WMA vs MP3

[techgy]

This question has probably been posted before so forgive me if I repeat it.
Which audio format is better - WMA or MP3 and for what reasons? I've run a few tests and my ears don't detect any difference. The physical size of the files also appears to be almost identical.

Any opinions? Is there a good site to go to that would provide some additional detailed information?

Thanks

[Sam_Zen]

All compressed formats are almost identical in soundquality and filesize if having about the same resolution-settings.
Differences that are more useful to define quality, show up in other properties of sound representation.
Like 'dynamic range' and the 'stereo separation'.
That's why I deny both WMA and MP3 and choose for OGG.
Another aspect for personal taste : the possible options in the ID3 tag.

[CvP]

FLAC > OGG > WMA > MP3

however, if file size is a problem, exclude FLAC.

[GSV3MiaC]

I'd agree with the above, although there's several flavours of .wma - the Variable bitrate version(s) do much better than fixed bitrate for the same file size. MP3 basically sux, although by 256kb/s and higher, with a good encoder (eg LAME) it doesn't **** that badly - by 256kb/s most formats sound good.

For low (or very low) bitrate - eg 64kb/s or even 48kb/s .ogg and variable bitrate .wma are definitely ahead.

[Sam_Zen]

Of course FLAC is the best, but I didn't mention it, because one needs a plugin for this.
An aspect, I guess more personal, is the fact that OGG can contain multiple channels (I use four).

[CvP]

Of course FLAC is the best, but I didn't mention it, because one needs a plugin for this.
An aspect, I guess more personal, is the fact that OGG can contain multiple channels (I use four).
plugin?!
jetAudio as well as all iAudios support FLAC completely.
you dont even need the plus version to encode FLAC in jetAudio.

[techgy]

I guess I'm from an older generation.
Many of the terms that you're tossing into the discussion, I'm not familiar with, so please forgive my ignorance.

I've been using 128bit MP3 for sometime and to my ears it doesn't sound that bad. Obviously, if one were to run some technical examinations there would no doubt be some differences. Also, the higher end sound systems would possibly detect differences in quality as well.

Tests that I've run on my own were more oriented towards what the average person would be able to hear and the physical size of the file.

I'm not at all familiar with OGG.

[GSV3MiaC]

.ogg at 96kb/s sounds better than .mp3 at a fixed 128kb/s. .ogg is intrinsically variable bitrate - i.e. "if some part of the track is not complicated (silence, being the least complicated of all) there's not much point encoding it at 128kb/s, so use less for that part. if the next part is horribly complex (Cymbals being about the worst, apparently) use 256kb/s or more - over the whole track average it out to (about) 96kb/s."

However, whatever sounds OK to you is fine for you, and .mp3 has the advantage it'll work in most anything.

[Sam_Zen]

plugin?! - jetAudio as well as all iAudios support FLAC completely.
Since when is this ?
I'm (still) used to add the extra files jdl_FLAC.dll - JFFLACRd.dll - JFFLACWt.dll to the root of JA..

[CvP]

Since when is this ?
I'm (still) used to add the extra files jdl_FLAC.dll - JFFLACRd.dll - JFFLACWt.dll to the root of JA..
lol...if you mean it that way...then even playing wav file will need plug-in.

usually, by plug-in we mean some thing extra, not bundled.

[Sam_Zen]

lol.. I meant that too of course, but in the past I really had to download the FLAC-package apart.
Well, I just checked, and the zip was from 2005. So now it's bundled indeed.:o

[techgy]

However, whatever sounds OK to you is fine for you, and .mp3 has the advantage it'll work in most anything.[/quote]

I appreciate all the responses from everyone. I believe that GSV3MiaC (http://www.cowonamerica.com/forums/member.php?u=5890) hit the nail on the head with his comment that "whatever sounds good to me is ok for me."

Technical analysis aside the bottom line in audio IMHO is how it sounds to the listener. So any possible gain for me between the different formats would be more towards the size of the file (storage space) as well as the sound quality as I previously mentioned.

One final question before I wear everyone out; is there a web site or document that would provide some side-by-side analysis of the various formats that I could access?

Thanks for your comments to all - have a great new year.

[CvP]

i'm not aware of such site...GSV might know as he seems to be an audiophile.

anyways, i can give you some simple suggestions:
- if you want MOST compatibility : use mp3
- if you want BEST sound : use FLAC
- if you want SMALL (really small) size by Low Bitrate: use mp3pro ( i think mp3pro is really good at low bitrate)
- for everything else (good sound, moderate size), there's OGG (you lose the MOST compatibility part but that's true for almost everything except mp3).

[GSV3MiaC]

Yeah, I might know. I've even answered the Q before .. see:

http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?t=8413

However no 'objective' test of sound quality is really possible - you can have objective measure of file size, time/difficulty to encode or decode, etc. but for 'sound quality' all you can do is A/B testing with a panel of folks and come up with '99% of the audience thought A sounded more pleasing than B'.

Oh, you can have an objective measure (lots) of 'how far from original sound it is', but hey, a 1% error in tone/pitch sounds a lot worse than a 1% error in volume (to most of us), and a 'click' is a whole lot more annoying than the same amount of cr&p stretched out over a whole track. So put your earphones on and decide yourself. (WinABX is a free program you can use, on a PC, to see what differences you can actually hear. Most people are wildly optimistic about how good their ears are).

p.s. I am not a true audiophile. A true audiophile dispenses with the speakers, because he can SEE (on his oscilloscope) that the output is perfect. 8>.

[CvP]

guess i'm a videophile then...cause i can HEAR (on my ear) that my 192kbps mp3s sound perfect...j/k

[GSV3MiaC]

If 192kb/s MP3 sound perfect, then you need to consult an audiologist. Or maybe consider changing your tastes in music. 8>. Just kidding ..

[Sam_Zen]

Quality can be measured, or can be judged. IMO an audiophile is someone listening, focused to the tweeters of the system,
checking if the frequency curve is alright, but totally missing the music that's going on. As GSV3MiaC states.

It's obvious of course, but : if you want best sound : use WAV.
I emphasize this, because I don't think the FLAC format should play a role in this discussion. Because it's a non-destructive compression. So it can have an archiving function due to less filesize, but it still can reproduce the original.
While, happily enough, JA can play this format directly.

The other formats are lossy compressions, so there it's the question, which one looses the less of what ?
The different categories of concern may be, as CvP states :

~ common system (also hardware) compatibility need
~ the best format having filesize priority, versus the resulting quality
~ the best format having quality priority, versus resulting filesize
~ the best format regarding both priorities, a chosen balance between quality and filesize.

I'm not at all familiar with OGG.
Well, JetAudio has a very versatile audio converter, so you can try it out.

[CvP]

i know i will never purchase $2k home theater or such things...at least not until i get the 2 latest nvidia ultra card + 30" LCD......so until then, with my crappy $100 sound system, 192kbps mp3 is perfect :)

[KOOLguy]

In my opinion MP3 does a much worse job at compressing audio then WMA, for instance, listen to an MP3 encoded at 96kbps, now turn up the upper frequencies on the equalizer, from approximately 6k to 14k. Then do the same for a WMA file at 96kbps, there is a definite increase in the watery, digital sound on an mp3 file as opposed to a WMA. Put simply, an mp3 file pales in comparison to a wma file. but listen to an aac+ stream on shoutcast.com, at anything under 96kbps, the sound is for the most part perfect even on bitrates lower then 48kbps. This is because aac+ is just a super-compressed version of MP4. Mp3 is just a super-compressed version of a cda file, or a wave file. Although Regular AAC files are advertised to have better sound quality than MP3 and WMA, on tests with WMA files they fared somewhat average between the two. OGG files I have yet to test, I'll report back once I test OGG. I hope too see how MP4 fares against AAC+ in terms of sound quality.

:D:D:D

[Who am I]

Just my opinions

1. if you don't care about file size
lossless formats like wav, flac

2. 192kb or higher
mp3

3. 128kb
ogg, wma, aac, mp3

4. lower (24-64kb)
aac+ (Winamp can play it without plugin, it's excellent! 5.1 ch available, streaming radio by aac+ is good for bandwidth)

(mp3PRO was old style and requires plugin)


Anyway, file size is not a big ploblem now than 10 years ago. Hard disk became very cheeper unbelievably, why not choose 1 or 2?

[KOOLguy]

My personal favorite format would be AAC+, the quality is astounding even at extremely low bitrates, go online and listen to an aac+ internet radio station at 24kbps, that is perfection.

My least favorite is MP4, it sounds no different from an AAC+ file, but it's 4 times the size.

My format that i'll never use is AAC, i have no use for it because i have WMA

What all my cds are ripped at: WMA 9 Pro 192kbps, cuz it's awesome

[KOOLguy]

Also, really, an MP3's quality depends on what encoder you use. I have ripped cds at 96kbps MP3 in Windows Media Player and the sound was horrid, yet i listen to a 96kbps MP3 Stream of Digitally imported in winamp and the sound is decent, not too watery, with minimal loss in clarity over the AAC+ Stream of the same station. it depends on what you use. You're likely to have crappy sound at 96k for certain encoders. The only encoder i use is LAME.

[albertlbrt11]

I have 3 digital voice recorders. The Sony ICD-UX70 saves recordings as MP3, the Olympus WS-210S uses WMA, and the Olympus VN-4100PC uses WAV.
The first two have a USB plug, and can easily upload to a computer. The VN4100 comes with a cable, but I have difficulty transferring files to the computer. For a long time, MP3 was the most common format, but WMA is taking over.




______________
Managed Services Provider (http://www.4net-technologies.co.uk/)
Managed Services (http://www.4net-technologies.co.uk/managed-services.html)

[yardley22]

WMA has FAR better sound quality, though the files are much larger. Personally, I think Mp3's are overrated. Just fit whatever WMA's you can, and when you want more you can delete those you don't like. I'd much rather go with quality over quantity.
__________________________________________________ __

Hotel Malaysia (http://www.malaysia.com/hotels.html)
Hotels Malaysia (http://www.malaysia.com/hotels.html)