Music File Format: WMA vs MP3

WMA is owned by Microsoft. From looking around it seems to be agreed that it takes less space but may be slightly lower quality than MP3. Microsoft has a fairly lousy record on file formats so in the long term you might find it unsupported.The prospect of future improvements to the format is not an advantage. You'll only see a benefit if you rip the music again into the improved version (EDIT - and your player supports the improved version!) - and the improvements may not be backwardly compatible, forcing you to rip the music again at some stage.Really, if space is short I'd suggest using WMA, otherwise MP3 is probably the better choice. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I never made any claims about quality, although I have to say that I don't find space to be a problem with a 4 GB player, with almost all the tracks ripped as 128 bit AAC.I'll also note that the limits of your equipment might be hiding the limitations of the files. The headphones that come with most MP3 players aren't usually very good.

quote:

---

I guess I'm thinking long term.

---

In the long term you'll probably have a player with a much larger capacity. Whether it will be able to play the WMA format you're using is another question. (And I'd guess that support for lower bit-rates is one of the more likely things to go).For saving space right now you probably made the right decision (for you). But if that's not an issue 64 bit MP3 would likely have been safer.

The cheapest iPods are already (just) below $50. Granted that's a 1GB no-screen model, but it's still an iPod - there are cheaper alternatives.