mp3 vs m4a

Discussion in 'Software' started by RND, Oct 18, 2006.

Share This Page

  1. RND

    RND 40 posts in 3yrs!

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whats the difference between the two formats and is there any advantage in using one over the other?
     
  2. Chenks

    Chenks Registered Trader

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Messages:
    3,741
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. latency

    latency Existentialist

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    8,780
    Likes Received:
    0
    AAC (M4A) is commonly seen becuase it's the compressor iTunes uses.

    Files in AAC are smaller at the same or better quality than MP3. Apple reckons 128kbps AAC is the equivilent of 164kbps MP3.

    I've used both formats, I fit much more music on my iPod with AAC, and I can't hear the difference.

    It's becomming more compatible now too, you can get AAC plugins for most players, and mobile phones are starting to support it too, certainly the modern Sony Erricsons can play AAC.
     
  4. nicky munchkin

    nicky munchkin Nick is not responding...

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    What about AAC versus WMA, there both 128kbps. I suppose WMA because just about every mp3 player supports it now. I however have an Ipod and use AAC- itunes converts any .wma files into mp3s or aacs (i forget which):)
     
  5. Tom

    Tom Merrrrrr

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    .flac all the way, tbh :p

    Seriously though, .m4a is definitely nice. I'm no audiophile, but I can't fault the quality over a decent .mp3. It's just the support that it lacks! I've got a plugin for Winamp 2, but it's not perfect.

    .wma? *spits* :eek: