Mp3 jukebox. I could copy tracks from the jukebox to my phone easily if I use Mp3. If I use another format, I'd have to do conversions before copying music between them, therefore using more software and taking up more time. I could also burn music from my jukebox onto CD for my brother without it taking too much time.

But I wouldn't carry my jukebox EVERYWHERE, I have 50-70 of my favourite tracks on my mobile phone, cos I almost always carry that with me.

I don't like having loads of CD's and MD's. I'd rather have ALL my music accessable from one device/place, and make sure it's portable for when I want to take all my misc with me - to a party for instance

I'm planning on hooking up a jukebox to my home cinema system. I don't plan on using CD's anymore so it seems I have no need to buy a Hi-Fi. (I normally use my brother's Hi-Fi but we're getting seperate rooms now that we're moving.)

By sticking to the 'industry standard' of Mp3, I would ensure compatibility and smoother & quicker transfer of music between devices.

i agree with you seven I use mp3 @ 192kbps for my home cinema.

I Said Sorry !, and yes i can read, i just prefer to use txt speak since i can post quicker and get on with other stuff !

The bitrates is something I 'wrestle' with as I can record around 244MB of music on my phone's MMC. I need to find the right balance between saving memory and good quality music.

Is the difference in bitrates (for e.g. between 128kbps and 192kbps) more noticable when using headphones, or speakers flagpole?

Late reply I know, but I hadn't really noticed this before. I don't have an attitude problem with you mate. The word 'mirror' springs to mind again. Anyway, I was not happy at you insulting me when it was you who was in the wrong.

Thanks everyone and thanks to flagpole for trying to make Ash_735 see the error of his/her ways.

ok, ok, i know, but i said sorry b4 flagpole said anythin, listen i know, i ****ed up, its my mistake, and i accept that, once again im saying sorry, i rushed the post and didnt read ur comment correctly first time round, so plz could u stop saying this mirror thing, anyway if u wanna know a good bitrate id reccommend 160Kbps Joint-Stereo, this both sounds good on headphones and most hi-fi's !

Well as i say i use 192kbps (J-stereo) for my music in the lounge, obviously this is running from a PC. Presumably if you're using something with less storage then your priorities may change. I don't knkow what the sound quality is like on the phone, but htere is no point having a quality better than can be heard.

I respect you for the apology. Having said that, you did say I had an attitude problem BEFORE you apologised only for saying that I can't read (before flagpole's post I know). You didn't say sorry for the attitude comment, which you probably made because you didn't didn't really see it from my point of view.

I think you do now, so I'll assume you're sorry for your comments cos you didn't read my post correctly the 1st time around, and the 'attitude' comment, the 2nd time around!

Anyway, I do appreciate you saying sorry. Not many people do so thank you, I accept your apology.

I heard 'Stereo' sounds much better than 'Joint-Stereo' Ash_735.

Exactly! I do notice a difference between 128kbps and 192kbps, but not really between 192kbps and something higher.

This is taken from dbPowerAmp Help Section...
Joint Stereo - Luckily for compression of Mp3's sound on the left channel is very similar to sound on the right channel, Joint Stereo takes advantage of this similarity to use the savings on the 2nd channel to give higher quality compression.

but joint stereo is only useful when using low bitrates, but when using higher bitrates (192Kbps and above), it is better to use Full Stereo