#382808 - 06/14/05 11:44 AM
MP3 vs. WMA today
|
ITGITC?
Grand Poobah of Posting
10k Club
Registered: 12/18/02
Posts: 11393
Loc: Raleigh, NC
|
Offline
|
|
For those of you using the Wintel platform, do you prefer to rip your music using MP3 or WMA codecs? What bitrate do you use?
I did a search of WMA vs. MP3 on Google, but many of the reports were old. I'm looking for your opinions regarding sound quality; not availability of one format over the other.
It seems that MP3 @ 128kbps is pretty standard. Do you believe the claim that WMA @ 64kbps format is just as good sonically?
If you are ripping your CD collection, primarily for archival purposes, would you use WMA or MP3, and at what bitrate? Is WMA at 160 kbps worth the larger file size over WMA at 128 kbps?
Thanks,
Tom
_________________________
"...measure your success in life by how many of the people you want to have love you actually do love you." - Warren Buffett ................................ Is There Gas in the Car? 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382809 - 06/14/05 12:55 PM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
theblue1
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 02/06/04
Posts: 4537
Loc: Long Beach, CA
|
|
Offline
|
|
I have to admit that I haven't done a comparision of 128 WMA and 160 WMA, but I did spend some time with a few test recordings comparing 160 WMA and 192 mp3s and high-VBR mp3s and Mp3pro's and I have to say that, at least on the NS10m's I was monitoring on that day and the several songs I'd selected to listen to, the WMA's sound pretty much as good or even better than the high-VBR Mp3s recorded with the LAME encoder; the Mp3pro files were encoded with the current Fraunhofer encoder via MusicMatch (with processing quality set to high/slow).
Now, results might vary with other music, and perceptions may vary on other monitoring rigs or with folks who were listening to different critical areas than I. (I was mostly focused on high frequency, listening to cymbals, reverb tails, and "air.")
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382810 - 06/14/05 01:14 PM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
Anderton
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 01/28/00
Posts: 7346
|
|
Offline
|
|
<>
I don't think it is. But I think WMA @ 96kHz is as good as MP3 @128kHz. Once you get into higher bit rates (256kHz) there's no real difference.
I rip for my Zen portable player WMA @ 96kHz. But I also want to set up a "jukebox" for my home stereo and am trying to decide whether to rip with WMA (sounds better, less space) or MP3 (more common). I'll probably rip at 256kbps and go for MP3 but still haven't made up my mind.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382811 - 06/14/05 01:19 PM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
RABid
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 11/01/01
Posts: 7664
|
|
Offline
|
|
I use 256 MP3. I have some WMA and AAC files, but the MP3's will play on most anything. Ipod, Creative Micro, even the DvD player on my home stereo will play CD's of MP3's.
Robert
_________________________
All I need is one more keyboard.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382813 - 06/14/05 02:30 PM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
ITGITC?
Grand Poobah of Posting
10k Club
Registered: 12/18/02
Posts: 11393
Loc: Raleigh, NC
|
|
Offline
|
|
Thanks. 
My intention is to use a codec that gives the best quality sound for critical listening while saving file space. Between WMA and MP3 it looks like the winner is WMA.
When I get the time, I'll experiment with various bitrates. I've done quite a bit of ripping at 160kbps, but this may be overkill even for critical listening.
So, I'll compare 160kbps to 128kbps to 64kbps and see if I can hear a difference.
Wal-mart.com sells their music for 88 cents/song. Their format is WMA at 128kbps. I've seen a lot of MP3 files encoded at 128kbps, so I assumed that this is the standard for MP3 format for most folks. But it doesn't hurt to ask a forum of musicians.
But again, assume critical listening - not listening against subway/street noise with crappy headphones. I'm mainly interested in archiving my CDs and listening in my studio or living room.
Again, thank you.
Tom
_________________________
"...measure your success in life by how many of the people you want to have love you actually do love you." - Warren Buffett ................................ Is There Gas in the Car?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382814 - 06/14/05 04:30 PM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
theblue1
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 02/06/04
Posts: 4537
Loc: Long Beach, CA
|
|
Offline
|
|
For buying WMA's I strongly recommend Musicmatch (Or Yahoo MusicMatch, as they now want to be called)... the price is a trifle more at $.99 -- but the format is 160 kbps WMA. They have a pretty good selection, though some stuff can be tricky to find and the search engine simply does NOT always turn up all the versions of all the songs they have -- a number of times I've searched for a song by title and not found it by the artist I was looking for but double checked the artist's main page anyway and found it.
But the fi is, as far as I know, the hi-est of the online stores...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382815 - 06/14/05 06:40 PM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
philbo_Tangent
Platinum Member
Registered: 10/08/00
Posts: 1175
Loc: Iowa
|
|
Offline
|
|
I still stick to MP3 VBR, 192Kb base rate, 320Kb max, done with RazorLAME. Haven't been able to find anything better, except Ogg Vorbis and Monkey Audio. But these 2 don't play with some players.
AAC has potential, but the last codec I tried was prett disappointing. Same with MP4. I don't intend to waste time with any form of WMA... but that's just me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382816 - 06/15/05 08:58 AM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
ITGITC?
Grand Poobah of Posting
10k Club
Registered: 12/18/02
Posts: 11393
Loc: Raleigh, NC
|
|
Offline
|
|
blue,
I think you are right. I checked into this last night and it seems that f.y.e., musicnow, Napster, passalong, and walmart.com services use WMA 128 kbps. MSN Music and MusicMatch encode in WMA 160 kbps. I figure that it must make enough of a difference that these folks believe it gives them a competitive advantage.
Of course, MP3 is ubiquitous, but that doesn't matter to me. Although my daughter has an iPod, she's on her own since she's more interested in listening to bluegrass than jazz. She won't be wanting to load up on most of what's in my collection. Of course, I know that the iPlayer can convert WMA to AAC format, but that's not recommended.
So unless there are additional comments to the contrary, I think I'll continue to rip using WMA at 160 kbps to get the best fidelity.
Thanks!
Tom
_________________________
"...measure your success in life by how many of the people you want to have love you actually do love you." - Warren Buffett ................................ Is There Gas in the Car?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382817 - 06/15/05 09:03 AM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
C.Jader
Senior Member
Registered: 08/18/03
Posts: 81
Loc: Manchester, NH
|
|
Offline
|
|
I was ripping to WMA, and still do when sharing my music with others. It does sound better. Microsoft has continued to improve the WMA encoding, MP3 has stayed the same.
For personal use though I am ripping to the i-pod format now, which doesn't support WMA
_________________________
"this is rock n roll"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382818 - 06/15/05 09:22 AM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
TheFunkman
Senior Member
Registered: 09/30/03
Posts: 286
Loc: Kansas City,USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Craig sez:
I also want to set up a "jukebox" for my home stereo...
I recall the old Napster layout had a very straightforward way to add a song to a running playlist. Who has the goods today?
_________________________
"If more of us valued food, cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world." - J. R. R. Tolkien
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382819 - 06/15/05 09:37 AM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
Phait
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 3778
|
|
Offline
|
|
MP3. Ew to proprietary formats.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382820 - 07/13/05 05:14 AM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
n_s_simpson
Member
Registered: 07/13/05
Posts: 4
|
|
Offline
|
|
ok guys (and gals) simple question (oh I don't believe that for a second)...
What is better?
WMA (variable bit rate) - 240 to 355 Kbps
mp3 - fixed bit rate - 320Kbps
Also I was going to use WMP to encode my CD's. If I select one of these will it do just as good a job as other pieces of software. I've read that other software compress data better than WMP but what about at the top quality where compression isn't so much of an issue?
Thanks
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382821 - 07/13/05 05:17 AM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
n_s_simpson
Member
Registered: 07/13/05
Posts: 4
|
|
Offline
|
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382822 - 07/13/05 05:19 AM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
n_s_simpson
Member
Registered: 07/13/05
Posts: 4
|
|
Offline
|
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382823 - 07/13/05 05:52 AM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
Base
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 07/10/03
Posts: 2303
Loc: Surrey, UK
|
|
Offline
|
|
I have most of my CD collection ripped to .WMA at 128k, but the last CD I ripped, I tried MP3 at 224k. Can't say I can really tell the difference to be honest.
I thought Napster, music maker, et al, sold in .wma format because they can't put f^&king pointless protection on the files when the "sell" them?!
_________________________
Fa Fa FA Fa fa fa fa fa FA fa FA FA
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382824 - 07/13/05 07:49 AM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
Christopher Robin
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 02/22/02
Posts: 7767
Loc: unknown
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Phait:
MP3. Ew to proprietary formats.
_________________________
This is not a sig.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382825 - 07/13/05 11:10 AM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
ITGITC?
Grand Poobah of Posting
10k Club
Registered: 12/18/02
Posts: 11393
Loc: Raleigh, NC
|
|
Offline
|
|
Since my original post, I've been listening to lots and lots of compressed music.
I ripped my music collection to WMA, 160Kbps. It sounds great. But I've got lots of other music that was encoded at various rates; even 48Kbps (WMA). The interesting thing is that I haven't heard a lot of difference - yet.
The main problems come when a CD has been damaged and the error correction has to be applied. This causes some minor dropouts and distortion.
I've also had an occassion where Windows Media Player actually seemed to slow the playback or missed a beat. I don't know if another application was vying for CPU time, or what. I checked the system for viruses and spyware. When I rebooted, the problem seemed to clear up.
But the benefits of having my entire CD collection cataloged and in one place is great. I bought an iRiver flash player (1 Gig memory) info here . It holds a lot of music and has no moving parts. Plus, it uses a rechargeable AA battery and I've got LOTS of those around. I use this in the car. I connect it to my radio when I get dressed in the morning, and also when I walk.
Frankly, I'm kind of surprised that more folks (Baby Boomers) don't have anything to do with MP3 players. I've yet to understand the appeal of Podcasting though. Maybe I just haven't found a podcast I like.
What's the point, you ask? Only that music is cool. Having a good chunk of my collection with me at all times is pretty nice too.
_________________________
"...measure your success in life by how many of the people you want to have love you actually do love you." - Warren Buffett ................................ Is There Gas in the Car?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382826 - 07/13/05 11:35 AM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
n_s_simpson
Member
Registered: 07/13/05
Posts: 4
|
|
Offline
|
|
why do people always talk about the low encoding end such as 160Kbps? What about the higher end like 320Kbps. Surely there's a reason this option is available, it must be audibly better?
What about my question about comparing:
WMA (variable bit rate) - 240 to 355 Kbps
mp3 - fixed bit rate - 320Kbps
Does anyone know which one of out these is better for sound quality regardless of file size?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382827 - 07/13/05 12:36 PM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
A String
Modulating Moderator
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 12/18/03
Posts: 9954
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
|
Offline
|
|
The fact of the matter is, humans can only hear a limited range of frequencies. All of these new formats using 320Kbps + are really just over kill.
Most home systems (By that I mean your speakers) wouldn't allow you to hear any difference anyway.
This whole thing with the 320+ seems like the "Kings New Clothes" story where they sell him invisible clothing and everyone agrees that they can see them because they are told that only smart people can see the clothes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382828 - 07/13/05 02:02 PM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
theblue1
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 02/06/04
Posts: 4537
Loc: Long Beach, CA
|
|
Offline
|
|
[ADDENDUM: My gosh... I've gotta start glancing at these threads before I answer... over and over again. If I was feeling scientific, I'd go back and see if I agree with myself. Ha. Don't want to know.]
It's been more than a few years since I tested the 64kbps WMA vs 128 kbps MP3 but I didn't think the 64 WMA was as good at that point. I also tried 128 straight across and preferred the MP3.
That said, I've been very impressed with 160 kbps WMA (ver. 9) sound quality.
About a year ago I sat down at my normal casual listening rig (NS10m's) and compared 160 kbps WMAs vs 192kpbs MP3s and full-VBR MP3s converted by both then latest Fraunhofer and LAME encoders and decided to go with 160 kbps WMAs. (Of course, I used the same source tracks.)
Mostly, I preferred the 160 kbps WMAs over even the full-VBR MP3s. I was shocked, to say the least.
Now, I have to qualify that and say that I was almost exclusively focused on the high end in my personal tests, listening to cymbal sizzle and "air" -- I didn't notice any mid or low differences -- but I have to admit I wasn't looking for them. I'm a little more focused on midrange, these days, so maybe I'll have to go back and do some more testing. (I'd also like to test more tracks.)
Since my streaming service (MM On Demand) supplies 160 kbps WMA's, I hear them all the time. Mostly, I like what I hear. All the new stuff sounds great. Occasionally, though, seemingly compromised recordings fromt he 50's and 60's will sound less than stellar. By and large I haven't noticed that on any tracks where I could compare with the original CD version, so it remains a small area of concern.
One place where I noticed some big problems -- and it was only a couple tracks -- was off one early 60's "stereo-ized" album (you know, where they play EQ and phase tricks to try to make mono tracks 'sound' stereo so they could get the extra buck or sell an extra copy to people who already had the [superior] 'true mono' version). Those tracks were virtually unlistenable. But, like I said, it was a tiny fraction of a percent.
One thing I wonder about my service is who converts the files... is it the record companies? MusicMatch On Demand themselves? Elves?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382829 - 07/14/05 12:44 AM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
Matt.Hepworth
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 2972
Loc: Riverdale, UT
|
|
Offline
|
|
I've done a hella shootout and compared bit for bit vs the wav file. Pretty good difference - you can really hear what mp3 and wma do to the sound. At 128 vs 128 wma all the way. 256 vs 256 mp3 has less hf content, wma has slightly less transients while retaining most the hf content. VBR produced the best results with a slight edge to mp3 (320). Windows media lossless truly is lossless and only 60% as large as a wav.
Bottom line - I do all my encoding in 192 wma as it is the best quality vs size balance and is completely listenable, IMO.
_________________________
No matter how good something is, there will always be someone blasting away on a forum somewhere about how much they hate it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#382830 - 07/14/05 09:00 AM
Re: MP3 vs. WMA today
|
TBush
Senior Member
Registered: 02/10/02
Posts: 186
Loc: Syracuse,IN,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
"Bottom line - I do all my encoding in 192 wma as it is the best quality vs size balance and is completely listenable, IMO."
That's where I'm at these days- for quick "hey check this out" type of listening in the studio it seems that it's a good quality/disk space ratio.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
