Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Music File Format: WMA vs MP3
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 1 of 15 (462256)
04-02-2008 12:50 AM


I'm new to this hand held music player thing. I've recently bought a player that was on sale and therefore within my price range. Now, the hard part is choosing the file format to rip my music into.
Most people seem to favor MP3 just because it's the popular thing right now. Some people have said that WMA is just as good as MP3 plus it's smaller and so I could cramp more music into the same space.
WMA or MP3?
To link this to our creation versus evolution debate, I've heard that MP3 is at an evolutionary dead-end because nobody seem to be trying to improve it while WMA is still evolving because microsoft is still working on ways to make the file format better.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by DrJones*, posted 04-02-2008 12:58 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2008 2:53 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 04-02-2008 7:04 AM Taz has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 2 of 15 (462257)
04-02-2008 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
04-02-2008 12:50 AM


I think MP3s are accepted by more players than WMA, so on the off chance that this player of your dies if your music is in MP3 form then it'll be easier to transfer to any new one without having to re-rip the music or convert them. Of course I could be(and often am) wrong.

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 04-02-2008 12:50 AM Taz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 15 (462271)
04-02-2008 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
04-02-2008 12:50 AM


WMA is owned by Microsoft. From looking around it seems to be agreed that it takes less space but may be slightly lower quality than MP3. Microsoft has a fairly lousy record on file formats so in the long term you might find it unsupported.
The prospect of future improvements to the format is not an advantage. You'll only see a benefit if you rip the music again into the improved version (EDIT - and your player supports the improved version!) - and the improvements may not be backwardly compatible, forcing you to rip the music again at some stage.
Really, if space is short I'd suggest using WMA, otherwise MP3 is probably the better choice.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 04-02-2008 12:50 AM Taz has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 4 of 15 (462283)
04-02-2008 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
04-02-2008 12:50 AM


It is extremely unlikely you would be able to hear the difference between any two popular music file formats, especially on a portable player.
I'd pick mp3, due to it's higher popularity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 04-02-2008 12:50 AM Taz has not replied

  
Shield
Member (Idle past 2862 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 5 of 15 (462291)
04-02-2008 9:17 AM


Neither.
FLAC. And if it have to be low bitrate then OGG Vorbis.
WMA is shit. MP3 is shit. But WMA is still more shitty than mp3.
For one, MP3 dosent support, WMA does, to the fullest extent.
MP3 can be decoded on Windows, Mac, Linux, BSD and alot of other OS's.
WMA can be decoded on Windows and Mac.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 04-03-2008 4:31 AM Shield has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 6 of 15 (462419)
04-03-2008 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Shield
04-02-2008 9:17 AM


You can get wma players for Linux.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Shield, posted 04-02-2008 9:17 AM Shield has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Shield, posted 04-04-2008 7:40 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Shield
Member (Idle past 2862 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 7 of 15 (462489)
04-04-2008 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dr Jack
04-03-2008 4:31 AM


Yes, theres the FFmpeg implementation, but this does not support WMA pro
Nor can it play DRM protected wma.
Nor Lossless WMA.
That means, on linux you cant play WMA files encoded in more than 128kbits...
Heres a quote from teh wiki
quote:
WMA has been subjected to a number of complaints. "Some audiophiles challenge Microsoft's claims regarding WMA's quality," according to a published article from EDN.[12] Another article from MP3 Developments wrote that Microsoft's claim about CD-quality audio at 64 kbit/s with WMA was "very far from the truth."[54] At the early stages of WMA's development, a representative from RealNetworks claimed that WMA was a "clear and futile effort by Microsoft to catch up with RealAudio 8"[55]
Microsoft has sometimes claimed that the sound quality of WMA at 64 kbit/s equals or exceeds that of MP3 at 128 kbit/s (commonly considered to be near-transparent). In a 1999 study funded by Microsoft, NSTL found that listeners preferred WMA at 64 kbit/s to MP3 at 128 kbit/s (as encoded by MusicMatch Jukebox).[56] However, a September 2003 public listening test conducted by Roberto Amorim found that listeners preferred 128 kbit/s MP3 to 64 kbit/s WMA audio with greater than 99% confidence. This conclusion applied equally to other codecs at the same bitrate, leading him to conclude that:
“ No codec delivers the marketing plot of same quality as MP3 at half the bitrates.
Edited by rbp, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 04-03-2008 4:31 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 8 of 15 (462741)
04-08-2008 12:11 PM


Well, I guess I should tell you guys my final decision. After testing out all the various formats available, and keep in mind that I'm a musician who has perfect pitch, I'd have to admit that the differences I heard were negligible. Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, do you people actually notice that much of a difference in sound quality that the lesser format would drive you crazy? Or all of this is just a big hype and followed along by people who don't want to admit that they actually couldn't tell the difference or even care?
Anyway, being a practical person, I settled on wma simply for the smaller file format. This may drive you guys crazy, but I also decided to rip all my music into 48 kbps just to save space. Yes, I did notice the difference between this lowest format and the higher quality formats. No, the differences don't change my experience with the music at all.
Since I haven't got much free time lately, I've only been able to rip a couple hundred songs. I've put random songs in 128 just to test myself to see if that would make a difference in my experience with the music. I'd have to say while I have noticed the difference I can't say I have much desire to start ripping my albums into higher bitrate than 48.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2008 2:14 PM Taz has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 9 of 15 (462750)
04-08-2008 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
04-08-2008 12:11 PM


I never made any claims about quality, although I have to say that I don't find space to be a problem with a 4 GB player, with almost all the tracks ripped as 128 bit AAC.
I'll also note that the limits of your equipment might be hiding the limitations of the files. The headphones that come with most MP3 players aren't usually very good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 04-08-2008 12:11 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Taz, posted 04-08-2008 11:18 PM PaulK has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 10 of 15 (462759)
04-08-2008 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
04-08-2008 2:14 PM


Paulk writes:
I never made any claims about quality, although I have to say that I don't find space to be a problem with a 4 GB player, with almost all the tracks ripped as 128 bit AAC.
I guess I'm thinking long term.
I'll also note that the limits of your equipment might be hiding the limitations of the files. The headphones that come with most MP3 players aren't usually very good.
I wasn't using the headphones that came with the mp3 player. I was using my state of the art stereo system. Like I said, I did notice a difference. However, and speaking as a musician, the difference did not make me to have an urge to rip it in a higher bitrate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2008 2:14 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2008 2:53 AM Taz has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 15 (462766)
04-09-2008 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taz
04-08-2008 11:18 PM


quote:
I guess I'm thinking long term.
In the long term you'll probably have a player with a much larger capacity. Whether it will be able to play the WMA format you're using is another question. (And I'd guess that support for lower bit-rates is one of the more likely things to go).
For saving space right now you probably made the right decision (for you). But if that's not an issue 64 bit MP3 would likely have been safer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taz, posted 04-08-2008 11:18 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 04-09-2008 11:26 AM PaulK has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 12 of 15 (462784)
04-09-2008 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
04-09-2008 2:53 AM


Paulk writes:
But if that's not an issue 64 bit MP3 would likely have been safer.
You're probably right on this one. I'll start ripping them again in the 64 bit later this week.
PS I think these ipods and mp3 players are overpriced. I have a personal issue with these overpriced products, especially when the people that made them only make like 20 cents an hour... and work while in chains and shackles. Unless those prices drop below the 50 mark, I don't see myself buying them anytime soon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2008 2:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 04-10-2008 9:02 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2008 9:42 AM Taz has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 13 of 15 (462875)
04-10-2008 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taz
04-09-2008 11:26 AM


Taz writes:
PS I think these ipods and mp3 players are overpriced. I have a personal issue with these overpriced products, especially when the people that made them only make like 20 cents an hour... and work while in chains and shackles. Unless those prices drop below the 50 mark, I don't see myself buying them anytime soon.
Economic issues aside...
I spend about 5 hours a week commuting, and I use my iPod to listen to podcasts, music and recorded books. While there's plenty of variety on the radio, what I want to listen to is rarely on when I'm listening, plus most of the podcasts I listen to are never broadcast over the airways. I like sportstalk-radio (when the local teams are winning), but I'm always getting in the car in the middle or end of an interesting interview (Belichick really loosens up with the local sportstalk guys), and then there's the commercials! The same sportstalk shows are available as podcasts without commercials.
I can't imagine life without my iPod. They could probably charge more for it and I'd still buy it.
My iPod has a 60 Gbyte capacity, so I also have all my photos on it. Ask me about my grandson at your peril! You've seen the visual joke where the guy pulls out his wallet to show some photos and the accordion of photos reaches the floor? iPods are far, far worse!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 04-09-2008 11:26 AM Taz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 14 of 15 (462880)
04-10-2008 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taz
04-09-2008 11:26 AM


The cheapest iPods are already (just) below $50. Granted that's a 1GB no-screen model, but it's still an iPod - there are cheaper alternatives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 04-09-2008 11:26 AM Taz has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 15 of 15 (565329)
06-16-2010 5:30 AM


Decoding FLAC files
I've downloaded a bunch of stuff from http://www.avantgardeproject.org/archive.htm
At their http://www.avantgardeproject.org/technical.htm page they refer to FLAC - Downloads for the FLAC frontend that does decoding etc.
Anyhow, things seem nice and simple, but when I try to decode a FLAC I get a "Run-time error: '75': Path/File access error" message.
Running Windows 7.
Any assistance out there?
Moose
Added by edit:
Nevermind - Found this via Google (D'oh) -
quote:
Why am I getting "Run-time error '75': Path/File access error" with FLAC Frontend?
Depending on how FLAC Frontend is installed, it could be one of two things: 1) you are trying to encode to file to a directory where you do not have write permission; 2) the FLAC Frontend program must be set to run as Administrator by opening Windows Explorer, navigating to C:\Program Files\FLAC (or wherever FLAC was installed), then right-clicking on FLAC Frontend.exe and checking "Run this program as an administrator".
Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024