INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: WMA Ripping the best?  (Read 4109 times)

DocLotus

  • Guest
WMA Ripping the best?
« on: May 24, 2002, 09:01:22 am »

Hi guys & gals.
What do you think about this?

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, 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 as it is fast to rip, has very high quality at low bit rates, & is reliable.  This confirms what Microsoft has been saying about WMA.


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 guys think?
Logged

ChicoSelfs

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2002, 10:42:53 am »

yes wma is the best encoding that is, even better than Mp3Pro ( new format )

64Kbps 41.000 Mhz WMA----------- CD Quality
128 Kbps 41.000 Mhz MP3 -------- CD Quality
64 Kbps 22.500 Mhz  Mp3Pro------ CD Quality


That is what they say, but in real no one is the real cd quality but the better sound is given by the format WMA
My advice is;

-Pop and Other music:

Wma ----- 128 Kbps
Mp3 ----- 192 Kbps
Mp3Pro--- Don't use this new codec is very bad

-Classical Music;

Wma ---- 160 Kbps
Mp3 ---- 320 Kbps
Mp3Pro - X


I only have WMA @ 128 Kbps 44.100 Mhz ( is the better ) but the format @ 96 Hbps is very god but cuts some high frequencies
Logged
Made in Portugal

zevele1

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2002, 10:56:49 am »

When the wolfs back home or wake up.it will be funny to read the posts
Logged

DocLotus

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2002, 11:04:27 am »

Hi zevele10;

I know what you mean.  I just hope we don't get the Twilight Zone, X Files or other "outer space" kind of answers.
Logged

zevele1

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2002, 12:59:54 pm »

If,like you i had a small drive,as you i will try any format and take the one givin me the best space\sound deal.Better to have hundred songs at not the best format,than 5 songs at top hifi format
Logged

Darwyn

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2002, 02:02:27 pm »

If you need best quality at only 96 kbps. I have 3 letters for you: O,G,G!

I bet they didn't test any format other than mp3 and wma.
Logged

DocLotus

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2002, 03:43:46 pm »

They tested WMA, Real, MP3(both fixed & variable) & two others I can't remember.
Logged

Jazzwolf

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2002, 09:49:21 pm »

After reading the posts on this thread I did a test for myself. I re-ripped (is that a new word?) the Riverdance CD soundtrack that I had previously ripped at 192Kbps (mp3) to 96kbps (wma) I could'nt tell the difference. It DEFINITELY saves a lot of hard drive space, Yes, these ears are old and wornout but I'll be ripping a lot of stuff to WMA now. There is a lot of stuff that you just want on your hard drive for easy access.
Logged

Michel

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2002, 04:13:05 am »

> 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.

Read a test from these commercial pc sites (zdnet, cnet, pc mag, etc...) about any thing you know very well (because it is in the area of your job, for example) and you will understand that they don't have any value.
Logged

Michel

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2002, 04:24:18 am »

It would be better to use "rip" for the CD extraction part only, not for the compression part. Even if most of the cd extractors rip & convert at the same time, they are two different operations. Not all cd extractors provide the same file from the same cd-track so it is better to start from a same wav file to compare compression format such as mp3 and wma (and, of course, it is better to use a very good "ripper" such as EAC - I have not try MJ to rip yet).
Logged

DocLotus

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2002, 07:36:34 am »

Hi Michel;

That's why I made this post in the first place (to get input from others who may have more "hands on" experience with various ripping speeds using different formats).  Judging by the results so far, seems to be getting some great information on the subject.  Keep it coming!

Thanks DocLotus
Logged

Ilmar

  • Regular Member
  • World Citizen
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
  • JOATYou mean besides music?
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2002, 07:46:29 am »

Hi

My ears are old and chewed as well. I find OGG is very harsh in the upper frequencies, but again, I am told that we dont have the latest RC for this on MJ, so I reserve judgement.

I would not use Microsoft's WMA, as there are always too many strings attached with MS.

I stick to MP3 VBR 192 or thereabouts.

Ilmar
Logged
Ilmar

"We make a living by what we get,
But we make a life by what we give"
     Sir WInston Churchill

DocLotus

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2002, 09:15:43 am »

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 the a little 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.
Logged

ChicoSelfs

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2002, 10:25:01 am »

i'm in your side
Logged
Made in Portugal

zevele1

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2002, 10:30:21 am »

I do not get your storie "age/hearing"
Look like Media Jukebox is use by 80\90 years old people.............

Most of people on this forum are -for the older part-45/55 years old
You mean that you start to be deaf? This i do not buy.

I am 52,i play music ONLY loud,being and still going to many concerts
Because of it,every year,year and a half,i do tests,and they are good
I will play less loud if i have any problem.I know many people like me,and they do not have any problem
Look quite strange that many of you say
Logged

KingSparta

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 20049
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2002, 10:32:55 am »

>> WMA is a simple file format & that’s all it is.
It also Seeks Out All Your Personal Information And Sends It In Encoded Packets To Microsoft So they Can See What Pirated Microsoft Software You Have On Your Computer.

They May Be Coming After You Next

MBI (Microsoft Bureau Of Investigation)

it is Listed as Ultra Top Secret so that’s why no one knows about it.


Listening to: 'Secret Agent Man' from 'The Guess Who' by 'The Guess Who' on Media Jukebox
Logged
Retired Military, Airborne, Air Assault, And Flight Wings.
Model Trains, Internet, Ham Radio
https://MyAAGrapevines.com
https://centercitybbs.com
Fayetteville, NC, USA

zevele1

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2002, 10:44:50 am »

King
If what you say is true,there is program to make your Windows look like registered to MIcrosoft
Logged

KingSparta

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 20049
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2002, 10:51:50 am »

I found out lately that microsoft can turn on my web cam's (I have two of them hooked up)


High Energy
Listening to: 'Electricity' from 'Greatest Hits' by 'Midnight Star' on Media Jukebox
Logged
Retired Military, Airborne, Air Assault, And Flight Wings.
Model Trains, Internet, Ham Radio
https://MyAAGrapevines.com
https://centercitybbs.com
Fayetteville, NC, USA

Mr Rogers

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2002, 11:24:50 am »

Mr Royal Moderator:

>> WMA is a simple file format & that’s all it is.
It also Seeks Out All Your Personal Information And Sends It In Encoded Packets To Microsoft So they Can See What Pirated Microsoft Software You Have On Your Computer.
They May Be Coming After You Next

MBI (Microsoft Bureau Of Investigation)

it is Listed as Ultra Top Secret so that’s why no one knows about it.


Pretty strong words from one of the newest 'official' moderators for the JRiver Company. Libelous actually, if untrue. So lets have some more details or a 'retraction' (or tell us what you're smokin' these days). I for one would be  extremely concerned about a Microsoft program that is reporting back information gleaned from their WMA sound format.

I am no lover of MS's standards and practices, but am even more against the frivolous rantings of someone who may or may not have their information correct!!!


DG
Logged

KingSparta

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 20049
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2002, 11:29:59 am »

Mr Rogers

lighten up, It's A Joke, Maybe You Don't Have Them Where You Live, Sorry

Listening to: 'Lies' from 'Side Kicks' by 'Thompson Twins' on Media Jukebox

also

Listening to: 'Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood' from 'Greatest Hits' by 'Television's Greatest Hits' on Media Jukebox
Logged
Retired Military, Airborne, Air Assault, And Flight Wings.
Model Trains, Internet, Ham Radio
https://MyAAGrapevines.com
https://centercitybbs.com
Fayetteville, NC, USA

Jazzwolf

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2002, 01:04:19 pm »

DocLotus,
I don't think anyone could have articulated that any better than you did. I'm getting on in years, 47 in a couple of months and I KNOW I don't hear the upper range like I used to. If you just hear hard rock or anything in the lower spectrum you won't notice. I've ripped a few Jethro Tull CD's today at 96kb WMA and I couldn't tell the difference between that and 192kb MP3 which is what I usually ripped at (past tense). I'm sticking with WMA.

KingSparta, I knew that was a joke and a darn good one at that

Now Playing: Jethro Tull - A Little Light Music (freshly ripped today on the WMA format)
Logged

Jazzwolf

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2002, 01:09:39 pm »

Zevele10,

DocLotus is correct, he is not saying that you go deaf but you start losing some hearing in the upper range. That is a scientific fact, he's not just coming up with stuff from out of the blue.
Logged

zevele1

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #22 on: May 25, 2002, 01:13:11 pm »

Not sure it is a joke
Because when Microsoft turn on King's webcam,I SEE HIM in my MJ8 visualization
Logged

Jazzwolf

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #23 on: May 25, 2002, 01:15:28 pm »

>>Not sure it is a joke
Because when Microsoft turn on King's webcam,I SEE HIM in my MJ8 visualization<<

So that's who that is? I thought it was part of the visualizations!
Logged

zevele1

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #24 on: May 25, 2002, 01:29:21 pm »

Jazzwolf
As you know i listen to music at very loud level,go to concerts,even use from time to time headphones
Because of it, i do hearing tests.If one day they told me i have a problem,you can understand that i will change my behaviour
They never said me anything about upper range.Can be that they 'skin 'the test according to your age.You have a very good hearing...FOR your age.Do not mean that you have a 100% hearing .Next time i will ask them
But,unlike you i do not have the feeling that i do not 'get' the upper range as i did before
Of cause this do not means that it is true
In your case ,you fell the difference in a short time.Mp3-wma all of it is is not more than few years old

Who knows,in few years maybe we will not be able to hear the scratchs from lp...in this case to rip them would be a fast task.No cleaning,nothing,just 'start'
Logged

JimH

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 7604
  • Miller drives a tall-masted tractor on the ocean
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #25 on: May 25, 2002, 01:34:19 pm »

Mr. Rogers,
Satire is Protected Speech.  It was funny.

Raving lunacy is part of the moderator's job description.  Doof was a little light in this department, but I expect the job to enhance his natural tendencies.  He's too young to be a full moon type yet.

But thank you for your efforts to police the forum.  It's truly appreciated.  Honest.

Jim
Logged
Jim Hillegass
JRiver Media Center / Media Jukebox

JimH

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 7604
  • Miller drives a tall-masted tractor on the ocean
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #26 on: May 25, 2002, 02:34:35 pm »

Uh, now I'm wondering if Mr. Rogers was doing a little satire himself.
Logged
Jim Hillegass
JRiver Media Center / Media Jukebox

zevele1

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #27 on: May 25, 2002, 03:28:13 pm »

Look like

My bet is Charlemagne 8
Logged

DocLotus

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #28 on: May 25, 2002, 04:06:39 pm »

I love this forum!!  The response is great.. both good & bad.  From it all I am gaining a new prospective on ripping styles.

KEEP IT COMING!!
Logged

JimH

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 7604
  • Miller drives a tall-masted tractor on the ocean
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #29 on: May 25, 2002, 04:12:32 pm »

Doc,
That's sarcasm.  I don't think it's protected.

Jim
Logged
Jim Hillegass
JRiver Media Center / Media Jukebox

Charlemagne 8

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1999
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #30 on: May 25, 2002, 05:53:09 pm »

Zevele,

"My bet is Charlemagne 8".

I'm just sitting here, minding my own business, which at this point is all of Interact's business, but generally just reading and all of the sudden (or is it " all of a sudden"), I'm dragged into this old people/hearing debate. I'm old and I hear good. I haven't had any tests done lately but I can still hear all of the "nuances" in recordings. The debate about bitrates is purely personal preference or "PP" as I call it (no reference to PhatPhreddie) as you rip the way you want to. If you feel that you can perceive the difference between
96 Kps WMA and APE files then you need to use APE because we're dealing with individual perceptions. Part of that process involves what you THINK you need. There are tests, admittedly electronic, that prove that one format/bitrate is better than another. Digital is "better" than analog. Digital may actually be better but we will still hear it in analog because that's what our ears are.
Don't underestimate what our ears are capable of, however. We can discern the difference in time of when a sound wave from a few hundred feet away reaches one ear and then the other. This way we can determine from which direction the sound came from. The approximate speed of sound is 750 MPH. The difference in distance of our ears from perpendicular to the sound source might be as little as a centimeter. In light of that, I am not amazed at anything that the ears can perceive.
If you like it, do it.
Besides that, I would NEVER accuse King of, well, anything. He has access to chemicals. Don't mess with him.
CVIII
Logged
That's right.
I'm cool.

DocLotus

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #31 on: June 07, 2002, 11:00:29 am »

Hi chicoselfs;

This is the thread that someone referred to.  Hope it helps.

Also please see the thread "Best File Format II" dated June 7th-02 for some more thoughts on ripping formats.
Logged

ChicoSelfs

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #32 on: June 07, 2002, 07:42:50 pm »

The real problem to me is that there are too much formats and each one says that is the best and we ( me ) are confused , sincerely i can't tell te difference between WMA@128Kbps or CD quality or even OggVbr i like very much the sound of WMA but are people how says that microsoft do this of do that much mambo jambo. I stick with WMA because of the size and quality if anyone Knows of a format with REAL quality CD and very small size let me now.


Thanks DocLotus for the tips

Chicoselfs
Portugal
Logged
Made in Portugal

Tej1

  • Guest
RE:WMA Ripping the best?
« Reply #33 on: June 07, 2002, 08:46:41 pm »

My personal opinion with ZDNet and PC Magazine is that their reviews tend to be a little biased towards their advertisers, with Microsoft being one of the biggest (been a reader since the 8088 days). Again, that's just My Opinion; you are of course entitled to your own, and I'm not trying to start a flame war.

I'd suggest you check out the following links and form your own opinions. After all, they are your ears Next Page

http://users.du.se/~kdo/mpc/mp3misconcept.htm (bottom of page)
http://www.epinions.com/content_1896915076
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1364 (long read)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showthread.php?s=49eb8c8f0dfa3ce0f028cc0d53512e1f&threadid=2032 (this is what they think about media jukebox - note the last entry Next Page
http://r3mix.net/
http://66.96.216.160/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?board=c&action=display&num=1017905544 (www.audiofora.com)
http://66.96.216.160/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?board=faq
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up