MP3 or WMA: Which is better?

[atrowe]

So I just decided to "go digital" and move my music library over to the computer. I have A LOT of CDs and I wanted to store them all on my hard drive so I wouldn't have to keep swapping discs to hear my music. I'm also considering purchasing an MP3 jukebox on which to store my music. Several of the jukeboxes currently on the market support WMA playback. Before spending hours and hours of my time copying CDs to my hard drive, I wanted to know what the best compression is. From my experience, WMA sounds a little better than MP3 at equal bit rates, but I've been listening on relatively crappy PC speakers and my comparisons weren't very exhaustive. I was wondering what you guys thought. All ethical and anti-MS sentiments aside, which is better, MP3 or WMA?

Also, can anyone recommend a GOOD portable jukebox that can play WMA and store at least 20 GB? Price is really not an object, although I would prefer to keep the cost below $500 if possible. I'm not happy with either the Creative Labs Nomad, or Classic player.

 

[Ameesh]

if you use wma8 encoder, they will be smaller and sound better, a wma8 at 192 sounds like a 320 CBR MP3, i had all my 256 cbr mp3s converted into 192 and i cant tell the difference,


one thing you should think about is microsoft is coming out with corona soon, (window media 9 codecs) they will be substanitially better so you might want to wait before you put in all that work.

 

[chickenhead]

WMA is good for streaming, embedded storage and other low-bitrate applications. When you compare WMA to MP3 at bitrates of up to 64kbps, WMA easily wins.

For high-bitrate archival storage, MP3 and Ogg Vorbis easily beat WMA. At bitrates of 128kbps and over, WMA sounds like ass compared to MP3 and Ogg Vorbis.

 

[Elledan]

WMA is a little better than MP3 at lower bit-rates. Nothing can beat Ogg Vorbis, though. I only rip songs in .ogg format now

 

[Nemesis77]

I wouldn't touch WMA no matter what it sounded like. I'm a bit afraid of embracing MS-technology. give me Ogg Vorbis or MP3 instead.

 

[chickenhead]

<< if you use wma8 encoder, they will be smaller and sound better, a wma8 at 192 sounds like a 320 CBR MP3, i had all my 256 cbr mp3s converted into 192 and i cant tell the difference >>



Had you converted all your 256cbr mp3s into 192 cbr mp3s, you again would not have been able to tell the difference.

It sounds like you don't have an ear for quality. Transcoding from one codec to another codec leaves twice the audible artifacts and ALWAYS sounds worse. ALWAYS.

 

[Ameesh]

<<

<< if you use wma8 encoder, they will be smaller and sound better, a wma8 at 192 sounds like a 320 CBR MP3, i had all my 256 cbr mp3s converted into 192 and i cant tell the difference >>



Had you converted all your 256cbr mp3s into 192 cbr mp3s, you again would not have been able to tell the difference.

It sounds like you don't have an ear for quality. Transcoding from one codec to another codec leaves twice the audible artifacts and ALWAYS sounds worse. ALWAYS. >>



i agree both codecs are lossy but at 192kbps wma isnt very lossy and i do have an ear for this, but i wasnt the only one who listend to the songs i had several people listen and without knowing what was what they choose wma8 as the high quality song.


-Ameesh

 

[atrowe]

<< I wouldn't touch WMA no matter what it sounded like. I'm a bit afraid of embracing MS-technology. give me Ogg Vorbis or MP3 instead. >>



Thanks for staying non-biased and completely ignoring my question about SOUND QUALITY. I think it's silly to avoid using a superior technology simply because you don't like the company who made it. Show me a portable player that can decode .ogg files, and I'll consider using Ogg Vorbis. Until portable .ogg players become mainstream, I don't consider it to be a reasonable contender.

 

[kami]

Use LAME for your encoding and do high quality 32-256Kbps VBR. File size of 160-192kbps CBR files, but the quality of a 256Kbps CBR.

 

[Ameesh]

<<

<< I wouldn't touch WMA no matter what it sounded like. I'm a bit afraid of embracing MS-technology. give me Ogg Vorbis or MP3 instead. >>



Thanks for staying non-biased and completely ignoring my question about SOUND QUALITY. I think it's silly to avoid using a superior technology simply because you don't like the company who made it. Show me a portable player that can decode .ogg files, and I'll consider using Ogg Vorbis. Until portable .ogg players become mainstream, I don't consider it to be a reasonable contender. >>



you also might want to consider the fact that wma codecs are backwards compatible so if you have a player that supports wm7 it will also play wm8 and wm9 songs

 

[chickenhead]

<< Use LAME for your encoding and do high quality 32-256Kbps VBR. File size of 160-192kbps CBR files, but the quality of a 256Kbps CBR. >>



Smart man.

The reason you don't go below 32kbps and above 256kbps is because most portable mp3 players are limited to playing these bitrates on the lower and upper bound.

The mp3 spec goes all the way down to 8kbps and all the way up to 320kbps, but you really don't lose much by limiting yourself from 32 to 256kbps and you get the most space efficient and the most compatible audio files in the known universe. These files will play on ANYTHING.

Also, they are really, really CD quality. In listening tests, people were unable to tell 256kbps mp3's from the original CD. A 32-256kbps VBR mp3 is effectively equivalent to a 256kbps CBR mp3, just a lot smaller.

 

[JellyBaby]

Avoiding WMA because it's proprietary from MS is a valid action. I'll avoid WMA mainly due to MS's attempts to shove WMA digital rights management down our throats in order to appease the RIAA. I hope WMA never catches on because it will limit where I store and play my music.

 

[mithrandir2001]

Even Ogg Vorbis can be bested. There is a newer format called MPEG Plus/MusePack (MP+, MPC) that is superior to anything else out there at high bitrates (160kpbs+). One of the reasons is that MPEG Plus is a sub-band encoder where MP3, Ogg and WMA8 are transform encoders. Transform encoders do best at low-bitrate applications whereas sub-band encoders do best at high-bitrate applications. The most notable improvement with MPEG Plus is the lack of pre-echo artifacts. No watery sounds, no smeared cymbals. If you are looking for a lossy archiver, nothing can beat MPEG Plus right now, not even Ogg Vorbis.

MPEG Plus Homepage

My preferences:

Under 96kbps - WMA8
96-160kbps - Ogg
Over 160kbps - MPEG Plus

MP3 can be outdone by some other encoder at basically every bitrate. It's biggest advantage, though, is ubiquity, something other formats cannot claim.

 

[kami]

mithrandir, but even on the best equipment I could ever get my hands on, I will never tell a difference from the CD and a properly encoded MP3...so what's the point or going with something that sounds the same but will never be as widely supported? I don't even bother with other formats because MP3 gives me this.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< I think it's silly to avoid using a superior technology simply because you don't like the company who made it. >>



That is an EXTREMELY good reason to avoid it! I use alot of Linux. I could say that it's my primary OS. I haven't yet seen WMA-player on Linux, and I'm betting that there wont be one. Would MS allow it's media-codec to be used in a rival OS? I don't think so. So WMA is a no-no for me. Ogg sounds just as good, but it has the benefit of being totally open and free. It hasn't yet gained the big boys in popularity, but it will once the 1.0 spec if finalized.

Besides, WMA has what is known as "Contents Rigths Management".

 

[Ionizer86]

I'll avoid WMA mainly due to MS's attempts to shove WMA digital rights management down our throats in order to appease the RIAA.

On Windows Media Player 8, you can uncheck the option to use digital rights management, so then, you can bring your files to another comp, and they will play just fine, if you rip your CDs into WMA, that is.*

*Piracy is illegal. Don't steal music!#

#Taken from Apple comp or something like that

 

[Ameesh]

<< Avoiding WMA because it's proprietary from MS is a valid action. I'll avoid WMA mainly due to MS's attempts to shove WMA digital rights management down our throats in order to appease the RIAA. I hope WMA never catches on because it will limit where I store and play my music. >>



oh for christ sake! just uncheck the box! then you can play the wma's anywhere! this is one of the worst argument against wma.

 

[Ameesh]

ok if you want to be completely objective encode two songs with a bunch of differnt rates and formats, and have a friend play them in random order then YOU decide what what you like better, pick that and your good to go. i reccomend 1 vocal song, like verdi's othello or one of christina aguleiras songs ((for dynamic range not quality) and another song with more instrumental stuff, nirvana songs have a lot of stuff going on in the background especially from in utero.

 

[atrowe]

<< Avoiding WMA because it's proprietary from MS is a valid action. I'll avoid WMA mainly due to MS's attempts to shove WMA digital rights management down our throats in order to appease the RIAA. I hope WMA never catches on because it will limit where I store and play my music. >>



In Media Player 8 that ships with Windows XP, there is a checkbox that allows you to either enable or disable digital rights management. It is unchecked by default. I'd hardly consider this "attempts to shove WMA digital rights management down our throats "

 

[Nemesis77]

<< On Windows Media Player 8, you can uncheck the option to use digital rights management, so then, you can bring your files to another comp, and they will play just fine, if you rip your CDs into WMA, that is. >>



Only problem is the Media Players EULA. It says that MS can add or alter the features of MP (via downloadable patches) without asking the user for his permission. Those alterations can cause some of the features/media to be unusable. So if you do choose not to use it, MS might decide to activate it regardless. And you agreed to that when you agreed to the EULA.

 

[gar598]

ogg :0

 

[JellyBaby]

I was referring to MS's attempts to appease the RIAA. That's enough to set me off.

BTW, what's the point of a digital rights management system if there is a checkbox to disable it? Why include it at all then? I'm aware WMA protection was cracked but never heard any stories of MS "caving in".

 

[Shantanu]

<< << Avoiding WMA because it's proprietary from MS is a valid action. I'll avoid WMA mainly due to MS's attempts to shove WMA digital rights management down our throats in order to appease the RIAA. I hope WMA never catches on because it will limit where I store and play my music. >>



oh for christ sake! just uncheck the box! then you can play the wma's anywhere! this is one of the worst argument against wma. >>



LOL! I remember when WMA first came out, and I started a thread on WMA vs. MP3, and about 90% of the responses were hysterical "You can't use WMA! You have you pay $$$, because it's all owned by Microsoft man!" This despite the fact that I had provided links to files that I ripped myself. It was impossible even to get a debate going.

 

[chickenhead]

Here is a very good reason to avoid WMA:

A single company owns the format.

Ten years down the line, when Microsoft has gone out of business due to all the class-action lawsuits that will follow in the wake of AOL's lawsuit, who's going to make WMA players for the popular OS'es of the day? Nobody. Microsoft will have taken WMA with it to the grave.

In stark contrast to this, there is portable, free, Free, and OS-agnostic code available that encodes and decodes mp3. Namely, mpeg123 and LAME. Regardless of what happens in the OS space, 10 years down the line, there will still be mp3 players and mp3 encoders for the popular OS'es of the day.

Never put all your eggs in one basket, and never trust all your data to a format owned by a single company. When that company goes out of business (and they will, because all companies eventually do) you will be left with a lot of worthless data that you cannot access.

 

[atrowe]

<<

<< On Windows Media Player 8, you can uncheck the option to use digital rights management, so then, you can bring your files to another comp, and they will play just fine, if you rip your CDs into WMA, that is. >>



Only problem is the Media Players EULA. It says that MS can add or alter the features of MP (via downloadable patches) without asking the user for his permission. Those alterations can cause some of the features/media to be unusable. So if you do choose not to use it, MS might decide to activate it regardless. And you agreed to that when you agreed to the EULA. >>



#1) You can disable automatic updates in Media Player.

#2) Even if they did somehow decide to force SDMI compliance on users, one can simply choose to stop using Media Player. The argument that "Media Player is bad because they could add bad features later" is silly. That's true for just about ANY software. I highly doubt Media player is going to go back through the songs I've already ripped and add SDMI compliance.