WMA8 vs MP3 death-match

homer

homer

Safety Inspector
Well, I don't know where the appropriate place is to discuss this, but I thought I'd give this forum a shot.

What do you think about M$'s claim that WMA8 encoding is better than MP3, preserves the CD quality better, and with better compression. Do you audiophiles out there agree? Any thoughts on this. . . .?

Homer
 
INHO... M$ doesn't rock my world, i don't even use IE...

The diff with their compression and MP3's is that I can create MP3 without first adding profit into M$'s already fat wallet.

So for me... even if they released a new format, i'll still be using MP3, anyway i don't my iPod support M$'s format!
 
Ok
i AM an audio person but haven't heard MS's software but if its like the rest of their software, well, you know... Frankly, while mp3 has its uses, I can easily hear the diff between an mp3 file and a cd.

I do my best to avoid using any MS products. My guess is its just more of MS trying to take over the world

And the BIG question is, do we really NEED another audio file format? I'm sure its loaded with copy protection and also just a way for Ms to make MORE money... like Bill needs more money..
 
Many times better technology doesn't translate into better adoptation. Think Betamax, think DATs, think Macs!

It's possible that WMA can compress audios better, but so can Sony's ATRAC3 format (the encoding used in MiniDiscs), however, using WMA means locking yourself into Microsoft technology, which is proprietary. For digital audio formats, I'd stay with the most popular choice (MP3) for now, since I want to know that my files can work with most players. If I want superior audio clarity, I'd go with MiniDiscs or CDs.

-B
 
if we do migrate to a different file format for audio, let it be ogg vorbis. it is a new format being developed, open source and without patents and licensing. not that the mp3 compression is licensed by the MPIAA (do i have that acronym right? it doesn t look right), and so we are lining the pockets of big industry by using mp3. well at least we re not supporting microsoft.

ogg vorbis is not widely available yet, but hopefully it will become more common, and if we are going to switch to anything, it should be that. it is a much more efficient and higher fidelity format that mp3.

if you support open source and open formats, it is the way to go. take a look!

http://www.ogg.org/ogg/vorbis/index.html
 
Oh, well, I had no intentions of supporting M$, but was just curious about the truth of M$'s claims. I'll stick with whatever format Apple is using for the iPod (MP3, ogg vorbis, whatever). BTW, they should definitely come up with a catchier name than ogg vorbis. :p
 
I think MP3 are here to stay for a long time. They are EVERYWHERE, and every platform can play them. I don't see them being replaced with anything in the near future because the little strides occasionaly made in quality won't justify switching to a new format. Until a new LOSSLESS audio compression algorithm is invented which has the same file size or less than MP3 files, I think MP3 are here to stay. It will be the "ASCII text file" of the audio world. It will never disappear. Besides, do you trust micro$oft? I don't. I don't support M$ because a little support here or there gives them money to invade other areas of the economy (and our lives), like movie distribution, wireless technology, etc...
 
From what I have listened to, .wma files sound about as good the .mp3 version, but at almost half the size. This is good because:

1)Getting a HUGE 20 GB hard drive to hold thousands of MP3s is just too much money!
2) Portable MP3 Players only hold like 16 MB so instead of fitting *4* mp3s on a player, you can fit *8*.
3) If MS makes it, it must eventually be better than anything else!
4) Copyright protection makes it a pain to transfer music (one file for work, one for home, one for portable), YAY.

Oh, wait.... I'm sorry, this is the year 2002, not 1998. A 20 GB drive is small and under $100, portable mp3 players are now stylish and hold either 5 or 10 *GB* of music (1000 or 2000 songs instead of 4), and MS's proprietary encoding scheme means you get f****d if MS ever decides to start charging for the technology, which is why people like open source and standard file types.

.wma files would have been fantastic 4 years ago, but they are just behind the times, and I have never met anyone yet wo uses them.
 
I was scared for a second, there, Daeyin. I thought you were supporting wma files...

In my experience, wma files really aren't that much smaller than mp3s. I got a Rio MP3 player, which says it can hold a half hour of MP3 music, or an hour of WMA. Of course, if you read the fine print the WMA is at 96KBps, MP3 at 160KBps. Right. So I experimented, saved the same files into both formats with the same bit rate. Got nearly the same size files. This was using Rio's encoder, btw.

I'm not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination -- my hearing is not that great. I can't tell the difference between CDs and 128KBps MP3s. I can barely tell the difference between CDs and 96KBps MP3s. And I am happy with the 96KBps file size...
 
chemistry geek is right. we are all much too committed to the mp3 format for a change. i m not sure what the difference in file size per audio quality is, but i wouldn t be surprised if it s not great because the format is probably almost 10 years old. newer compression methods might be available.

but like daeyin and nkuvu say, the difference isn t much. if we do decide to switch to a more efficient format, it certainly will not be MS' wma!

boycott microsoft!
 
Originally posted by homer
BTW, they should definitely come up with a catchier name than ogg vorbis. :p
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Ogg Vorbis is a great name!

I personally wouldn't be able to tell the difference between mp3 and anything else though, so I certainly have no reason to support M$. Also I have a huge-ass 60 gig hard drive, so I could frickin' use AIFFs if I wanted to. Ha!

-the valrus
 
Well anyone could use AIFFs if they wanted to. It's a question of how many songs you want to store... :D
 
Another consideration to mention is that it is of little use to improve audio quality past MP3 at 320Kb/sec because most computers use tiny cheap speakers and MP3 players have cheap D/A converters in them with even cheaper headphones. There comes a point when you're limited by the hardware rather than the recording quality. We are almost there now, and the RIAA isn't interested in making better recordings because average joe and jane consumer just don't go out and plop down $10K or more for an audio system. M$ is just blowing more wind saying its recording are better - WRONG! I can just as easily increase the Preamp in iTunes to "make my music sound better", which sometimes makes it sound "fuller" - it's an illusion that many a non-audiophile doesn't pick up on, but then again, M$ has always made poor software, but spends millions on marketing. Marketing sells, it isn't always the technology that sells, it's the "promise" of better value. If you think you got a good deal, then you got a good deal.
 
My 2 Eurocents in the matter ;)
As others have said, WMA is proprietary so you NEED to use an M$ product in order to listen or encode WMA tunes, this is something undesirable.

I think that MP3pro has a good chance of becoming popular. It is an open standard and it builds on MP3. I think that at lower bit rates you get better quality so for example at 80kbps you would get the same quality as a 128kbpp or a 192kbps regular MP3. (dont quote me, I am speculating on the numbers :p)

What I want to know is where is the codec to use with my mac MP3 app ? :p

I have the WinAMP codec, but I amabout 100% sure it wont work on my MacAst application. How do codec files work anyway ?:p

Admiral
 
AdmiralAK,

I think in the case of Apple Computers, the MP3 codec is in QuickTime and not part of the MP3 player. I'm pretty sure all iTunes is is just a database program that passes the file info over to a QuickTime program for decoding the files. It's probably like sending information in a specified order to commands in MATLAB and getting the results returned to you. It's what you do with the information that's really cool, i.e., playing the audio file, visual plugins. I do know for fact that the EQ in computers operate on the digital side and not the audio side. You set the EQ and signal is digitally manipulated before being converted to analog. I learned that from a senior level undergraduate chemistry class - Instrumental Analysis - explains how scientific instruments work, includeing their electronics.
 
I am not using iTunes to play my MP3s :p -- I Use MacAst which actually uses codecs ;)
Even though QT contains the MP3 codec, I am pretty sure it doesnt contain the MP3pro specs, that is what I need
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top