Print

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

[boboso]

Which is better for storing music on the PC as well as burning onto a CD.  I currently save all my library as WMA (128) and burn onto CD (CDA).

Also, what is normalization and should I do it to my saved songs?  I cannot find a normalization menu on MJ, does this only need to be done to MP3s during burning?

Thanks!

[ChicoSelfs]

Btw MP3 or WMA? I prefer OGG

[shdbcamping]

if you are ever going to get a cd player that decodes compressed files, MP3 will give you more options as it is more supported by hardware. I have a kenwood cd player (it plays MP3 files also) in my van and it's nice to burn a data disk of MP3's and get 90 to 150 songs on a cd (depending on bitrate). I prefer 192k bitrate, but 160k LAME encoded is the lowest i would go.
Hope this helps.
Sean

[ChicoSelfs]

But BTW MP3 or WMA i prefer MP3 Because it's popular and it sound better than WMA and don't have that #4%&""# DRM

[Blaine]

I much prefer *.WMA because I think it sounds better.  I compared two 128 bitrates of With a Little Help From My Friends and thought that the high end in the MP3 had some artifacts that I didn't like.  If I remember, I was using the Xing encoder.  I have since acquired a number of other MP3 encoders but have not revisited this since my player supports WMA.

[michel]

I was using the Xing encoder

I have ever heard about Xing encoder as the worst one. Its only advantage was speed encoding (a few years ago it was an important advantage).

You could try LAME.

[rocketsauce]

Yes, generally Xing is considered to be one of the worst sounding mp3 encoders.

MP3 Encoder Comparison:
http://www.modatic.net/audio/mp3_encoder_comparison.php

WMA is probably fine at low bitrates for listening on a portable, but at higher bitrates and better listening equipment, LAME using the --alt-presets is is definitely the way to go.

Recommended LAME Compiles: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=478&s=54e0168e421baf7990161b4b52074f31

Recommended LAME Settings:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=203&s=54e0168e421baf7990161b4b52074f31

Because of the DRM (digital rights management) features that are built in to WMA, it is highly not recommended for storing or archiving.  It is conceivable that at some point, Microsoft might choose to no longer support WMA that was encoded without the DRM features enabled, so all of your old files could become unplayable.

Also, if you are really interested in storing your music in a high quality format, think about using lossless encoders like Monkey's Audio (APE) or FLAC.

Check out the rest of the Hydrogen Audio forums for info on high quality audio compression

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/

As for normalization, you should do a search of this forum and the Hydrogen Audio forums for info on what it does and why you probably shouldn't do it.  If you are using Media Jukebox, it would be better to use the built in Replay Gain feature for volume leveling of your files during playback.  You should also search this forum and Hydrogen Audio for Replay Gain info.


Rob

[zevele10]

Xing is not good on any CBR -not bad on VBR

Normalisation is a kind of equaliser making all your songs at the same level.BUT CHANGING THE FILE.You cannot get the original file.If you play a full album instead of a playlist,all your album would sound at the same level.

Replay-gain in MJ gives you the same effect but keep your files as they are.If you wantto listen or burn a full album,setting Replay-gain off would give you the original sound.

Read about regain-play in MJ help.THIS IS THE WAY TO GO,NOT NORMALISATION

[dp526]

I have never understood the DRM arguments of WMA.  If you uncheck the protection box you can trade them just like mp3's.  

wma 9 sounds great.  A cd packed with 96 kbs .wma files will play for almost 18 hours and sound just as good as mp3's encoded at 128kbs.

It might be true that the ogg format would sound even better, but who has a working device that plays ogg.  Only you and your computer knows for sure.

Personally I use both mp3 and wma.  On my computer I encode at 160 kbs.  When I travel I convert those files to 96 kbs wma files and load them on a 512 meg cf card
for my nex II.  I get almost 12 hours of music on the card.  

[zevele10]

There is :
DRM as you say,if you did not check ,you are "free'
                      BUT
There is DRM when microsoft ,NOT YOU,would decide what is 'free' or not

But look like people are like animals:they have to be burn to understant what a fire is

[rocketsauce]

I have never understood the DRM arguments of WMA.  If you uncheck the protection box you can trade them just like mp3's.

Yes, currently you can choose to disable the DRM features of WMA.  However, it is conceivable  that future versions of Microsoft operating systems might not allow those "unlicensed" files to be played or transferred between different computers.  This makes WMA unsuitable for storing or archiving.

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/02/11/020211opfoster.xml

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=17&t=3589&hl=palladium&s=34d4ba74ce766be9b02eee0b178b3552

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=17&t=3188&hl=palladium&s=34d4ba74ce766be9b02eee0b178b3552

A cd packed with 96 kbs .wma files will play for almost 18 hours and sound just as good as mp3's encoded at 128kbs.

At low bitrates WMA is fine, but at higher bitrates (160kbps and above), LAME MP3 using --alt-presets, MPC, OGG are definitely better.

Rob

[kirkfrey]

I think this is yet another holy war.  I have my entire CD library encoded with 128 or 160 bit WMA.  I am in the process of re-encoding the whole thing (12000+ songs) into WMA VBR at the highest bitrate.  On the whole I think that the best argument against WMA is lack of support (although that is getting to be less true).  I read a review in Sound and Vision that did a blind comparison of 2 or 3 versions of MP3 and WMA against the original CD.  WMA was the clear winner.  Sorry I don’t have a link to the article.

I know that I have been “snubbed” by people for being a M$ lover and “mindlessly” following them but I did a lot of research (listening/trying) when I went thru this the first time last year and came up with WMA.  I know others that have come to the same conclusion.  I don’t mind it and guess what, I can play my music on just about ANY pc WITHOUT having to install anything (its already there)…..

Pick one and stick with it is my only strong suggestion.

[rocketsauce]

I read a review in Sound and Vision that did a blind comparison of 2 or 3 versions of MP3 and WMA against the original CD.  WMA was the clear winner.

I searched thru some of the Sound and Vision archives that are available at their site and didn't come across one on format comparisons.  Maybe it's an older article that they don't have online.  In any event, it's not unusual for mainstream publications to overlook the LAME encoder when doing these comparisons.  Depending on what software they used, I would guess they probably encoded with Xing, Blade and Fraunhofer.

MP3 Encoder Comparison: http://www.modatic.net/audio/mp3_encoder_comparison.php

Anyway, my point regarding WMA was not so much about sound quality (you should definitely use whatever sounds best to you), but more about it's suitability for longer-term storing and archiving of a music collection.

This quote is from an article I found on the Sound and Vision site:

Introduction to MP3: The MP3 Revolution

"Other digital music formats take copyright protection further. Liquid Audio, a2b music, and Microsoft’s Windows Media Audio, for example, allow rightsholders to incorporate a time-out mechanism, which automatically deletes a copied file after a given time, or to embed a computer or player’s serial number into a copy to prevent it from playing on another machine."

(Originally published: Sound & Vision, Dec. 1999. Updated April 24, 2001)

Now, I really have nothing against Microsoft, I use Windows and Office and am quite happy with them, but I would hate to find out down the road that my 12000 WMAs are useless because of DRM features that might be implemented in future MS operating systems.

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/02/11/020211opfoster.xml


Rob

[Galley]

Since my Clié and my Sony DVD Dream System only play MP3, then the choice has been made for me.  I would still choose MP3, probably.

All of the tracks I get from PressPlay are 128Kbps WMA's.

[kirkfrey]

I tried to find the article online also and could not.  It was done within the last 6 months so it may be laying around my house somewhere.  If I can find the issue I will post the month it was done in.

I guess I am not a scared about DRM as it seems the “masses” are.  There is little chance that anything would happen to your existing WMA’s, it might impact what you did from that future point on though.  And since I am not doing anything wrong (not inferring that anyone here is) I figure I don’t have too much to worry about anyway.  If they setup the pay per play or pay for a month worth of use and I don’t want to buy it that way, I’ll buy the CD and rip it myself…

Like I said, WMA support is not as popular as MP3 but it is gaining – my AudioTron (which is an AWESOME gadget) supports WMA.  There aren’t tons of utilities that support WMA, yet.  Most of the more popular programs do but you may want/need/have something that doesn’t, so that may make your decision for you.

[Ce.D]

Shortly put:

Many more HiFi/car/portable device supporting MP3 (actually, here in Switzerland, I've never seen any supporting WMA).

MP3 encoded with LAME-VBR (normal rate/high quality) -> 160-odd kb/s sounds just great.

We all know M$ is truly clever about changing its policies about its proprietary formats.