<bambam@nospam.tnx> wrote in message
news:b3ubo11v4qo295urrd96lvka9nf4nqlit8@4ax.com...
WMA's (windows media) - smaller files compared to MP3's so you can get more
on your player.

Also battery life is likely to be longer on an MPs player. I have a little
128mb Iriver that I can get over 70 tracks on (depending on track length) at
48kps WMA - not the best quality but good enough. I use it when I go places
where I would be worried about getting may main MP3 player lost or damaged.
One AA battery lasts about 5 hours. I also have a 20GB Zen Touch on which I
use MP3's at 192kps and have only managed to fill half the disk with my
complete CD collection. Battery life is about 23 hours on one charge.

The Iriver is a fantastic little device with an FM radio that plays low
quality WMA's brilliantly and cost 20% of the price of the Creative Zen.
The Creative Zen is a brilliant bit of kit but for the price I would expect
it to be. Personally I think it is better than the Ipod for a lower price.

If you do get one, get the biggest capacity you can afford. Get one that
plays both MP3's and WMA's. Budget ones can sound good with better
earphones but of course they don't have the street cred of an Ipod.

You can also plug them into active speakers or an amp which is handy.

Disc's are just another item to buy and get lost or damaged.

In article <dm57nb$o8m$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Tony
<ttiger@lineone.net> wrote:

Oh, no, I wouldn't do that.
You're far more limited with Microsoft's methods.
If you just want a smaller file, use MP3 with a lower bit rate.
If you want a better-sounding file, use MP3 with a higher bit rate.

On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 20:52 +0000, Mitch wrote:
Why? You can convert files to WMA using several different programs
apart from Windows Media Player - I use Nero. A lot of MP3 players will
play WMA as well. You get smaller files at the same bit rate as an MP3
and if you listen to the same two tracks back to back in each format,
the WMA is better quality. MP3's at 48kps sound crap on my Iriver which
is why I use WMA.

On 2005-11-24, Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:
Or Ogg Vorbis format, which is both more efficient and 'Open Source'
rather than proprietary. Some "MP3" players can't manage Ogg files though
(My Samsung Yepp YP-T6 can).

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

"Tony" <ttiger@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:1132868345.19058.10.camel@localhost.localdoma in...
Hmm, maybe Media Player speeds them up while it's encoding...

I've seen plenty of reports saying that WMA is better than MP3. What I've
actually discovered is:
1. I've got a load of WMAs I encoded a while ago on an oldish version of
Media Player that sound horrible... the high treble has been completely
removed so they sound dull and lifeless. Never versions of Media Player seem
to do better, though.
2. My Creative MP3 player seems to eat batteries at an alarming rate when
decoding WMAs.

In article <1132868345.19058.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Tony
<ttiger@lineone.net> wrote:

Something's different between our uses of it, it seems.
The WMA I have tried was significantly lower quality. I thought it was
because the WMA format was inferior, but I wonder if it was the
encoder.

Does anyone know if there are significant differences in WMA encoders
that are commonly used?