MP3 players: Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....???
Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....???
by Patrick Andrews - 7/26/04 6:46 AM In reply to: Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....??? by ArtGood article you refer to. Now that helps answer the question that was posted.
Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....???
by ParaBazza - 4/19/04 9:30 AM In reply to: Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....??? by ZingI have burnt approximately 1 third of my vinyl records onto TDK XA80 CD-R AUDIO Recordable for Music CD's. So far I have 237 CD's done. I have tried MP3, Wave, Wma and many other formats, this is what I have experienced:- MP3 (Good Features) = I get around 170 complete songs onto 1 CD, volume and clarity is OK.
(Bad) = Loss of the finer sounds, such as tinkling bells, soft background sounds, and backing group singing is slightly muffled. Wma = will not play on all CD players, mainly. WAVE Format is the best I have used, all sounds are present, the volume is very good, I get between 26 to 38 songs/tunes onto each CD, which makes a very good 2 hours plus CD. will play on all CD players, except some latest multi 4 to 8 disc players, that have the reading laser beam at a different angle preventing home made CD's being played. (Bad) = Use a lot of space on the HD for pre-burning storage, > 700 meg only per CD. Burning time slower.
Bazza.
Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....???
by JDiddy - 4/30/04 4:03 PM In reply to: Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....??? by ZingAvoid WMA like the plague. Microsoft has made them too awkward and specialized. MP3 is by far the most common and universal. OGG Vorbis retain a little better sound quality than a high bit-rate MP3, but the difference is miniscule. OGG's only drawback is that it's not as widely recognized by the masses. So, I'd go at least 160 k/s MP3 if I were you because they'll be easier to play on a multitude of devices.
Re:Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....???
by sherpard - 5/7/04 1:42 AM In reply to: Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....??? by JDiddyalmost everybody can play wma files.. but not ogg.. besides, out of 10 pple.. its like 1 or not even one even know about ogg! like theres not much diff between ogg and mp3.. not much noteable diff.. file size everything.. its either mp3 or wma.
Re:Re:Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....???
by pavel_lishin - 5/7/04 9:18 AM In reply to: Re:Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....??? by sherpardJust because nobody knows about it doesn't make it bad. And I believe that quite a few portable mp3 players now offer firmware upgrades for ogg support.
arn't we splitting hairs here?
by shea - 5/8/04 4:04 AM In reply to: Re:Re:Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....??? by pavel_lishinReally.... when your listening to music at the times that count...... after/with a few beers with friends.... who notices if theres a diff between 128k/wma/mp3 yadda yadda etc.. i rekon its all to do with what hardware you have, if you have a player in the lounge that plays wma then go with that... if its just mp3 then go with that.... theres so many converters out there in freeware that i ask ... does it really matter?... i think we are all splitting hairs... the diff in snd qal is negligable and any one who says different must be sitting listening to music in thier own cell. even if its to "save the cds for posterity's sake".... hey its better than vinyl and magnetics...i just hope MS puts a converter in MPlayer that lets us take wma to mp3 so we can use just the one sofware to convert. Face it no one like gettin up to change the cd... thats y id rather wma.
Re: arn't we splitting hairs here?
by rcgcfn - 7/12/04 7:16 PM In reply to: arn't we splitting hairs here? by sheaYes, lets just bloat up another MS application more. The geek in me likes to find the best software that I WANT to use. Not what a dynasty of programing gives me.
Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....???
by gurupete - 5/6/04 10:06 PM In reply to: Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....??? by ZingAs the radio stations in the area I live in are so boring I have been spending the past month transferring my favourite songs from my 1,000+ CD collection onto MP3 CD's to play whilst at home. I like to convert the songs into 320 bitrate. If the songs are your basic 3 minutes in length you can fit about 80 songs onto one 80 minute CD-R and it is top quality sound. I use Easy CD & DVD Creator 6 to convert to MP3 and burn the disc.
Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....???
by sherpard - 5/7/04 1:36 AM In reply to: Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....??? by Zingfor me.. i personally recommend wma.. all my songs are wma! now think about it.. wma is so well supported already. and if wma can have half the bitrate of a mp3 file and yet sound equally good PLUS, PLUS, PLUS!! have a file size about half of the mp3 file.. why not? to convert files, use advanced wma workshop. im no software expert or anything, but i chanced upon it and have been using it for probably 2 years now. very friendly program. can get it from litexmedia.com if u have any problems u can email me at sherpard@hotmail.com
Re:Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....???
by tenest - 5/7/04 6:57 AM In reply to: Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....??? by sherpardactually, your statement about "...wma can have half the bitrate of a mp3 file and yet sound equally good..." is only true at lower bitrates (128kbps or less). at higher bitrates, especially if you utilize advanced settings that most mp3 codecs have available, mp3's sound quality far surpasses wma. If you are backing up a music collection, especially if you are getting rid of your CDs as the OP stated, sound quality should be the first priority, file size secondary.
Re:Re:Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....???
by msansing - 5/7/04 9:49 AM In reply to: Re:Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....??? by tenesti switched from MP3 to WMA a few years back--I wanted to reduce file size but make sure I could still do with my music what I wanted, chiefly 1) use my portable DM player, 2) burn audio discs for use in my car, and 3) burn data discs to play on my PC at work. WMA fit the bill--I find WMA at 64kbps indistinguishable from MP3 at 128kbps--and it works for the above. Easy CD Creator lets you burn audio discs from WMA source files, WMAs play on my DM player (Nomad ii) and now I can load 2x as many as before, and ditto with the data CD-Rs I take to work (I can get about 300 WMA songs on a CD-R vs. 150 or so with MP3).
When I buy a CD the first thing I do is rip it using Windows Media Player and then I put the CD in a cabinet from which they rarely emerge after they're ripped--my hard drive is the de facto archive that I use.
So far no problems with WMA--I don't know what anybody is talking about as far as the DRM goes--when I rip my CDs I don't use it so the files aren't restricted in any way. And WMA seems to be very well supported by new CE devices, Apple & Sony notwithstanding.
Re:Re:Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....???
by msansing - 5/7/04 10:39 AM In reply to: Re:Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....??? by tenesti switched from MP3 to WMA a few years back--I wanted to reduce file size but make sure I could still do with my music what I wanted, chiefly 1) use my portable DM player, 2) burn audio discs for use in my car, and 3) burn data discs to play on my PC at work. WMA fit the bill--I find WMA at 64kbps indistinguishable from MP3 at 128kbps--and it works for the above. Easy CD Creator lets you burn audio discs from WMA source files, WMAs play on my DM player (Nomad ii) and now I can load 2x as many as before, and ditto with the data CD-Rs I take to work (I can get about 300 WMA songs on a CD-R vs. 150 or so with MP3).
When I buy a CD the first thing I do is rip it using Windows Media Player and then I put the CD in a cabinet from which they rarely emerge after they're ripped--my hard drive is the de facto archive that I use.
So far no problems with WMA--I don't know what anybody is talking about as far as the DRM goes--when I rip my CDs I don't use it so the files aren't restricted in any way. And WMA seems to be very well supported by new CE devices, Apple & Sony notwithstanding.
Re:Re:Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....???
by tomaras - 5/7/04 5:49 PM In reply to: Re:Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....??? by tenest>>>only true at lower bitrates (128kbps or less). at higher bitrates, especially if you utilize advanced settings that most mp3 codecs have available, mp3's sound quality far surpasses wma. <<<<
I challenge you to download one of the many ABX double blind testing applications on the internet and prove that you can hear the difference. Almost ALL of the modern codecs are virtually indistinguishable from each other and from the original uncompressed CD or WAV file when you get above 160kbps or so. I'm a sound mixer by trade, have good ears and good equipment and I was both surprised and humbled by my inability to tell them apart when I got honest with myself and did true blind testing with properly encoded files. I say to everyone who has posted here..."Don't talk about codecs until you have done ABX testing and can back up your claims." Read about and download an ABX utility and "get honest" with yourself.
http://www.pcabx.com/
More ABX information can be searched at:
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?srch=105&FORM=AS5&q=abx+audio+test
Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....???
by tenest - 5/7/04 7:24 AM In reply to: Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....??? by ZingIf you are backing up your entire music collection, then sound fidelity should be your top priority. everything else is secondary. Especially if you are going to be getting rid of your CDs, as you stated. I would suggest sticking with a lossless compression format (mp3, wma, ogg, etc. are all lossy compressors). here's a page, albeit slightly outdated, which reviews many of the different lossless codecs:
http://www.firstpr.com.au/audiocomp/lossless/
My personal favorite is FLAC : http://flac.sourceforge.net/features.html
besides being open-source, it's one of the few lossless audio compressors that has some hardware support. and, even if the hardware you have doesnt support flac, you can easily decode the flac files back to standard pcm wav files that are EXACTLY, bit-for-bit, the same as the originals. you can then convert the decoded file into anything your hardware does support (mp3, ogg, wma, etc.).
As far as longevity, there's no such thing. Hard drives die, CD-R's/DVD+-Rs become unreadable after several years, media formats get replaced with new ones, etc. You will most likely have to take your backups you create now and re-back them up sometime down the road. But if you have an identical copy of the original (via lossless codecs) your new back-ups will be starting off with all the original data.
Personally, i would never get rid of my CDs. What i do with all my CDs (i have close to 3000) is i immediately make a copy of the disc into mp3 format using EAC (card/freeware) on secure mode, and LAME 3.90 with its "--alt-preset standard" setting. See this forum : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=478&
for more information on LAME versions and advanced settings.
This gives me an extrmemly high quality vbr mp3. I then take the original CD and store it away where the kids, dogs, etc. cant get to it. I use the mp3s to listen to or make additional CD copies to play in the car or home theater. if i ever destroy or lose the mp3s, I've always got the original to go back to and make another copy. But because the original isnt flying around the floor of my car, I never have to worry about it getting scratched up beyond readability.
anyway, thats my 2¢...
Re:Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....???
by tomaras - 5/7/04 5:54 PM In reply to: Re:Transferring CDs to MP3 vs. WMA vs. OGG ... etc....??? by tenest>>> I would suggest sticking with a lossless compression format (mp3, wma, ogg, etc. are all lossy compressors)<<<<
WMA9 has a lossless codec implementation as does the latest AAC implementation in iTunes 4.5 which was released last week.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
