Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[marko]

An old and well hammered topic, I'm sure, but let's go round again.

I've been listening to some .wma files recently, the 192 CBR variety, and they sound really good. So, putting all "anti-microsoft" and DRM bias to one side for a moment, are my ears deceiving me?

To me, they sound somehow richer, less flat than a 192 mp3. Almost on a par, dare I say it, with .mpc's!! trying to imagine me, with a library full of wma files

Anyone else got an opinion?

Remember, we're talking lossy audio quality here, not anti m$ or DRM

-marko.

[Pink Waters]

Stick With The MP3 Format!  ... Its The Best Media Type Format Ever

[marko]

I'm not convinced.
imho, .mpc sounds way way better than mp3. I find they playback with more depth and "feel" than mp3, which I find to be quite flat and lifeless.

Of course, all these things are purely subjective. One man's mp3 is anothers mpc, ogg, wma etc. etc.

[Pink Waters]

I'm not convinced.
imho, .mpc sounds way way better than mp3. I find they playback with more depth and "feel" than mp3, which I find to be quite flat and lifeless.

i disagree with you...
mp3 compression gives you the same quality as the Cda track starting from 192 kps

[edbro]

i disagree with you...
mp3 compression gives you the same quality as the Cda track starting from 192 kps

Surely you can't be implying that a compressed mp3, which is by definition "lossy", sounds as good as the original cd track. I disagree wholeheartedly. If you want "same quality as the Cda track", you need a lossless format such as ape, flac, etc.

As far as which lossy format is best; there have been lots of tests posted on the web. From what I remember, it depends on which bit rates you are comparing them to but, ogg beat wma which beat mp3. Personally, I use wma because it seems less cpu intensive than ogg.

[risingdamp]

For a lossy formnat MP3 does have a big advantage in terms of compatibility with handhelds and other external devices.  That's the big winner for me so I use 320KBPS.  I find this gives me CD quality sound with reasonable compression rates.

[GHammer]

If I were looking to balance size and quality, I'd go with WMA.
If I don't care about file size, I'd go with MP3.

Once you leave those two in lossy formats, you start playing the "Do you support my music on your hardware" game.

[Pink Waters]

With Mp3s in 192 kbps compression i find it exactly as the cd quality..
i don't find a difference...
if iam wrong then someone tell me the difference 

[Rob L]

even with WMA you ' start playing the "Do you support my music on your hardware" game.'!

WMAs are still nowhere near as widely supported as MP3s, and the problem with saying that WMAs are supported on a given device is that quite often DRMed WMAs *aren't* supported.

The fact that a format is lossy doesn't mean that it's necessarily worse than a lossless format - clearly you HAVE to factor in the quality it's being created at. A 1Mb MP3 for instance would be pretty good quality :-)

I hate the lossy/lossless distinction anyway - it's totally misleading. Even CDs are 'lossy' given that they involve a translation from analog to digital to analog (OK, so computer-generated music could skip the initial analog to digital conversion, but the last step is always going to be required until they develop digital ears!)

[GHammer]

I hate the lossy/lossless distinction anyway - it's totally misleading.

No, I think it is right to the point.
There is information lost in the process.
It is not coming back.

[edbro]

(OK, so computer-generated music could skip the initial analog to digital conversion, but the last step is always going to be required until they develop digital ears!)

Actually, my mom just got fitted for a pair of those. I'm afraid I'm not too far behind either. Too much loud music in my youth.

[modelmaker]

While CDA may be lossless, I still find them flat and lifeless compared to the old LPs. I have been using mp3 VBR High for a couple of years now and find them to pretty close to cda - not identical, but close.

There are occaisional artifacts in the files or errors in playback, but I come from an LP and tape background and compared to the noisy tapes and pops and clicks in LPs in general, mp3s are heaven!

I must admit that I cheat a little to make them, (mp3s), sound like the LPs - I use both an EQ and an RG Dynamics Expander to put the "life" back into the music (to a bit lesser extent I do the same with cdas).

But in the end, this is all subjective; everybody's ears are different.

[UnknownID]

This kind of relates. Take from it what you want.
-----------------------------------
Most of my files are in APE (by that I mean I rip to APE). A few weeks ago I did a whole bunch of tests for my Nomad Zen Xtra. I tested sound quality, speed, and file size. I was going for the highest quality my player would support (in the past I have found out that it would not play CBR 320 kbps files of either type without noticeable popping in the background).

I found that WMA and MP3 sounded virtually identical for my ears when WMA was at VBR Normal/High and MP3 was at VBR Extreme.

I also found that both of these created roughly the same size file.

So, with all the previous being equal I needed something to tilt the balance. What sold me to WMA was the sheer speed at which it could encode/convert. My tests found that with my system stats I could convert an album in about 2:10 with WMA while the MP3 encoder took 5:31 to accomplish the same task.
-----------------------------------

UnknownID

[hit_ny]

With Mp3s in 192 kbps compression i find it exactly as the cd quality..
i don't find a difference...
if iam wrong then someone tell me the difference 

Which  genre's of music do you listen to ?

[Rob L]

No, I think it is right to the point.
There is information lost in the process.
It is not coming back.

Hm, selective quoting!

There were two points I made previously as part of this:

1. CD is termed "lossless" and yet information is lost in the process

2. information isn't always lost with lossy encoding. It depends how much data you throw at it, clearly.

[Alex B]

Just to add my two Euro cents worth:

Generally if we take a recent version of a modern encoder and encode files at about 192 kbps they'll sound good. You can enjoy listening to them even when using a high-end hi-fi system.

However, if the latest wma codec and LAME (known to the best mp3 encoder) codecs are restricted to constant 192 kbps their full potential is not used. Sometimes audio compresses well and then 192 kbps can be more than is needed for proper reproduction. Sometimes even 320 kbps is not enough for transparent quality. That's why the audiophile encoder Musepack doesn't even have a CBR option. That's why the new MP3 encoding options in MC11 start with VBR.

The way to go is VBR. At about 200 - 250 kbps VBR (with average music) the differences between the encoders are minimal and it is very difficult to distinguish them from the lossless. Musepack encoder is known to be transparent at a bit lower bitrate than the others. The only way to properly and provably hear the differences is blind ABX testing of short music samples and at these bitrates the samples used must be known to be problematic for the lossy encoders if you like to hear any real differences.

[GRAYDOG]

I used to use wma's all the time then I lost most of my music  when I switched hard drives and went from xp home to xp pro , even the music I had backed up on dvd  could not be played on my computer. so to make sure that this would not happen again I went to 320 mp3

[KingSparta]

The way to go is VBR

I agree with "Alex B"

Saves Space And Gives Good Quality.

If your A "HI-Fi Music Freq" then I guess APE

Microsoft Lossless is quite good also

[GHammer]

Hm, selective quoting!

There were two points I made previously as part of this:

1. CD is termed "lossless" and yet information is lost in the process

2. information isn't always lost with lossy encoding. It depends how much data you throw at it, clearly.

It is the quote that I spoke to.

Take a trip over to HydrogenAudio forums and see if they share your opinion on lossy.

[Myron]

Hm, selective quoting!

There were two points I made previously as part of this:

1. CD is termed "lossless" and yet information is lost in the process

2. information isn't always lost with lossy encoding. It depends how much data you throw at it, clearly.

GHammer is absolutely correct!

The original question dealt with what format to use for storing audio, so the CD comment is not relevant here.  Besides, ANY recording process is somehow lossy.  Even the air that carries sound to your ears introduces some distortion. 

As for comment 2 this is, of course, obvious.  The problem is that music is rather complex, so compressed formats certainly discard information.

The choice of storage format depends greatly on people and their needs.  While many may be happy with various lossy formats, the fact remains that thay are all lossy and permanently discard information.  Just because a given person doesn't percieve the loss on a given audio system doesn't mean the loss does not exist.

[modelmaker]

From Myron:

Just because a given person doesn't percieve the loss on a given audio system doesn't mean the loss does not exist.

If the person doesn't percieve the loss, doesn't it then become irrelevant if it's lossy or not?

[marko]

GrayDog, that sounds like a DRM issue to me. It gets enabled by default in WMP if my memory serves me right. Must have been a real bummer for you

Agree totally with the VBR comments too.

All these replies, but none along the lines of "yeah, I went with .wma coz the output blows everything else out of the water"
I don't own a handheld player, so that takes compatibility out of the equation. If I ever do end up owning one, I can make compatible files from my ape backups without too much trouble.

I did some more encoding and listening yesterday, and really, mpc is still the one for me. A friend sent the wma files. I think that what "queered" my ears was that I had been listening to a radio stream for a few hours prior to playing them, and the stream was a little rough around the edges.
.wma still sounded pretty good mind you, but I've decided to stick with mpc. (boy, do I miss that encoder. dig dig)

modelmaker, I would agree with you there, after all, all that matters is that we are all happy and that we enjoy our music, and surely, there's enough choice out there to keep us all happy. I even found me a nice .ape > .mpc converter
btw, been dying to ask you, what kind of models do you make?

-marko.

[JaredH]

The loss is there, yes. But audible to the human ear... not unless you're running a sound system that could buy a new car.

I posted this same question a few months ago, then I decided to run a test.

Mind you I was running this test in an amateur sound studio (but a sound studio with a actual amp/soundboard/professional grade sound card setup.

When using Adobe Audition, I ran 5 different tracks together in the same multi track session, and then played them all and switched from track to track to see if I could audibly tell where the sound difference was. I was using a pair of studio monitor headphones so that I could hear any slight differences. I did this with 3 different types of songs. Techno, Classical, and Rock. Here are my results:

WAV = This was the template
320k MP3 = Identical to WAV
192k WMA = Identical to 320k MP3
192k MP3 = above average bass response, mids were kinda cold, and highs were above average
128 MP3 = Most noticable drop in quality

Just for gits and shiggles, when I was finished, I threw in a 128k WMA... it sounded better than the 128k MP3, but only marginally.

Had it not been for the fact that I was clicking the button to change the active track, I would not have been able to tell when one switched to the other when comparing the WAV, 320k MP3, and 192k WMA.

My conclusion is this:

Unless you're a highly trained professional whose ears are his job, you're not going to notice the differences between 192k WMA, 320k MP3, and WAV.

I personally have encoded my entire collection into 192k WMA. It's sufficient. I was a diehard MP3 320k'er before I tried this little experiment. Then when I realized I was sacrificing 1/3 of my hard drive on something that is merely for leisure home stereo or portable use, and I couldn't even tell the difference, I quickly added about 20gb of freespace to my hard-drive. Sure, it meant re-ripping my entire collection, but that left me room for even more music.

Just my $.02, WMA 192k and no less than that. If you're an MP3'er then don't go less than 256k. If you're just a casual listener, then, who gives a pickle! You're probably more concerned with the melody and the words to care about the sound quality.

-edit-
About the DRM issue:
I never encode with DRM, and my Creative MuVo plays things fine. You don't have to use DRM.

[Pink Waters]

JaredH,
but i purchase media from the internet in Mp3 192 kbps and iam a pro music player and i find it quiet good and has a high quality really comparing to the Cda.!

[hit_ny]

Just my $.02, WMA 192k and no less than that. If you're an MP3'er then don't go less than 256k. If you're just a casual listener, then, who gives a pickle! You're probably more concerned with the melody and the words to care about the sound quality.

It's a pity you ignored mp3 VBR in your tests

That might have given a better comparison say lame aps vs 192 WMA for example. I'm betting they will sound very similar.

[LonWar]

For Listening to music I prefer mp3 @ 160. All hardware that I have will play mp3, even my soon to get Ipod photo...
For backing up, I would prefer to have wma Lossless.

[Myron]

If the person doesn't percieve the loss, doesn't it then become irrelevant if it's lossy or not?

For that particular person, yes.  For all people, NO!

[Pink Waters]

Now as a conclusion of what you all are saying is that:
a Wma file in 192 kbps is the same quality of a mp3 file in 320 kbps ?
so we abandon mp3 in music purchases and move to wma ?

[GHammer]

Now as a conclusion of what you all are saying is that:
a Wma file in 192 kbps is the same quality of a mp3 file in 320 kbps ?
so we abandon mp3 in music purchases and move to wma ?

Not unless you want to do what "we" do versus what sounds good to you.

I like LAME --preset extreme --scale 1

Your mileage may differ.

[marketability]

don't forget the other advantage of a "lossless" format such as APE is that instead of searching for 1 out of 1,000s of CDs if you need to change format - you can just reconvert

I'm not a complete (only partial) "HiFi freq" but I can tell enough of a difference between MP3 320 and APE to warrant the extra disk space
just as different sound cards can make big difference assuming the amp/speakers warrant it.

for me... MC11 APE Fast > ASIO / SPDIF > external DAC > Pre > Power > ears > heaven!

[tcman41]

The only format for me is .mp3, all my hardware which includes my computer, creative zen xtra 40gb music player and jvc mini system, can play this, it is simply the most versatile format.

I have ripped my entire 300 disc cd collection to 320 bit rate mp3 and it is hard to tell the difference between them and the cd's. Call me crazy but in fact some of the mp3's sound better than the disc, some of my discs which i bought a long time ago were quite tinny. I am also just now getting into tweaking some of my discs with sony sound forge, boosting the db and then equalizing makes all the difference in the world on some discs. I also have another 200 albums that I have bought on a couple of russian music mp3 sites and another 200 albums that i have downloaded free from music forums and blogs. Many of the free downloads are 192 bit rate and some of them to put it midly sound just terrible.

I am not concerned with the file sizes at all, I have a 120gb and a 160gb hardrive in my machine and a external 80gb hardrive. Drives are cheap, ripping and playing your favorite songs at low bit rate wma and mp3 just isn't worth it.

There have been many mentions around here and elsewhere that the way to go is vbr mp3 at around 224 bit rate, any higher and you are producing bigger file sizes with very little improvement in the sound. I agree with this totally but i am to lazy or stubborn to redo my enitre collection in this style.

TC

[JaredH]

Oh yeah, I agree on the VBR thing. I just haven't got into VBR yet. I'm quite satisfied with my 192k WMA's. Enough so that I don't want to go through the drudgery of re-ripping my collection for the 4th time just for marginally better sound.

Please don't think im downing on you. I'll admit that the VBR MP3 files I've downloaded that average about 220k sound marginally better than the 192k WMA files I've personally ripped.

To me it's just a matter of "loss of time : best use of space : quality gain" (sorry, not good with equations).

On the lossless format:
That's a great idea if you've got the hard drive space, and if you do a lot of converting, burning, mixing, etc. I used to think I fell into that category. Then I realized I was an audiphile on a extremely strapped budget. Not to mention the fact that I was having problems getting backwards the idea of what I was capable of doing with this prosumer system setup I was building vs. what I was really going to do with it. That's when I realized I could do the exact same thing for about 1000 dollars less than what I was doing.

In short, in my mind I thought I was going to be the next Oakenfold or something.

[Pink Waters]

ok but we didnt go to a conclusion,
if someone is going to spend money purchasing media from internet.. so what media type and bitrate can go to so one doesnt feel that he spent money on something worse than another,,,
so Mp3 or Wma ??
what bitrate??,,.. so we close the disscussion 

[edbro]

Buy lossless!

Purchase Ape files from AllofMP3.com

[Pink Waters]

Buy lossless!

Purchase Ape files from AllofMP3.com

i will not for sure because i am not a rich man... and want to save space
i am asking about Mp3 or Wma !

[edbro]

You obviously haven't looked at their prices. Very cheap even for lossless. Once you have a lossless file you can convert it to any lossy format you choose for use on a handheld and still keep the original. Or, burn to cd and keep a lossy version on your hard drive.

To me, it doesn't make sense to pay almost a dollar a track for a lossy song when I can get a lossless version for less on Mp3.com.

[LonWar]

Buy lossless!

Purchase Ape files from AllofMP3.com

Never understood the desire to buy downloaded music... I am not sure how much it is to buy at [web site removed], but most is what .90 a track?

I can buy most albums at a second hand store, in Mint condition for 8.00  That works out to .80 a track (10 track album)
With that I can do what ever I want.

[Pink Waters]

You obviously haven't looked at their prices. Very cheap even for lossless. Once you have a lossless file you can convert it to any lossy format you choose for use on a handheld and still keep the original. Or, burn to cd and keep a lossy version on your hard drive.

iam a vip member in [web site removed].com and losless formats are too expensive per MB than the lossy formats

[edbro]

iam a vip member in [web site removed].com and losless formats are too expensive per MB than the lossy formats

Yes, they may be more than lossy but still cheap.

As far as buying CDs, I do that all the time. But, sometimes you only want a couple of songs off a particular cd. Now we are not forced to purchase 8 crap songs just to get 2 good songs.

[Pink Waters]

i still wanna know which better mp3 or wma ?

[edbro]

i still wanna know which better mp3 or wma ?

but i purchase media from the internet in Mp3 192 kbps and iam a pro music player and i find it quiet good and has a high quality really comparing to the Cda.!

I think you already answered your own question. It depends on the user. If you like Mp3, stick with it. If you can't tell the difference-don't switch.

[Pink Waters]

i never used wma before so i wanna know from someone has the experience in using both files

[modelmaker]

I too, am a vip member, and have purchased 37K plus files at 256 vbr mp3 over the last 2 years, and I am very satisfied with the sound. The price for this format/quality is 2 cents a mb - pretty resonable.

Lossless, whether wav or ape, is just not in the cards for me. I already have 2 200g hds just for music in my computer and 2 more 200giggers for backup. And I intend to get another 400gigs to put my double redundancy back together. If I had gone with lossless (ape), I would have had to have tripple the memory I now have and while memory is getting cheaper, it adds up fast.

As I mentioned in another post a while back, I am a "retired" audio purist. I still have my high end system (tube amps for their warm sound and headroom) ffrom my days in the audio biz. It is no longer a "straight line" system, I have added a JVC Pro EQ (w/spectrum analyzer), (my pre amp has no tone controls) and 2 expander/companders, (DBX & RG Dynamics), so I can tweak the sound to the taste of my aging ears, which I never would have done (horror) in the purist days. The 2 processors help to make CDs & mp3s indistinguishable from my LPs.

The point I'm trying to get to is that in 90% of listening situations, with a little tweaking of your system you can get high quality mp3s and wmas to sound as good as a CD or ape and save the higher cost of drives and larger file downloads. And you don't have to have a high end system to do it.

Listening environment also comes into play, most of us don't listen in a soundproof room, so, sound absorbtion, reflective surfaces, ambient noise are all factors in good music reproduction.

I have not actually listened to a CD in quite a while, I am now married to the convience of MC. My ears are quite satisfied, (they're easily fooled anyway), and in the end, that's all that really matters.

Sorry I was so long winded.


Marco:
Professionally I build models for movies, museums and private clients, mostly railroad & maritime related . Hobby-wise I am a railroad modeler.

[stefansmith]

I use lossless APE, but also have alot of MP3's.

My system is a Shuttle XPC > M-Audio Sonica USB soundcard (optical out) > glass toslink > External DAC > Passive preamp > Class A Monoblocks > speakers.

My conclusions are as follows:

WAV / APE: perfect sound. In fact I find it beats any high-end CD player I've ever tried.
MP3 @ 320 CBR or VBR: close in terms of detail. But the soundstage is slightly narrower and 3D separation is poor. It sounds compressed. The sound is slightly thinner, less rounded.
MP3 @ 192/256: as above, but more so.
MP3 @ 128: Reminds me of FM over a stereo transistor radio.
WMA: ummm. Very difficult to listen to because of the issues regarding M$ that have been mentioned. But I've tried it and find it at least matches MP3 encoded with LAME at the same bitrate. But still no competition for lossless.

I'll try to keep this in perspective. For casual listening through fairly simple hi-fi's, playback in car stereos, or through an IPod, MP3 and/or WMA at pretty much any bitrate at or above 192 is excellent. Better than cassette tape. More convenient than CD.

For critical listening on a good system, lossless.

And vinyl beats them all, but fails in the convienience stake.

$0.02.

[Pink Waters]

I use lossless APE, but also have alot of MP3's.

My system is a Shuttle XPC > M-Audio Sonica USB soundcard (optical out) > glass toslink > External DAC > Passive preamp > Class A Monoblocks > speakers.

Can i move in ? 

in the lossless issue .. what is the best lossless formt in space saving/quality ?

[marko]

And vinyl beats them all, but fails in the convienience stake.

Never a truer word spoken. Although my vinyl is all packed up in the loft now, I will never part with it. Ever.

I used to love buying a new LP, taking it home, holding it, record edges to fingertips (musn't touch the surface;)) , I always read both sides of the label, and checked the run-out area for any cryptic inscriptions before playing.

Cd's just don't seem that rewarding in comparison, and certainly don't sound as good.
Mind you, making C90's for the car was one right PIA

-marko.

I wasn't gonna share this coz it's painfull, but a few years ago, I pulled all that vinyl downstairs, re-arranged the living room for a week and set about recording the lot. I was in heaven. Such fun. After 5 days or so, I'm settling down, enjoying the fruits of my labour, and after a while, I notice that, while "singing along" in my head or otherwise, I kept falling behind. Now these are tracks I know 'really' well. I simply wouldn't fall behind on them. Closer investigation showed me that on average, I was losing 20 seconds out of a 3 - 4 minute track. The darn turntable was running too fast. Really gutted. I carried on a few more days, telling myself it wasn't really all that bad, but in the end, I gave up. It's only the tracks I know that well that I spot it on, and it spoils a track that should be spot on.
I've still got the files, but they're flagged and I tend to stay away from them because they just tick me off when they get ahead of me!!
Ach well...
onwards and upwards, eh

[modelmaker]

I had a similar problem with my 25 year old Thorens turntable when I started my conversion process. I got in touch with Thorens and as it turned out they supplied me with a new motor and a half a dozen belts - free of charge. I purchased a new Ortofon cartridge and I was in business. (You should replace a cartridge after about 10-15 years even if you haven't used it much as the pickup magnets loose their magnetism which affects just about everything; output level, freg response, ch. separation,etc.).

I had the same problem with my TEAC reel to reel. The motor magnets had also lost their magnetism rusulting in a total lack of tork. In this case I had to buy 3 new motors and 6 heads (auto reverse) and am in the process of rebuilding the deck now. It's worth it to me as I have about 300 10 in. reels (all dbx encoded) of music, much of is not available today even on CD.

BTW Marco, I answered your question earlier.


Listening to: 'Supper's Ready' from '1972 - Foxtrot' by 'Genesis' on Media Center 10

[marko]

BTW Marco, I answered your question earlier.

So you did!! I missed it I kinda skimmed over that section where we were talking about [web site removed].com

i guess we were talking about the russians, but don't know for sure.

Interesting stuff. You got any blockbuster movies you can name-drop about? Drop me a pic of your hobby models/layout if you like.

When time permits, my hobby will be photography, the landscape variety. I've been 'warming up' lately, trying to learn what makes a good shot and what doesn't.

Companies that chose to do things like thorens did for you really rock btw, nice for you and thumbs up for them.
My turntable was consigned to the municipal dump shortly afterwards. As I tossed it in the compactor, I told myself that one day, I would be able to pay serious cash for a decent turntable, and have a room just for kicking back, listening to tunes and chatting with friends. There would be no TV in this room. I reckon I may have missed the boat on that one as I can't see it happening anywhere in the near future. I've not given up completely though.
Then we can play "what cartridge" as opposed to "what codec"

-marko.