[applaudio]

Okay, I'll get this out of the way from the start: I already tried HydrogenAudio but found their website difficult to search or navigate, and couldn't find any decent threads on the topic even though I'm guessing it's a very popular topic around there. Also, I know there have been threads on similar topics around here already, but none with quite the same spin that my question puts on it.

Anyway, I've focused a lot on what headphones to buy, then I started to realize I might need a higher bit rate to truly take advantage of my new 'phones when I get them. Currently I have about 100 songs ripped to my new 8 GB Sansa, all in a 128 kbps constant bit rate MP3 format using the Windows Media Player 10 'Rip' tab to rip and encode them.

However, I've been experimenting with a WMA VBR (having read about how much better quality you can get with the same space if you use a variable bit rate) format averaging just under 300 kbps. Of course, I can't tell a difference between it, the 128 kbps, or for that matter, the original CD format because of having no half-decent speakers or headphones to use just yet.

So, I'm wondering how WMA compares to MP3 format. I've read WMA sounds more metallic, read it keeps more of the original frequency spectrum, read it sounds slightly worse, read it beats everything including AAC and Ogg Vorbis, read it gets its tail whipped by virtually every other popular format, blah blah blah.

Does the codec used even make any measurable difference in sound quality, or is it all just psychological or a matter of personal preference?

In other words, how would a VBR WMA averaging just under 300 kbps be, in terms of sound quality? Could I lower the bit rate slightly and hear no difference with any headphone under $200? Should I download software to encode a VBR MP3 format instead? Should I consider purchasing a hot tub? Using an herbal auditory enhancement product? Eating bat dung with my eyes closed and one foot in the air?

What do you recommend?

 

[stevenkelby]

I say don't use WMA as it's not compatible with future sources you may want to play it on. Many portable units don't do WMA. If you must use lossy, which is probably sensible for you with only 8GB and no intention of high-end gear. If you do get good gear and have the ears to make it worthwhile, the difference between lossy and lossless is noticeable.

The best MP3 is LAME, not ripped from WMP. Rip your CDs with EAC. There are some good EAC threads here, just search. 256kbps VBR will give the best sound/size compromise in my opinion.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Does the codec used even make any measurable difference in sound quality, or is it all just psychological or a matter of personal preference?

At lower bitrates listening tests can sometimes resolve a difference between formats. At 192 kbps and above very few could separate them out in a blind test, or even differentiate them from the source for that matter.

But I agree with the advice not to lock yourself into any manufacturer-specific format because vendors love to play games (Apple doesn't support .WMA, many other players don't support .AAC, etc.) so MP3 is a pretty good choice in that it is essentially universally supported by all players and platforms. Using other formats may limit your choice of players in the future (unless you don't mind re-encoding everything.) .AAC is slowly becoming more widely supported so it may be a good choice as well (if it is DRM-free, of course.)

 

[SactoMan101]

The fortunate thing is that .AAC is more widely accepted, with Creative players now starting to support the format natively.

Since I use iTunes 7.4.2 to rip my CD collection, I'm getting very nice results at either 192 or 256 kbps data rate VBR with either AAC or MP3 encoding.

 

[JeffS]

As a general rule of thumb, I recommend ripping to FLAC to archive on your computer. Then convert to whatever format works best for your player. Peronally I set mine for LAME VBR and let it go. The advantage is, that when I change players, I can transcode from a lossless format to whatever works best for my situation.

I've got a 20gig Karma right now. I can do FLAC directly or used something more compressed for space. Since I'm still drooling over the UI of the new ipod touch, I'd obviously recompress to a reasonable level to deal with having less space. Especially since I'd want room for movies.

Don't lock yourself into a codec that will permantly lose informtion.

I've listened to WMA at 192, and to be honest, I think it sounds pretty good. It's certainly good enough for my portable use (commuting). I don't know that it would stand up to critical listening, but that's up to your ears.

good luck
-Jeff

 

[Lord Chaos]

I recommend doing some testing. When you get your new 'phones, get used to them and then start comparing the various formats you're interested in. Don't get all hung up in the last gnat's eyelash of quality. What you're looking for is "good enough for me."

I'd further recommend staying away from WMA for the reasons mentioned above. Stay with MP3. Rip at various rates and compare with the original CD. Give this some time. Live with it for a month or so and see which way you start to lean. You're only into it for a hundred songs right now, which is a good place to start. It's really bad to change formats after 14,000 songs, which is what I did because I didn't do the research beforehand.

 

[Febs]

This page has the results of a multiformat 128kbps listening test conducted in December of 2005 by Hydrogen Audio member Sebastian Mares. The results ard summarized in this table, which shows that there was no statistically significant difference reported between WMA and several other codecs, including LAME 3.97:

 

[MDDrew]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevenkelby /img/forum/go_quote.gif I say don't use WMA as it's not compatible with future sources you may want to play it on. Many portable units don't do WMA. .

many portable units dont do aac

most portable units support mp3/wma stddo some testing on you own to see if you like wma .

 

[luckypictures]

I've got most of my collection in WMA. My current player uses it, and I plan on continuing to use it. It's encoded at 192kbps, and sounds just fine to me. No, it doesn't sound as good as the original, but it takes a hell of a lot of listening to notice. And if I'm using them on a portable player (read: not sitting still with no distractions), it's quite hard to notice.
Keep in mind, if you want to try it out, there is a WM9 lossless codec. Then you can convert from there. But I second the advice from others. Take a few of your favorite songs, encode them with different codecs/bitrates, and pick the one you like. One advantage to WMA that I can think of is that most players right at higher battery life if you only use WMA.

 

[roncri]

What do you use if you already have your collection in WMA but need it converted to MP3 for portability? That's the problem I'm having now and I don't want to re-rip everything.

 

[applaudio]

Update:
I've installed EAC and LAME and have begun ripping in 256k CBR, although I may start to rip in 192k VBR. Anyway, so far, so good. No Irritating pops or clicks or skips so far, like I got with Windows Media Player.




Quote:

Originally Posted by roncri /img/forum/go_quote.gif What do you use if you already have your collection in WMA but need it converted to MP3 for portability? That's the problem I'm having now and I don't want to re-rip everything.

I don't think you want to be converting from WMA into MP3 unless your WMA files are lossless or a very high bit rate. Otherwise, you're compressing an already highly compressed file, and I would think significant data loss would be the inevitable result, no matter how good the re-encoding job was.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif This page has the results of a multiformat 128kbps listening test conducted in December of 2005 by Hydrogen Audio member Sebastian Mares. The results ard summarized in this table, which shows that there was no statistically significant difference reported between WMA and several other codecs, including LAME 3.97:

Febs good site. I haven't been on Hydrogen in forever, but this test is WMA Pro, is that supported widely now?

As others have mentioned when you have open source codecs (Ogg Vorbis) or widely supported open standard codecs (AAC/MP4, MP3), I'm not sure with no SQ advantages with WMA, why you'd go that route unless you really had a preference for a specific player/organizer.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Febs good site. I haven't been on Hydrogen in forever, but this test is WMA Pro, is that supported widely now?

Oops, you're right. Here's a similar test that uses WMA standard: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multifo...8/results.html

Though that test is somewhat dated, I think that the results generally support exactly what you said in the other part of your post:

As others have mentioned when you have open source codecs (Ogg Vorbis) or widely supported open standard codecs (AAC/MP4, MP3), I'm not sure with no SQ advantages with WMA, why you'd go that route unless you really had a preference for a specific player/organizer.[/QUOTE]

I would never use WMA because (1) I've never seen (or heard) any credible evidence that it is better than MP3 at the bitrates that I'm using and (2) it's compatible with fewer players than MP3.

 

[Jon118]

But what version of WMA is that in the tests? The newest WMA is supposed to easily be the best. That said, there still isn't enough of a difference to matter I would bet. I generally use WMA, just because it's supported on the Zune, but some of my stuff is in MP3.

 

[luckypictures]

I think we need a confirmation on the type of player being used.