|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Music File Format: WMA vs MP3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shield Member (Idle past 2887 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
You can get wma players for Linux.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shield Member (Idle past 2887 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
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: Edited by rbp, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Paulk writes:
I guess I'm thinking long term.
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Paulk writes:
You're probably right on this one. I'll start ripping them again in the 64 bit later this week. But if that's not an issue 64 bit MP3 would likely have been safer. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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: Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024