Which is bigger wma or mp3

MLA 8 , lanceben. Name required. Email required. Please note: comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment. Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. Written by : Ben Joan. User assumes all risk of use, damage, or injury. You agree that we have no liability for any damages. Author Recent Posts. Ben Joan. In addition, MP3 uses a bit more storage space. That's to say, if you want the best sound quality, you need to convert your MP3 files with the LAME encoder from your lossless music sources.

This, however, has not always been so simple for an average user who doesn't even know what LAME is all about. The accepted conclusion for WMA audio format was that it has better sound quality in low bitrates like 64 kbps. But others disagree, and believe they could hear significant crackling in the bass, and the overall sound is tinny. WMA was designed by Microsoft, so it was supported really well on Windows platform.

However, this also means it has compatibility problems with other platforms, and various hardware devices. It's interesting to see many people against WMA format for anti-monopolist reasons. They don't want to see Microsoft issue another different standard unique to them yet again. There is somewhere a comparison of the two formats?

Thanks for response Peter. Since both formats are lossy, and both use different algorithms, the results of transcoding to MP3 can range from inaudibly worse to vastly worse. Both formats are lossless, so the files will be considerably larger than the source WMA. As a very general rule, at low bitrates wma will have higher quality at the same bitrate as mp3.