[Illah]

For a time there I had began to favor WMA over MP3, but lately I've learned of the many different MP3 plugins available. Now I decode MP3 24bit padded to 32.

In Foobar does this decoding apply to WMA also? If not would you recommend I go back to 256Kbps VBR MP3?

--Illah

 

[commando]

I don't think foobar does wma, you might find a plugin for it though. Personally I use FLAC, but it's a fair bit bigger than mp3. From what I read wma is better than mp3 at a given bitrate, but i'd stick with the standards rather than use M$ stuff.

 

[breez]

I think it will apply to any file played, but the decoding isn't half as important as the encoding. Crap encoder will give you crap even at 320kbps

If you want MP3s, use the LAME encoder with the built-in application presets. Those are heavily tweaked modes which will give the best possible quality for the bitrate (in MP3 format).

If you aren't restricted to MP3/WMA because of a portable or something else, I suggest using either Ogg Vorbis or Musepack which are both better formats than MP3 or WMA for compression quality.

Here's a site with a lot of software for ripping and encoding audio:
http://rarewares.org/

For Ogg Vorbis you will find that there are a lot of different builds with different 'tunings' (some of which aren't yet added to the official encoder from xiph.org). I'm not sure which is the latest and the greatest, but I think the ones labelled "MegaMix2" are quite recent developments. With Ogg Vorbis you should use the -q # (where # is a number between 0-10) settings.

For LAME there is also some different builds. Some prefer the 3.90.3 while some prefer the newer ones.

Happy encoding!

 

[sigma]

http://foobar2000.blogsite.org/

Plugin if you don't already have it.

 

[ixeo]

i've been using MP3 for a very long time now, and recently adopted FLAC. i have tried wma numerous times and and i do not like it at all.

to me, on the same bitrate, compared to MP3, it sounded very shrill, or, in a way, high treble. makes the music sound very...robot-like.

with MP3, use the lame codec and the alt-preset modes. plus, with mp3, you know its supported everywhere, portables, computers & macs, CDP w/mp3 support (excludes certain sony products)

 

[comabereni]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ixeo i've been using MP3 for a very long time now, and recently adopted FLAC. i have tried wma numerous times and and i do not like it at all. to me, on the same bitrate, compared to MP3, it sounded very shrill, or, in a way, high treble. makes the music sound very...robot-like. with MP3, use the lame codec and the alt-preset modes. plus, with mp3, you know its supported everywhere, portables, computers & macs, CDP w/mp3 support (excludes certain sony products)

I recently ABX'd 192kbps WMA ripped using Windows Media Player 9 from a quality CD to a lossless WAV file of the same song captured with Exact Audio Copy.

After 1/2-hour of careful scrutinization (Foobar with WMA plug-in set to kernel streaming, 24-bit padded to 32, etc. etc. and using the equipment listed below), and ensuring the test was conducted "double-blind", I made my decision which was the 1,411kbps (26 MB) WAV file and which was the 192kbps (3.58 MB) WMA file.

I guessed wrong.

I believe, and have other evidence to suggest that, I am possessed of a high degree of perceptual sensitivity, and refuse to accept otherwise. Nor do I think my equipment is sucking the bottom of the barrel. Still, I clearly missed. Incidentally, when I listened to the two files with the technical info showing, I was positive I could tell a difference.

Finally, I'm not an official member of "Team Mid-Fi", or "Team Downgrade"--I'm simply stating factually what the results of my objectively administered self-test were, and that at least for my current setup, I was unable to discern convincingly between lossless and 192kbps WMA.

I won't extend my observations directly to the abilities others, but would be very interested to bring my WAV vs. WMA test to bear on others using my headphones and playing my source. I doubt the difference would be easily and readily apparent. Perhaps with your $1,000 DAC, Emmeline Stealth and $1,500 headphones? I wonder.

 

[ixeo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by comabereni I recently ABX'd 192kbps WMA ripped using Windows Media Player 9 from a quality CD to a lossless WAV file of the same song captured with Exact Audio Copy. After 1/2-hour of careful scrutinization (Foobar with WMA plug-in set to kernel streaming, 24-bit padded to 32, etc. etc. and using the equipment listed below), and ensuring the test was conducted "double-blind", I made my decision which was the 1,411kbps (26 MB) WAV file and which was the 192kbps (3.58 MB) WMA file. I guessed wrong. I believe, and have other evidence to suggest that, I am possessed of a high degree of perceptual sensitivity, and refuse to accept otherwise. Nor do I think my equipment is sucking the bottom of the barrel. Still, I clearly missed. Incidentally, when I listened to the two files with the technical info showing, I was positive I could tell a difference. Finally, I'm not an official member of "Team Mid-Fi", or "Team Downgrade"--I'm simply stating factually what the results of my objectively administered self-test were, and that at least for my current setup, I was unable to discern convincingly between lossless and 192kbps WMA. I won't extend my observations directly to the abilities others, but would be very interested to bring my WAV vs. WMA test to bear on others using my headphones and playing my source. I doubt the difference would be easily and readily apparent. Perhaps with your $1,000 DAC, Emmeline Stealth and $1,500 headphones? I wonder.

would you be willing to do another test comparing WMA and MP3 as well as the original wav? considering this discussion is concerning WMA & MP3. more input would be favourable.

possible that you won't be able to tell between WMA & MP3. however in my personal experience i could always differenciate wma & mp3. do note however the files are in 128kbps mode in my case.

 

[comabereni]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ixeo would you be willing to do another test comparing WMA and MP3 as well as the original wav? considering this discussion is concerning WMA & MP3. more input would be favourable. possible that you won't be able to tell between WMA & MP3. however in my personal experience i could always differenciate wma & mp3. do note however the files are in 128kbps mode in my case.

While I have not done a strictly controlled test between WMA and MP3, by stating my experience with being unable to clearly discern between a lossless WAV and 192k WMA, I can't logically see where I would be able to distinguish an MP3 at similar or higher bit-rate, unless the MP3 comes out sounding worse (which I've yet to hear anyone say).

As for bit-rates, I do believe I can easily/clearly/cleanly discern between 128k and 192k files of any format. In fact, the difference is so noticeable to me that I've not even taken the time to A/B it. While not a strictly controlled comparison/test, I regularly listen to 128k Internet radio as well as 192k and without even looking at my monitor can tell the difference (which I regularly confirm when I do finally look). Same goes with WMA files (128k vs. 192k).

I know saying you can't tell 192k from lossless on a forum of audiophiles is often interpreted to mean: 1) you are non-audiophile caliber, or; 2) your equipment is inferior and incapable of presenting the difference, or; 3) you have a budget-focused agenda/hidden agenda. But I have no budget-induced agenda (I like upgrading), have at least decent, sensitive gear that should present the differences rather easily if reasonably noticeable, have near-perfect hearing as well as enhanced past experience and ability discerning beyond the norm in other areas as well--specifically, visually. I don't believe I could spend 1/2-hour with any sensory experience where differences are discernible by the more sensitive among us and not pick out the difference. Yet I confess I could not.

From this, I get the sense that 192k WMA is probably sufficient for all but the highest end equipment (or at least significantly beyond that which I use) and for those who have trained themselves extensively in the art (?) of discerning specific sonic differences between bit-rates and formats, not just the naturally discerning among us.

Truly, I wanted to tell the difference, but after 1/2-hour with the "blindfold taste test", I simply could not with any degree of conviction. Perhaps if I trained myself to listen specifically for compression artifacts which occur most often in 192k WMA format, I might be able to do so.

Anyway, as they say, that's more story and I'm sticking to it

.

 

[Illah]

Thanks for the input. I agree that WMA is way better bit for bit than MP3. A 192Kbps WMA would probably be equivalent to a 256-320Kbps MP3, and at that range it is VERY tough to discern which is compressed and which is lossless. Still, my experience with MP3 is better than WMA, I agree with a post above that it can sound shrill...perhaps it's my compressor? Is there a better ripper than Windows Media Player?

--Illah

 

[breez]

A public blind listening test tells otherwise

Although it's at low bitrate and may not apply when comparing WMA and MP3 at higher bitrate. Quality of an MP3 depends heavily on encoder and settings used.

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multifo...8/results.html

 

[Imyourzero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illah Thanks for the input. I agree that WMA is way better bit for bit than MP3. A 192Kbps WMA would probably be equivalent to a 256-320Kbps MP3, and at that range it is VERY tough to discern which is compressed and which is lossless. Still, my experience with MP3 is better than WMA, I agree with a post above that it can sound shrill...perhaps it's my compressor? Is there a better ripper than Windows Media Player? --Illah

I agree. A 320k MP3 is virtually indistinguishable from the original, so I've been in constant wonder why people would rather use FLAC. Some people may be able to detect a slight difference on very expensive equipment, but the fact that MP3 is a much smaller file and is such an immensely popular format that's compatible with many devices seals the deal for me.

Just me though...I have nothing against FLAC or APE or anyone that chooses to use them. It's just that MP3 is better for my purposes and many people that haven't heard a truly well-made MP3 file think that that great fidelity from them isn't possible, and IMO that's just not true.

 

[commando]

I use flac, and I don't imagine I could hear a difference between it and 320kbps mp3. I figured there's no use crippling my system at the source when I have the power to run it easily.

 

[Mr.Radar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by commando I use flac, and I don't imagine I could hear a difference between it and 320kbps mp3. I figured there's no use crippling my system at the source when I have the power to run it easily.

Plus you have a perfect backup in case you loose/destroy the original disc.

 

[commando]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Radar Plus you have a perfect backup in case you loose/destroy the original disc.

Exactly. Just last night I ripped about 12-16 CDs to flac and wrote them to DVD. I'll keep the backup offside in case I somehow manage to lose my CDs - I can just rewrite them, or just use the FLAC version.

 

[CSMR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imyourzero I agree. A 320k MP3 is virtually indistinguishable from the original, so I've been in constant wonder why people would rather use FLAC.

Some of my lossless wmas take up less than a 320k mp3. On average about double. Not much of a problem with the big hard discs that are available nowadays. What do you get? Possibly better sound quality - perhaps more importantly you can rule out one factor completely. Peace of mind! No association with illegal music. Street cred (on certain streets). For music off the PC you can still use lossy compression, so compatability isn't really an issue.