| Author |
Message |
asdf
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Which Encoding Option Better for Listening |
|
|
I got Muvo flash player and encoding program that
comes with it has 3 encoding options: wave, mp3,
wma, wma pro and wma lossless. Almost all of my
files are in mp3(128kb) and i'm wondering if i can resample
them to a different format or bitrate and save some space on my device.
My question is: which of the formats above should i choose to save as much
space as possible while still maintaining decent sound quality.
thank you very much
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
**bg**
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Which Encoding Option Better for Listening |
|
|
"asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote in message news:OdA9f.76$ex4.48@fe08.lga...
| Quote: | I got Muvo flash player and encoding program that
comes with it has 3 encoding options: wave, mp3,
wma, wma pro and wma lossless. Almost all of my
files are in mp3(128kb) and i'm wondering if i can resample
them to a different format or bitrate and save some space on my device.
My question is: which of the formats above should i choose to save as much
space as possible while still maintaining decent sound quality.
thank you very much
|
_______________________________
If yer equipment allows, try them all...
Let us know what you find eh?
-bg-
www.lchb.ca
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Forty Winks
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:36 pm Post subject:
Re: Which Encoding Option Better for Listening |
|
|
"**bg**" <headphoneband@shaw.ca> wrote in
news:YnC9f.377016$1i.181262@pd7tw2no:
| Quote: |
"asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote in message
news:OdA9f.76$ex4.48@fe08.lga...
I got Muvo flash player and encoding program that
comes with it has 3 encoding options: wave, mp3,
wma, wma pro and wma lossless. Almost all of my
files are in mp3(128kb) and i'm wondering if i can resample
them to a different format or bitrate and save some space on my
device. My question is: which of the formats above should i choose to
save as much space as possible while still maintaining decent sound
quality.
thank you very much
_______________________________
If yer equipment allows, try them all...
Let us know what you find eh?
-bg-
www.lchb.ca
|
As the files have already been encoded to MP3, anything other than WAV or
WMA Lossless will sound a lot worse, these two will sound the same but
result in *much* bigger file sizes.
I personally wouldn't bother re-encoding as 128kbit mp3's are pretty small
and low quality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Rivers
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:01 pm Post subject:
Re: Which Encoding Option Better for Listening |
|
|
asdf wrote:
| Quote: | Almost all of my
files are in mp3(128kb) and i'm wondering if i can resample
them to a different format or bitrate and save some space on my device.
My question is: which of the formats above should i choose to save as much
space as possible while still maintaining decent sound quality.
|
Once your recordings have been buggered by encoding as 128 kbps MP3,
they'll never sound any better. You might be able to make them smaller,
but that's about it.
You can try the encoding options when using it to record new material.
I suspect that the lossless WMA might be best, but it depends on the
characteristics of the music you're encoding. Some algorithms work
better on some music and not so well on others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
S.K
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:12 pm Post subject:
Re: Which Encoding Option Better for Listening |
|
|
"asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote in message news:OdA9f.76$ex4.48@fe08.lga...
| Quote: | I got Muvo flash player and encoding program that
comes with it has 3 encoding options: wave, mp3,
wma, wma pro and wma lossless. Almost all of my
files are in mp3(128kb) and i'm wondering if i can resample
them to a different format or bitrate and save some space on my device.
My question is: which of the formats above should i choose to save as much
space as possible while still maintaining decent sound quality.
thank you very much
|
Well that really depends on the alpha flux numerical process your internal
digital phase coagulator uses. Some Mp3 players/encoders use the A-5143
while others use the A5143B. It has been known that depending in the
inherent phase characteristics of the source material, as much as a 0.152 %
difference can be heard when trans-coding the digitally hybridized signal.
If there is the option in your software - to maintain the best signal
quality I would recommend first up sampling your mp3 to a 32bit triphase
induced audio file in preparation for post-prefilter inter modulation. This
will maximize the minimum amount of bits lost during the process. If your
software doesn't support that feature you can find a small tool here:
www.magicmymp3.com, or if money is no object I would say go for a Creative
XsFi2-N Apocalypse as this has a new 'Crystaliser' that makes even 12bit
audio sound like 33bit!
I know that might sound complicated but believe me, its the best way to
trasncode your mp3 files without too much bi-singular inter-modular
signaling. But if you have been reading and haven't realized that the above
is complete bull*hit then God help you man! Sell your Muvo and buy a wind
up radio :)
Real advice follows:
Keep them as mp3's. 60MB = 60 minutes. Encode all future files as 64-96
wma if you absolutely have to save space.
Hope that helps
--------------------------
Ooh that was fun! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laurence Payne
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:01 pm Post subject:
Re: Which Encoding Option Better for Listening |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 21:14:32 -0500, "asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I got Muvo flash player and encoding program that
comes with it has 3 encoding options: wave, mp3,
wma, wma pro and wma lossless. Almost all of my
files are in mp3(128kb) and i'm wondering if i can resample
them to a different format or bitrate and save some space on my device.
My question is: which of the formats above should i choose to save as much
space as possible while still maintaining decent sound quality.
|
MP2 at 128 is about as low as you can go while retaining "decent"
sound quality. Some would argue it was too low already.
But why ask us? You have the resources. Try other options, see how
much space you save, see if you find the result acceptable. Please
let us know your results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:11 pm Post subject:
Re: Which Encoding Option Better for Listening |
|
|
"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
| Quote: | "asdf" wrote:
I got Muvo flash player and encoding program that
comes with it has 3 encoding options: wave, mp3,
wma, wma pro and wma lossless. Almost all of my
files are in mp3(128kb) and i'm wondering if i can resample
them to a different format or bitrate and save some space on my
device.
My question is: which of the formats above should i choose to save as
much
space as possible while still maintaining decent sound quality.
MP2 at 128 is about as low as you can go while retaining "decent"
sound quality. Some would argue it was too low already.
But why ask us? You have the resources. Try other
options, see how much space you save, see if you find
the result acceptable. Please let us know your results.
|
Besides, it is dependent on *your* particular program
material, and how much *you* are able to compromise
on space vs. quality. None of us can reliably guess what
*you* mean by "decent sound quality". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 11:16 pm Post subject:
Re: Which Encoding Option Better for Listening |
|
|
"asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote in message news:OdA9f.76$ex4.48@fe08.lga...
| Quote: | I got Muvo flash player and encoding program that
comes with it has 3 encoding options: wave, mp3,
wma, wma pro and wma lossless. Almost all of my
files are in mp3(128kb) and i'm wondering if i can resample
them to a different format or bitrate and save some space on my device.
My question is: which of the formats above should i choose to save as much
space as possible while still maintaining decent sound quality.
|
I would select a track from a CD that you are very familiar with and has
excellent sound. Encode it in all the possibilities you have that take no
more space than a 128kb/s mp3. Now decode all of them to wav and burn a CD.
You now have something you can listen to over a high quality system.
See if you can consistently pick out the most highly compressed version. If
you can't then you might as well use that one. I can get along with 30:1
compression.
Warning: Don't use a solo piano piece for the test. Instead, use something
with plenty of sharp transients.
Norm Strong |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveL
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:04 am Post subject:
Re: Which Encoding Option Better for Listening |
|
|
If I save selected CDA tracks to my hard drive in WAV format and then burn
them back to a cd in CDA format, do I lose any sound quality?
DaveL
"Forty Winks" <Yawn@bedtime.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97016BEC06B7AYawnbedtime@84.92.1.10...
| Quote: | "**bg**" <headphoneband@shaw.ca> wrote in
news:YnC9f.377016$1i.181262@pd7tw2no:
"asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote in message
news:OdA9f.76$ex4.48@fe08.lga...
I got Muvo flash player and encoding program that
comes with it has 3 encoding options: wave, mp3,
wma, wma pro and wma lossless. Almost all of my
files are in mp3(128kb) and i'm wondering if i can resample
them to a different format or bitrate and save some space on my
device. My question is: which of the formats above should i choose to
save as much space as possible while still maintaining decent sound
quality.
thank you very much
_______________________________
If yer equipment allows, try them all...
Let us know what you find eh?
-bg-
www.lchb.ca
As the files have already been encoded to MP3, anything other than WAV or
WMA Lossless will sound a lot worse, these two will sound the same but
result in *much* bigger file sizes.
I personally wouldn't bother re-encoding as 128kbit mp3's are pretty small
and low quality.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tai Fu
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:08 am Post subject:
Re: Which Encoding Option Better for Listening |
|
|
You can try wma at 96 or 128k, I heard it sounds better at less space but I
haven't been able to tell the difference. I can tell the difference between
lossless and lossy fine, but not between different lossy formats. also muvo
players will not play lossless wma, I have tried it before. the only players
that plays lossless formats is Rio Kharma and I don't know where to get them
anymore. If you are listening to music on the go you might as well go with
regular wma because they sound descent and doesn't take up space. Do not
turn on DRM or else you may have trouble playing them on your portable
devices. Half the headphones out there except the really good ones like
Sinnesher MX500 (which I don't like because its not "in ear canal" type)
sounds the same regardless of the formats, and you will have more problems
with the headphone than the formats. I have picked up this headphone made
by panasonic that is "in ear canal" which has excellent bass response,
assuming that the portable device has a bass boost circuit in it. However
the biggest gripe with them is that they sound so bright the music sounds
annoying, especially listening to heavy metal! I spent hours tweaking the eq
on my muvo to get them to not sound bright.
--
TAI FU
http://creationism.dyndns.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Codifus
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:57 am Post subject:
Re: Which Encoding Option Better for Listening |
|
|
S.K wrote:
| Quote: | "asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote in message news:OdA9f.76$ex4.48@fe08.lga...
I got Muvo flash player and encoding program that
comes with it has 3 encoding options: wave, mp3,
wma, wma pro and wma lossless. Almost all of my
files are in mp3(128kb) and i'm wondering if i can resample
them to a different format or bitrate and save some space on my device.
My question is: which of the formats above should i choose to save as much
space as possible while still maintaining decent sound quality.
thank you very much
Well that really depends on the alpha flux numerical process your internal
digital phase coagulator uses. Some Mp3 players/encoders use the A-5143
while others use the A5143B. It has been known that depending in the
inherent phase characteristics of the source material, as much as a 0.152 %
difference can be heard when trans-coding the digitally hybridized signal.
If there is the option in your software - to maintain the best signal
quality I would recommend first up sampling your mp3 to a 32bit triphase
induced audio file in preparation for post-prefilter inter modulation. This
will maximize the minimum amount of bits lost during the process. If your
software doesn't support that feature you can find a small tool here:
www.magicmymp3.com, or if money is no object I would say go for a Creative
XsFi2-N Apocalypse as this has a new 'Crystaliser' that makes even 12bit
audio sound like 33bit!
I know that might sound complicated but believe me, its the best way to
trasncode your mp3 files without too much bi-singular inter-modular
signaling. But if you have been reading and haven't realized that the above
is complete bull*hit then God help you man! Sell your Muvo and buy a wind
up radio :)
Real advice follows:
Keep them as mp3's. 60MB = 60 minutes. Encode all future files as 64-96
wma if you absolutely have to save space.
Hope that helps
--------------------------
Ooh that was fun!
Okaaay. Beam me up Scotty! |
May he rest in peace.
CD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:05 am Post subject:
Re: Which Encoding Option Better for Listening |
|
|
"DaveL" wrote ...
| Quote: | If I save selected CDA tracks to my hard drive in WAV format and then burn
them back to a cd in CDA format, do I lose any sound quality?
|
For all practical purposes: No.
P.S: There is no "CDA format". "CDA" is a name MS Windows uses
for "CD Audio". You will note that all the "CDA Files" are only 1K
long. They are just place-holders. You can use a "CD ripper" program
to "rip" the information from the audio CDs into a WAV computer file.
The "ripping" process may encounter some data corruption/loss, but
the program will recover/replace the missing/bad data in exactly the
same manner as any CD player would do, so you are very unlikely
to hear any difference between playing the CD, and listening to the
ripped WAV file (or listening to a CD made from it). Of course, the
next generation of CDs will feature DRM (Digital Rights Management)
to prevent doing any of this, so have fun while you can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laurence Payne
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:29 am Post subject:
Re: Which Encoding Option Better for Listening |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 10:04:43 -0800, "DaveL" <AKA Snake> wrote:
| Quote: | If I save selected CDA tracks to my hard drive in WAV format and then burn
them back to a cd in CDA format, do I lose any sound quality?
|
There isn't really any such thing as CDA format. An audio CD
contains something very close to an uncompressed WAV file. The CDA
"files" seen by Windows are just track markers.
The error correction system for an audio CD is less rigorous than for
a data CD. A program has to be retrievable bit-for-bit perfect.
Audio can tolerate a degree of error-correction by interpolation. But
as long as the CD is in good condition, you can practically say that
the wav you get off is the same as the wav you put on. Certainly
you're not chucking away information wholesale as you would when
compressing to MP3 or another lossy format. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:25 am Post subject:
Re: Which Encoding Option Better for Listening |
|
|
asdf wrote:
| Quote: | I got Muvo flash player and encoding program that
comes with it has 3 encoding options: wave, mp3,
wma, wma pro and wma lossless. Almost all of my
files are in mp3(128kb) and i'm wondering if i can resample
them to a different format or bitrate and save some space on my device.
My question is: which of the formats above should i choose to save as much
space as possible while still maintaining decent sound quality.
thank you very much
|
I advice you to try mp3resizer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asdf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Which Encoding Option Better for Listening |
|
|
encoded my entire collection in wma at 64kb.
Can't tell the difference really. If I didn't know any
better i would think that i was listening to my regular
mp3s at 128 kb
"**bg**" <headphoneband@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:YnC9f.377016$1i.181262@pd7tw2no...
| Quote: |
"asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote in message news:OdA9f.76$ex4.48@fe08.lga...
I got Muvo flash player and encoding program that
comes with it has 3 encoding options: wave, mp3,
wma, wma pro and wma lossless. Almost all of my
files are in mp3(128kb) and i'm wondering if i can resample
them to a different format or bitrate and save some space on my device.
My question is: which of the formats above should i choose to save as
much
space as possible while still maintaining decent sound quality.
thank you very much
_______________________________
If yer equipment allows, try them all...
Let us know what you find eh?
-bg-
www.lchb.ca
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in