Why This File?…
I have been adding to this file over time as I read what everyone has to say about file formats, size & etc. I keep it to provide some helpful information to the new user in hopes of helping users make an educated decision about which format & bit-rate is “best” (for them).
I to, was very confused when I first started ripping my CD’s to Media Players several years ago. I started like many others by ripping at much too high a bit-rate as I had no real idea what was really “best” (for me). I have gone through many players & several file formats over the years. After much experimentation, I finally came up with the perfect mix of format & bit-rate that worked “best” (for me). You “mix” may well be something entirely different, but maybe this article will help you to get started in the right direction or at least give you something concrete to think about.
It’s Up To You…
Any file format produces great sound if it is recorded at a high enough bit-rate. But, we all have limitations of one from or another to contend with. Disk size, how much of a hurry we are in, our age, musical listening habits, the quality of your speakers, personal preferences, & etc all contribute to the “best” recording format for you.
So… there is no so-called “best” recording format”. It all depends on your special requirements. For me that works out to WMA at 96KB. For you, it may be something entirely different.
The File Format Test…
About 6-8 months ago PC Magazine had an article about a double blind test that was done comparing the quality of various ripped audio files to the original CD.
The intent was to see which ripping format came closes to the original CD in sound quality at the lowest possible bit rate.
There were several listeners in the group. They were given direct A-B comparisons but were not told what was currently playing… the original CD or a ripped file.
Various styles of music were played. All tests were done in stereo.
All listeners could tell the difference at 48kb, most could still tell the difference at 64kb, then an amazing thing happened… at 96kb, with WMA ripped files, most could not tell the difference. A few that thought they could were only right half the time.
All other formats at 96kb were obvious to most listeners with MP3 being among the worse.
Most other formats had to play at 192kb (or higher) to come close to CD quality.
The results, according to the article, was that WMA was the best format for using the lowest amount of disk usage, is fast to rip, has very high quality at low bit rates, & is reliable.
The JRiver Plug-In page says that WMA Encoder is… “Very fast and reliable”.
This all goes to confirms what Microsoft has been saying about WMA all along.
A Second Thought About This...
When I only had a 1.6 GB drive, I needed to conserve space by encoding at the lowest bit rate. I noticed that the spectrum analyzer showed a high frequency drop off at 48kb when encoded with Real Audio or WMA as compared to the original CD. At 64kb it was not as noticeable, at 80kb non existent. So… I went to 96kb & have been very happy with it.
The sound is great. I have 10 speakers on my system (front, center, left, right, & rear right & left).
Every time I think I hear a flaw in the sound, I play the original CD & usually find the flaw was on the CD.
I read a lot about ripping at higher bit rates but think it mostly depends on the format.
Are there other considerations other then apparent sound quality, frequency response, etc that I may be missing?
What do you think? Read on.
Some More Thoughts On Ripping Speeds & Formats…
People often rip at to high a speed as they think that is the only way to go. It all comes down to… the file format, your age, listening style, music preferences, & drive space.
Age & Hearing Abilities…
Unfortunately human hearing, being what it is, can be very deceiving & we often are not aware of some of our human limitations.
For older listeners you might try WMA at even lower ripping speeds such as 80kb or even 64kb to save even more space. As we grow older we all experience a progressive loss in high frequency hearing ability. This creeps up on us so slowly that we are usually not aware of the high frequency loss. So it depends on who is actually listening to the music… a young or older person. If you are the only one listening to the music, then rip it at a speed commensurate to your hearing abilities. If others are going to listen to it, you might rip at a slightly higher kb rate.
The ripping speed also depends on how you normally listen to your music.
The Casual Listener…
For casual (or background) listening, select a lower ripping speed (in WMA that would be 80 or 64kb) as you will not be concentrating on the music & will not notice small flaws in the music.
The Serious Listener…
If you are a serious listener (you are doing nothing else but concentrating only on the music, there are no other distracting noises, there are no other people in the area to distract you, etc) then rip at a higher bit rate to make sure you are getting every little nuance (with WMA that would be 96 or 128kb but I see no need to go any higher under any condition).
Music Preferences…
If you only like the gut wrenching, chest pounding of really big bass with little real high frequency instruments, then a lower bit rate is all you really need as there is little high frequency content. We’re talking 64kb or maybe 80kb.
If your style is more to jazz or classical (which has a broad spectrum of frequencies) then use a higher bit rate. 80 - 96kb. A lot of very high frequency (& you are young & have high end speakers) 128kb might be marginally better.
If vocals are your thing, then we are talking about mid frequencies (but don’t forget the musical instruments). 64 – 80kb should be fine.
Drive Size…
If you are limited on available space then rip at the lowest bit rate possible that produces acceptable sound such as 48 – 80kb.
If drive space is not a problem, then use the best bit rate for your age, listening style, & music preferences.
By the way, I no longer have the 1.6 GB drive that started my search for a better & smaller ripping format. I currently have 200 GB of high speed drive space at ATA 133 RAID 0 array. But I still use WMA at 96kb as it simply “does the job” & I see no need to go to any faster ripping speed.
And Lastly, the Microsoft Myth…
I hear from some people about WMA being from Microsoft…
“There are to many strings attached”, or “I don’t trust them”, or “They might be secretly taking information from my computer”.
This is absolute nonsense! Let’s be realistic. WMA is a simple file format & that’s all it is. If it was doing funny things it would have to be much larger then it is. After all, WMA produces some of the smallest files out there. Also Microsoft would have much better ways to get information from you through the Windows operating system itself as few of us has any idea what they all do.
So forget the Microsoft nonsense & simply enjoy the great music.
Author
Topic: What Is The Best Format II (Read 1075 times)