WMA8 or Mp3 ????!!!!


Recommended Posts

Hello . I would like to know your opinion from your own personal experiences about encoding music from cd's with these different formats "Windows Media Audio (WMA now in version 8)" and "Mp3". I like using my MPXP and that is why i really want to know which format is more convenient to use . For example i have encoded all my music until now using AudioCatalyst ( variable bitrate for mp3 settings and constant bitrate at 192Kpbs) but as i was surfing my pc's Help and Support in WXP Pro i have found a feature comparison table between the two encoders and i have discovered and after that i heard for myself that WMA8 music files at 64 Kbps sounded exactly as an Mp3 music file at 128 Kpbs but using less space on my hard .

Now i really want you to share your opinion about this . I must tell you that i have been using Winamp for some time now for its ease of using but unfortunately it's not like MPXP . So , as a conclusion , for myself MPXP is the best ALL-in-ONE player . What should i do ? WMA8 or Mp3 ??? Thank you .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there was an experiment once. it got subjects to listen to mp3 and wma audio and compare it with the ideal CD quality. These people did not know which was which, but MP3 was picked as the less quality one. So, definitely Windows. But it has less compatibility with Audio players. However, players supporting the Windows format is on the rise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a newby in this field but still people always learn in their life , so i'd like to ask you what bitrate would you personally choose for a superb hi-fi in a wma music file format which would be in the same time smaller in size than an mp3 ?

e.g. i have recorded the same song with MPXP in an 192 Kpbs Mp3 format and in an 192 Kpbs WMA8 format , and surprise surprise the WMA8 was larger with 4 kb than the Mp3 correspondent . (i guess maybe of the Protect Content feature , which i enjoy)

Should i try to compare other bitrates?! , donno . What do you think the "perfect" solution would be ?

Thanks again and thanks for replying to my previous thread .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but you gotta remember that you dont need to encode wma at 192 to sound as good, wma at 96 or 128 will sound just as good as mp3 at 192. All my mp3's from the net are at 128 but i encode all of my cd's at WMA 96 and they sound much better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes WMA does seem to create the same sound quality as MP3 but with lower bit rate; however, I don't feel WMA is a very flexible format since it has that copy protection crap sealed in it. People want to be able to control everything they own, and MP3 seems to be the best way to go. I never tried to burn music CD from WMA files, and I don't wanna try. Tell me what are the programs you can use to burn WMA files into a music CD besides that Windowz Media Player??? For MP3, you can use Easy CD Creator, Nero, and many other great programs. That's my two cents...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use WMA as it saves a LOT of space and sound quality is great. I only download MP3's but then I convert them to WMA so save space [sounds identical]. Don't bother encoding less than 128 with WMA as it can sound slightly off, but 128 or 192 is PLENTY! Did anyone else get that MP3 ripper addon for XP? I did and I haven't used it yet, lol.

I don't do a lot of ripping, but it's always with WMA if I do... SO easy [yeah, MP3 ripping is easy too, but XP rips WMA8 out the box... NOTHING needs to be installed]. I also use MPXP for playing all my music videos, BSPlayer for DivX and WinAmp for MP3's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wma is much better..

but the thing that sux about it is that it wont work in cd players etc

I believe that there's a cd player out there that supports it.

does anyone know which site has that one cd player?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have MP3 encoding in MPXP but i dont use it much.

Tell me what are the programs you can use to burn WMA files into a music CD besides that Windowz Media Player???

Nero can burn WMA to CD as well as EZCD 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have started encoding my music as 192kbps Ogg Vorbis files. The Ogg Vorbis plugin for WinAmp is better (at displaying titles and such - completely customizable!) than the MP3 plugin, and I think that the music sounds a bit better than 192kbps MP3.

When it comes to audio players, WinAmp is so much better than Media Player for XP (it's hard to use, the audio visualizations look really bad, and there's no good compact mode with an easy-to-use playlist). Also, all this stuff about protections is really scary, so I'm avoiding WMA like the plague! :disappoin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes WMA is not necessarily better - but is DEFINITELY better at lower bitrates like 64k.

I also think it seems to reproduce bass better...

Couple this with the fact it's the default in WMP and Microsoft have won (me anyway eheh)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like dazzla has pointed out... you can disable the protection stuff when you record to WMA. And 64Kbit/s is CD Quality ( according to MICROSOFT ) which would would be 320KBits/s in mp3. The reason we think 192Kbits/s is cd quality is that our ears can't hear the high tones above 22hz :ponder: (right??) so 192 sounds extra good but i'd choose WMA anytime over MP3. But as of now all my songs and stuff are in MP3 format but when transfering them to an MP3/WMA player i choose WMA since at 64kbits it sounds really good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

currently, i use wma. i used the conversion tool that came with plus! to convert all my mp3's to wma files and i reclaimed a couple hundred MB of drive space. most of the original mp3's were 128kbps, but i chose to subsample down to 96kbps and i've got no complaints as far as the sound quality goes. the wma files sound just as good as the original mp3's.

i rip wma's using wmpxp without copy protection. i've yet to come accross any disadvantage with this format. i suppose some of the older protable mp3 players don't support wma files, but just about every new one does. and i burn using either wmpxp, nero, or musicmatch jukebox. they all support burning wma files to cd.

but to put it simply, i like the small size and comparable quality of wma files. they do everything i need them to do.

lance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by ThunderRiver

I never tried to burn music CD from WMA files, and I don't wanna try. Tell me what are the programs you can use to burn WMA files into a music CD besides that Windowz Media Player??? For MP3, you can use Easy CD Creator, Nero, and many other great programs.

Easy CD Creator, Nero can both burn into a music cd! I do it all the time :lick:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should never convert from one lossy compression format(mp3) to another(wma). Yes, both of these formats are LOSSY. You WILL lose audio quality everytime you use it. Converting from MP3 to WMA (or vice versa) will NEVER make your audio sound "better". It can only sound worse.

Using WMA and MP3 is like taking a photocopy. The copy will always have a lower quality than the original. Photocopy a magazine cover. Now copy that copy. The 2nd copy can only be as good as the 1st copy. It will NEVER be better than the 1st and it will definitely never be better than the original.

Another big mistake people make is going from WMA->WAV(CD)->MP3 or MP3->WAV(CD)->WMA. This is exactly the same as WMA->MP3 or MP3->WMA, except now there's a "middleman". Converting to WAV does not magically improve audio quality. It can only EQUAL the audio quality of the previous format.

Realize that doing a conversion from MP3->WMA is a compromise. Are you willing to give up even MORE audio quality to achieve less space? Because the fact is that you will never gain better audio quality. The same applies when going from WMA->MP3, MP3->MP3 or WMA->WMA.

If you wanna do any substantial quality comparison between WMA and MP3, compare ORIGINAL_RIPPED_CD_TRACK->WMA to ORIGINAL_RIPPED_CD_TRACK->MP3.

Of course, hearing abilities vary. You may never hear any degradation when converting from one format to another. But that doesn't mean that the degradation is not there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes I have to agree with Oogle - I often convert MP3's to WMA - but only because my MP3 player only has 64MB RAM. Lossy compression is lossy (eheh) - to compress to WMA from MP3 is like saving a JPEG twice - not as good as the first JPEG.

I think if u listen closely u can hear the degradation in these cases - particularly on hi-hats and cymbals - therell be a kindof tinny sound to them (althou this is also caused by bit rates being low anyway) - also subtle left right effects are often dampened - and u can sometimes when there is a very low noise and nothing else hear a kind of 'digital' sounding noise on top of it - like if a turntable is connected unearthed.

In some songs (althou very rarely) - the compression can completely delete a noise - not just muffle it - for example (althou not many of u will know this song lol) - in the song 'Lazy Sunday Afternoon' by 'The Small Faces' - when saved as WMA - the whistling before the final chorus actually dissapears completely..

(sorry for my rambling off topic (as usual))

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello . Yes you are so right , both of you , i am kind of obsessed when coming to record music from a cd to any source (be it chromium or metal cassette , MD , CD , HD ) , because i have to do it right and that was my point in opening this discussion at first "the choice of the same quality stored in a less space" . The sound really can get distorted , off-balanced , poor in high-frequency (normally up to 20 Khz , because we cannot percept the above frequency) . I was investigating this matter and i got on this page http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...a/WM8/audio.asp and if you go down on that page you will find an incredible DEMO of the WMA8 encoder vs. Mp3 and Real encoder , compared of course with the WMA original source , you should check it .

It says "For the true Audiophile:

Windows Media Audio 8 encoding captures more of the original WAV audio file than MP3 or Real Audio 8. We have created an audio demonstration so you can hear and compare what gets left behind when encoding with MP3, Real Audio, or Windows Media 8.

Download the Windows Media Download package to hear the difference for yourself."

I appreciate your answers and i thank you again .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/wi...a/WM8/audio.asp and if you go down on that page you will find an incredible DEMO of the WMA8 encoder vs. Mp3 and Real encoder , compared of course with the WMA original source , you should check it .

I tried to click more info to see "how this was done", but I was taken to a page of testamonials and research results. I'm not sure how hearing less equates to better quality.

Also if you want to do your own truly objective testing, try using PCABX (www.pcabx.com). This program helps you to compare 2 wav samples. A direct link to the setup files is here

It basically works like this.

A = 1st sample

B = 2nd sample

X = you have to decide between A and B.

After hearing sample A, B, and X for as long as you want, you must eventually choose which sample X sounds like. Repeat this sampling process as many times as you want, and PCABX will keep track of correct and incorrect selections. When the test is done, pcabx will give you a guessing probability score. If the guessing probability is fairly high, that means that you cannot honestly tell the difference between A and B.

How does this relate to MP3 vs. WMA? Try this setup.

A = original cd ripped WAV file

B = original cd ripped WAV file converted to WMA coverted back to WAV

Please remember that converting to WAV does not affect the audio quality at all. Every compressed format has to be decoded into an uncompressed format (WAV) anyways before it comes out of your soundcard.

After you do several samples (at least 10), see your score. If WMA is truly transparent (i.e. CD quality), your guessing probability should be really high. You should do the same setup with MP3 now instead of WMA.

Once you find a bitrate high enough for both so that each are transparent, compare the bitrates and see which format generates the lower bitrate. (e.g. WMA transparent at 16.67kbps, MP3 transparent at 20.2kbps)

The format that generates the most transparent sound, at the lowest bitrate should be the perfect format for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The less you hear an original wav.sound the better the encoder's power of processing will be . Why ? ... well , because it means there are less quality loss in the processing

e.g. the original .WAV has 5 doors open (so you can hear it all)

the encoder .Mp3 can close 3 doors , but lets the other 2 doors open so it only processes what is left behind the 3 doors letting the rest get out from the source through the 2 doors open

the .WMA8 encoder can close 4 doors and leaves open only 1 door , but it can process now a wider range of the original .WAV sound because it has more resourses left now within ( more instructions to identify them with the source because the sound loss is smaller through 1 door than 2 )

Got it ?! ... I hope so ... i studied a lot these last 2 days about those damn encoders but i conclude by saying WMA8 encodes better than Mp3 , the only bad part being its compatibility which by the way gets bigger and bigger . This encoder is one of the good things MS has done for the consumer .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I don't see how processing a wider range equates to better quality. That's like saying you're a better artist because you use a bigger brush.

I've heard that WMA puts more of an effort in processing higher frequencies as opposed to MP3 which generally just cuts them off. But does putting more effort mean it will generate better audio quality? I dunno. That's why I do my OWN listening tests.

That WMD package you mentioned doesn't even contain the original MP3, WMA, WAV, and RM files. For all I know, MS could've synthesized the whole process using WAV format and compressed all samples to WMA without even touching other compression schemes. That's why I also wanted to know HOW they did it.

Sorry if I sound skeptical, but I don't usually trust sites that compare their own technology to others.

I hope that you at least give PCABX a try before drawing any final conclusions. It is probably one of the most helpful objective utilities out there when you're bombarded with propaganda from both sides of the isle. It has definitely helped me to notice the subtle audio differences in compression formats and it has helped me to become a better listener.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.