WMA 192 equates to what in Mp3?
Mar 19, 2007 at 6:25 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 41
String Section

String Section

New Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 25, 2006
Posts
29
Likes
11
Along with lots of juvenile anti-Microsoft blather, I've found lots of [contradictory] information regarding the comparisons of WMA and Mp3 at LOW BITRATES, but next to nothing when it comes to comparing the highest fidelity each format has to offer.

Based on it's fidelity to the Redbook CD, what Mp3 bitrate is most similar to WMA 192?

If you have detected a difference in sound quality, please try to describe the differences you hear.

Thanks.
 
Mar 19, 2007 at 10:27 PM Post #2 of 41
I read somewhere that 192 Kbps WMA is about equal to 320 Kbps MP3. Have not yet had time to perform a critical comparison, but would like to hear from someone that has.
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 1:04 AM Post #4 of 41
Quote:

Along with lots of juvenile anti-Microsoft blather, I've found lots of [contradictory] information regarding the comparisons of WMA and Mp3 at LOW BITRATES, but next to nothing when it comes to comparing the highest fidelity each format has to offer.


Yeah, I know that's frustrating, but it's mostly because at high bitrates it becomes very difficult for most test subjects to reliably resolve a difference between formats so the tests tend to focus on lower bitrates where there might be interesting differences to report.

Second point, the MP3 format has been around a long time and there are many encoders of various vintages and some are definitely better than others. So any discussion of 'MP3' has to specify the encoder in order to be meaningful.

All that said, and assuming we are discussing a modern, stare-of-the-art MP3 encoder (such as the current version of LAME) then it it doubtful that you will be able to detect any audible difference between that and WMA (or any other format, or even the source material for that matter) when you get to bitrates of 192 and above. Use Foobar or PCABX and make some blind comparisons and you can prove this yourself.

Bottom line, if you are going to encode in the higher bitrate ranges then I wouldn't waste much time worrying about which format is superior, rather just choose one that is supported by all devices you might encounter. For that reason MP3 is a very common choice since it is by far the most widely supported.
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 8:07 AM Post #7 of 41
How do you know that?
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 9:50 AM Post #9 of 41
Quote:

Originally Posted by johnbon /img/forum/go_quote.gif
WMA holds twice the bitrate capacity of mp3

So whatever your listening at, it's double that.


From what I've read that only holds true for older Lame Codec and low bitrates. Its much closer at higher bitrates. But I've not done extensive tests myself. Why use WMA if you can use MP3 which is better supported at the expense of a little bit of disk space.
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 10:16 AM Post #10 of 41
I have been using WMA for years because, to my ears, it sounds better than MP3, using any Lame that I have tried (though I have not tried the most recent version). I find WMA more dynamic with a somewhat better soundstage whlie I find MP3 to have an edgy, almost like the sound of the early transistor equipment. I understand that it is fashionable to bash Microsoft and I share the view that their software is overly bloated and I do not like their business practices. I do think that WMA is, however, more musical.

The differences are most pronounced in the earlier iRiver DAPs, but I am currently loving highbitrate WMA on my Zune.

I know that not everybody agrees with me, but these are my ears. YMMV, but then again, maybe not.

Barry
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 10:26 AM Post #11 of 41
Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I have been using WMA for years because, to my ears, it sounds better than MP3, using any Lame that I have tried (though I have not tried the most recent version). I find WMA more dynamic with a somewhat better soundstage whlie I find MP3 to have an edgy, almost like the sound of the early transistor equipment. I understand that it is fashionable to bash Microsoft and I share the view that their software is overly bloated and I do not like their business practices. I do think that WMA is, however, more musical.

The differences are most pronounced in the earlier iRiver DAPs, but I am currently loving highbitrate WMA on my Zune.

I know that not everybody agrees with me, but these are my ears. YMMV, but then again, maybe not.

Barry


I can support this. LAME MP3 requires a lot of experimenting with the switches to get them artifacts free. And on songs which is congested/peaky LAME can be edgy as well but with the latest LAME 3.98 that has been somewhat supressed with the new VBR presets.
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 11:23 AM Post #13 of 41
Quote:

Originally Posted by johnbon /img/forum/go_quote.gif
WMA holds twice the bitrate capacity of mp3

So whatever your listening at, it's double that.


This is Microsoft propaganda. I don't believe that it has ever been verified in any competent listening test.
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 11:28 AM Post #14 of 41
Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I have been using WMA for years because, to my ears, it sounds better than MP3, using any Lame that I have tried (though I have not tried the most recent version). I find WMA more dynamic with a somewhat better soundstage whlie I find MP3 to have an edgy, almost like the sound of the early transistor equipment. I understand that it is fashionable to bash Microsoft and I share the view that their software is overly bloated and I do not like their business practices. I do think that WMA is, however, more musical.

The differences are most pronounced in the earlier iRiver DAPs, but I am currently loving highbitrate WMA on my Zune.

I know that not everybody agrees with me, but these are my ears. YMMV, but then again, maybe not.

Barry


Well you have to go with what you like. I've heard this said before about WMA. Its not unlike those (myself included) who reckon ATRAC is one of the more natural sounding codecs compared to MP3's. My main problem with WMA is its not supported on everything, and I prefer to keep my library as generic as possible. I've run into problem using VBR MP3's on car decks and some portables, so I tend to avoid anything even left of center.
 
Mar 20, 2007 at 12:44 PM Post #15 of 41
WMA hasn't done well on Hydrogen Audio tests against LAME MP3, AAC or Ogg Vorbis. I haven't seen tests with 10 though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top