neo_joel Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 wasnt there a poll on this done at one point? but mp3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djgramma Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 I'm still fairly impressed with MP3, I've tried alot of formats and MP3 seems to be the best way for me to encode music. Problem with me is I can't use anything else anyways, everything I use (plus some programs I bought) only utilizes MP3 and WMA, and I hate WMA (not for the quality, it ain't that bad, it's the hassle of using it) Meh, personal preference, everyone has their favorite format. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sn1p3t Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 I'm still fairly impressed with MP3, I've tried alot of formats and MP3 seems to be the best way for me to encode music. Problem with me is I can't use anything else anyways, everything I use (plus some programs I bought) only utilizes MP3 and WMA, and I hate WMA (not for the quality, it ain't that bad, it's the hassle of using it)Meh, personal preference, everyone has their favorite format. Cheers 584986609[/snapback] What hassle? It works just the same as MP3 for me. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shihchiun Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 drm wma files = big hassle. i think that's what he's talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sn1p3t Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 WMP does NOT encode WMAPro NOR do portable devices support it.AAC is NOT a proprietary codec. 584971375[/snapback] Funny, I just copied a WMA 9.1 Professional encoded audio file to my cell phone and it played fine (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djgramma Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 meh, WMA seems to want to play slower and with more resources too, it's not just a key protected file hassle. Any WMA file wants to hog my system, moreso than a video file. Now that's wack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slimy Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 uh i think the ones that are lossless like .wma but feel free to prove me wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomX Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 Using MP3pro @ 80~96kb VBR or AACplus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raum Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 If you want lossless, FLAC is the way to go. I believe it can acheive a 1:4 compression ratio, which is pretty good for lossless. As far as lossy goes.... -MP3 VBR. Variable bitrate means that if you have a soft piano intro to a rock song, the piano intro requires less bitrate to sound good than a full rock band playing, so it lowers the bitrate for that part, then raises it for the full band. This is effective is saving harddrive space while retaining quality. If you think you're going to get a portable music player anytime soon, this is a good route. MP3 is also good because anyone that has a player installed on their comp can play MP3, it's good for sharing with friends etc, compatible with the most programs. -OGG. Personally, I feel this is the best sounding lossy format. It's prettymuch a tie between this and MPC with me. I go with OGG because my iRiver HP120 supports it and I already have a good chunk of my files in OGG anyways. In my experience, it beats MP3 in sound quality by far. I'm the type of person that when I hear a 128k mp3 played, I can tell without looking at the bitrate. I don't even keep files of that low quality on my computer for the most part. OGG, from my experiences seems to be about the same, or slighter larger in file size than MP3. For a 4mb MP3, an OGG might be 4.12 mb, so it's not a big difference (This being a comparison between 192 VBR MP3 and OGG). So, as far as lossless goes, MP3 is good for it's cross compatability, and OGG trumps MP3 in sound quality. Choose which is more important to you and go with that. EDIT: DJ...how the hell can you stand an 80k mp3? Do you use speakers fromt he dollar store or something? :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-White-Knight Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Personally I go the .AAC way. I have 2x 250GB hard drives, Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2ZA Platinum Pro with 7.1 surround speakers and AACs sound perfect!. I use iTunes aswell, I much prefer it over WMP. That's another reason why I use AAC. Also iTunes lets you choose the channels, Kbps and sample rate. I personally use 320Kbps at 48Khz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BajiRav Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Well, for cross platform compatibility MP3 or AAC would be best, OGG on OS X is niggly, as is WMA. With iTunes on Windows and OS X AAC would be a nice choice. As for WMA better than MP3 and AAC, this would suggest otherwise:http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/plot18z.png One of many blind listening tests performed where WMA was quite low down. If space isn't an issue then AAC at a reasonably high bitrate would be really good. If compatibility could be an issue (say you wanted to get a portable music player in the future) then perhaps something like MP3 at 192 VBR is still a good choice. 584958314[/snapback] Many people give this link often not realizing that the comparison is pretty old and predates WM9. Windows Media 9 as it turns out is better than apple's AAC & mp3. I've experienced it myself (use pc &mac) no idea about ogg though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giga Veteran Posted December 11, 2004 Veteran Share Posted December 11, 2004 ^ How can you use WM9 on iTunes for mac? And can you prove some tests that show its better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NetRyder Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 I think WMA is too much of a closed/restricted format to gain my support, I'ld rather something with no DRM attachments. [...]Sounds good, If I rip with AAC, I assume I would be able to encode down to MP3 if I did get a portable music player. 584958320[/snapback] Neither WMA or AAC need to be DRM-protected, but they both support it. If WMA is too closed for you because it supports DRM (Janus), I don't see how AAC is any better (Fairplay). I personally still use mp3 (192/256k) since it's compatible with the largest number of devices and platforms, and the quality/size ratio is just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creelman Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Generally, I prefer WMA 9 Lossless. I'm not an audiophile or anything, but it sounds perfect to me :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts