WMA questions.
- Thread starter *ChRiS
- Start date
Duracell
1
try the search button; there is a thread about comparing the qualitity from music encoders;
*.wma has a smaller file size as *.mp3 with nearly similar quality;
problematic in *.wma can be the water marks;
it's not recommended to re-encode encoded music files; with every operation you lost more and more "quality";
re-encode only if your standalone player can not read the current/downloaded format;
for encoding *.wav nigh best way is encoding in *.mp3 with variable bit rate (vbr) by using the Lame codec (in many apps included);
the better way is always not to encode;
Greetings from
Duracell
edit: the search link for lazy mebers
quality mp3 wma
*.wma has a smaller file size as *.mp3 with nearly similar quality;
problematic in *.wma can be the water marks;
it's not recommended to re-encode encoded music files; with every operation you lost more and more "quality";
re-encode only if your standalone player can not read the current/downloaded format;
for encoding *.wav nigh best way is encoding in *.mp3 with variable bit rate (vbr) by using the Lame codec (in many apps included);
the better way is always not to encode;
Greetings from
Duracell
edit: the search link for lazy mebers
quality mp3 wma
Last edited:
i prefer wma due to half the size & space.there isnt any drop in the sound ect.you can set the wma as to the quality you want.if the mp3 is 128,then wma will half it as it goes.but you can set it as high as you want.iv a 40g drive & 30gs was particiond for my music.so in thery i had 60gs of music.
like a idiot i completly wiped my hd.that was a whole lot of converting.i have got to get another hd as iv only managed a couple of months mp3s.so i will be getting another 120gs.
at least particion magic can handle 160gs now.
the only problem i have had is with the later nero,as the wma plugin wouldnt work.but that should get sorted.i use nero for all my burning,except for fireburner for the odd iso ect. the nero i am using is the first express one.
i might go more for mp3 pro as thats supose to be the equiverlant,of wma & there might be more apps that suport it.
will convert both to see if theres any difference.
if i copy the whole mp3 or wma,i just copy them as data.this is so i can get the covers.if you use the nero wma part it doesnt copy the covers over.
one good bonus with changing the mp3s to wma,is if a mp3 has a bad song or disk it carnt convert as the mp3 isnt reconised.
this is a good thing as you dont get any coasters due to the bad bit.
parrot man
like a idiot i completly wiped my hd.that was a whole lot of converting.i have got to get another hd as iv only managed a couple of months mp3s.so i will be getting another 120gs.
at least particion magic can handle 160gs now.
the only problem i have had is with the later nero,as the wma plugin wouldnt work.but that should get sorted.i use nero for all my burning,except for fireburner for the odd iso ect. the nero i am using is the first express one.
i might go more for mp3 pro as thats supose to be the equiverlant,of wma & there might be more apps that suport it.
will convert both to see if theres any difference.
if i copy the whole mp3 or wma,i just copy them as data.this is so i can get the covers.if you use the nero wma part it doesnt copy the covers over.
one good bonus with changing the mp3s to wma,is if a mp3 has a bad song or disk it carnt convert as the mp3 isnt reconised.
this is a good thing as you dont get any coasters due to the bad bit.
parrot man
theres a dl at the ms site.it has the converter & a few other things thrown.its 32 mbs.the smaller one doesnt save you have to dl everytime.but the 32 mb one as a few extras that you can install or miss if you want.
this is also thrown in with the xp pluss.
but that is 300 mbs & has to be got from elsewhere not ms.
i will be formatting within the next couple of days & this time xp pluss wont be wasting 300mbs worth of hd.
parrot man
this is also thrown in with the xp pluss.
but that is 300 mbs & has to be got from elsewhere not ms.
i will be formatting within the next couple of days & this time xp pluss wont be wasting 300mbs worth of hd.
parrot man
wma 9
wma9 sounds better than wma8 - this is my subjective opinion.
just try to keep in mind that the quality of wma is just not there. Some of my personal tests i did was to use a spectral graph of the cutoff frequencies used by the various encoders. Visual examination is not all inclusive in that it does not tell you what encoder is better or worse. It shows what the encoders are doing with the input. wma9 had a cutoff frequency of approximately 14000. wma8 had a cutoff frequency of approximately 16500. I say approximately because I used nero's wave editor and had to eye-ball the line.
My point is that wma8 and wma9 are not giving you the entire frequncy range of normal hearing. from what i have read most people can hear to around 19000. So by using wma you are giving up part of the song you are encoding. If you are looking for quality might i suggest using mpc for higher bit rates say 160+ and maybe ogg for under 160. Granted the file sizes will be larger but if you are just interested in smaller file sizes, use mp3pro and enjoy the whole song.
This is my interpretation of the few tests I have done. Still more tests to go but if you like music enjoy the whole song not just the majority of it
wma9 sounds better than wma8 - this is my subjective opinion.
just try to keep in mind that the quality of wma is just not there. Some of my personal tests i did was to use a spectral graph of the cutoff frequencies used by the various encoders. Visual examination is not all inclusive in that it does not tell you what encoder is better or worse. It shows what the encoders are doing with the input. wma9 had a cutoff frequency of approximately 14000. wma8 had a cutoff frequency of approximately 16500. I say approximately because I used nero's wave editor and had to eye-ball the line.
My point is that wma8 and wma9 are not giving you the entire frequncy range of normal hearing. from what i have read most people can hear to around 19000. So by using wma you are giving up part of the song you are encoding. If you are looking for quality might i suggest using mpc for higher bit rates say 160+ and maybe ogg for under 160. Granted the file sizes will be larger but if you are just interested in smaller file sizes, use mp3pro and enjoy the whole song.
This is my interpretation of the few tests I have done. Still more tests to go but if you like music enjoy the whole song not just the majority of it