1. WMA
Because it is a work of Microsoft, it must not be underestimated. WMA is like a shot in the arm that promotes the great progress of streaming media formats. WMA files can provide audible sound quality at a traffic of only 20K Bitrate, so WMA is often used as the first choice for online listening and broadcasting. Microsoft has long provided playback support in Windows Media Player. When the bitrate of WMA rises to 128k, it outperforms almost all lossy encoding formats at the same level. When MP3 has a bitrate of 128K, there will be obvious high-frequency loss, but WMA does not. But it seems that 128k is a threshold for WMA. When the bitrate is increased further, there will not be much change in sound quality. MP3 is different. At 192K, the sound quality can be better than WMA. When Microsoft launched WMA encoding, it had two main targets. One was targeting RM and RAM formats on the network, and the other was MP3 in users' hard drives. However, under the high-quality requirements, WMA still cannot pose a threat to MP3. If you want to get a compression ratio of about 12:1 or higher, you might as well choose the WMA format. Under this traffic, WMA is much better. The advantages and disadvantages of WMA and MP3 have always been the focus of debate. In fact, this is an unanswerable question. It depends on your actual needs, whether you are pursuing high sound quality (mp3) or high compression rate (wma).
2. MP3
The most controversial thing about MP3 is the sound quality (especially with the popularity of WMA). Its high frequency loss is very large, and many MP3 encoders have rough encoding algorithms. Not only does it cause the loss of high frequencies, it also loses a lot of details. The feeling similar to guitar string scratching cannot be found in MP3. When I was almost disappointed with MP3, I accidentally discovered Lame, which supports waveform analysis based on the principle of human ear masking effect. With VBR technology, the sound quality can reach astonishing levels; its original psychological sound model technology ensures CD audio restoration. authenticity, combined with VBR (dynamic bit rate) and ABR (average bit rate) parameters, the encoded MP3 sound is pure and thick, the space is wide, the bass is clear, and the details are good. The sound quality is almost comparable to CD audio, but the file size is very Small. The reaction of many netizens after using LAME is to immediately delete all MP3 and other encoders on the hard drive and start over with Lame.
Lame provides EXE and DLL, where DLL is used as a standard dynamic runtime library for other programs to call. EXE is a Command Line program that works like a DOS program. The two are independent of each other and not related to each other. But everyone will soon find that the encoding quality of the two is different. This is due to the poor controllability of the dll. Compared with the EXE version with rich adjustment parameters, its compressed MP3 effect is slightly inferior. But EXE is a command line tool, and its operation is very troublesome. Fortunately, there are Shells such as WinLAMer or lameGUIxp. As long as you learn to use these Shells (it's a fool-proof one, you can do it at a glance), you can use LAME to compress the most exciting MP3s.
Let’s talk about APS. Before LAME appeared, APS was the best MP3 encoder. It used the Fraunhofer IIS encoding algorithm, which was more advanced than the encoding algorithm used by LAME. Under 192k Bitrate (CBR) , even better than the LAME-encoded music, with obviously richer details, but APS itself does not support VBR. When the bitrate is increased, the sound quality will be worse than the LAME-encoded music. Most of my friends’ MP3s are generally 128-192K Bitrate, so APS is still recommended. In particular, there are many MP3 players that do not support VBR and MP3 with a bitrate of 256K or above. LAME may not be suitable for these friends. APS is a good choice. The songs encoded by it will definitely not insult your expensive PLAYER.
Three.RM
RM is already yesterday’s news, without any new ideas. The low bitrate cannot be compared with WMA, and the high bitrate cannot be compared with MP3. Although the new RM has introduced the ATRAC3 algorithm, its decline It has been decided that it will be difficult to make a comeback
Summary:
The difference lies in the following aspects:
1. Sound quality
2. File size (Compression rate)
3. Internal algorithm
I prefer MP3 format when downloading songs
WMA takes up less space
Nowadays, all new domestic MP3 players support wma format,
but few seem to support rm format