diff bet the audio formats?
-
to me, it seems that it's just their bit rate are diff. so what makes mp3 diff from wma and other formats?
-
some newer than the others.... and some uses less space with the same bitrate and frequency.
-
but comparing the size of the files with same bitrate and frequency, no much diff right?Originally posted by rathcycle:some newer than the others.... and some uses less space with the same bitrate and frequency. -
found something you might want to read onOriginally posted by skyfoo:but comparing the size of the files with same bitrate and frequency, no much diff right?
# Waveform Audio (.wav)
Waveform Audio (.wav) is a common file format. Created by Microsoft and IBM, WAV was one of the first audio file types developed for the PC. WAV files are defined as lossless, meaning that files are large and complete; nothing has been lost. Professionally recorded CDs are also a lossless audio source.
In contrast, the three audio formats listed below are lossy-redundant and non-auditory data is removed to allow for more compact storage; in essence, some data has been lost. This process of removing data to shrink the file size is called compression.
The three file formats below must begin with a lossless format-such as a store-bought CD or a computer WAV file-then compress it. Most lossy formats boast little or no detectable change in sound quality. But because each compressing format selects the deleteable data differently, converting one compressed file into another lossy format will sometimes result in lower quality audio. Again, always start with a CD or WAV file, then compress.
# MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 (.mp3)
MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 (.mp3) is a common, compressed WAV file. MPEG-1 files are about one-twelfth the size of WAV files. This is why MP3 players can accommodate hundreds of songs on a tiny chunk of storage space.
# Windows Media Audio (.wma)
Windows Media Audio (.wma) was developed to compete with the MP3 format for Windows Media Player. Microsoft claims that the WMA files are compressed three times more than MP3s yet retain their original sound quality.
# Ogg Vorbis (.ogg)
Ogg Vorbis (.ogg) is another compressed source code similar to MP3, but like WMA, more compressed. Ogg Vorbis is also open source (free to all, unlicensed, no strings attached). While MP3 compresses data at a constant bit rate, Ogg uses a variable bit rate. To illustrate-if you are copying chunks of silence into MP3 format, the compression bit rate stays the same as if you were compressing the sound of an entire orchestra. But if you are copying chunks of silence into Ogg, your compression rate will drop to nothing. The rate varies with the need.
Source -
the new .ogg is the best, good quality with low file size
-
Bad thing is many mp3 players and phone cannot recgonized it..Originally posted by The man who was death:the new .ogg is the best, good quality with low file size -
i've been compressing files to wma for years. what i notice is the convertion is compressing the bitrate by half (which is from 128kbps of mp3 to 64kbps of wma). thus, the half size claimed by microsoft. by converting a mp3 to wma with same bitrate, the file size is the same. and i cant differentiate the quality between the 2.
-
good read...Originally posted by rathcycle:found something you might want to read on
# Waveform Audio (.wav)
Waveform Audio (.wav) is a common file format. Created by Microsoft and IBM, WAV was one of the first audio file types developed for the PC. WAV files are defined as lossless, meaning that files are large and complete; nothing has been lost. Professionally recorded CDs are also a lossless audio source.
In contrast, the three audio formats listed below are lossy-redundant and non-auditory data is removed to allow for more compact storage; in essence, some data has been lost. This process of removing data to shrink the file size is called compression.
The three file formats below must begin with a lossless format-such as a store-bought CD or a computer WAV file-then compress it. Most lossy formats boast little or no detectable change in sound quality. But because each compressing format selects the deleteable data differently, converting one compressed file into another lossy format will sometimes result in lower quality audio. Again, always start with a CD or WAV file, then compress.
# MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 (.mp3)
MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 (.mp3) is a common, compressed WAV file. MPEG-1 files are about one-twelfth the size of WAV files. This is why MP3 players can accommodate hundreds of songs on a tiny chunk of storage space.
# Windows Media Audio (.wma)
Windows Media Audio (.wma) was developed to compete with the MP3 format for Windows Media Player. Microsoft claims that the WMA files are compressed three times more than MP3s yet retain their original sound quality.
# Ogg Vorbis (.ogg)
Ogg Vorbis (.ogg) is another compressed source code similar to MP3, but like WMA, more compressed. Ogg Vorbis is also open source (free to all, unlicensed, no strings attached). While MP3 compresses data at a constant bit rate, Ogg uses a variable bit rate. To illustrate-if you are copying chunks of silence into MP3 format, the compression bit rate stays the same as if you were compressing the sound of an entire orchestra. But if you are copying chunks of silence into Ogg, your compression rate will drop to nothing. The rate varies with the need.
Source -
Because MP3 is a lossy format, it is able to provide a number of different options for its "bit rate" — that is, the number of bits of encoded data that are used to represent each second of audio. Typically, rates chosen are between 128 and 320 kilobit per second. By contrast, uncompressed audio as stored on a compact disc has a bit rate of 1411.2 kbit/sOriginally posted by skyfoo:i've been compressing files to wma for years. what i notice is the convertion is compressing the bitrate by half (which is from 128kbps of mp3 to 64kbps of wma). thus, the half size claimed by microsoft. by converting a mp3 to wma with same bitrate, the file size is the same. and i cant differentiate the quality between the 2.
Some listeners accept the MP3 bit rate of 128 kbit/s and the CD sampling rate of 44.1 kHz as near enough to compact disc quality for them, providing a compression ratio of approximately 11:1.
However, listening tests show that with a bit of practice many listeners can reliably distinguish 128 kbit/s MP3s from CD originals; in many cases reaching the point where they consider the MP3 audio to be of unacceptably low quality. Yet other listeners, and the same listeners in other environments (such as in a noisy moving vehicle or at a party) will consider the quality acceptable. Imperfections in an MP3 encode will be much less apparent on low-end computer speakers than on a good stereo system connected to a computer or, especially, through high-quality headphones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3
Red Book (audio CD standard)
i believe the lower the bit rate, the lower the sound quality.
one more:
Microsoft claims that files in WMA format sound better than MP3 files at the same bitrate; however, a 2004 independent test conducted at a common bit rate showed it (at 128kbps) as inferior to AAC and Vorbis, roughly equivalent to LAME MP3, and superior to ATRAC3. Microsoft also claims that WMA files sound better than MP3 files at higher bitrates. Although claims about audio quality should be taken with caution, double blind tests have consistently failed to support Microsoft's claims about its superior quality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Audio
so next time pls use .mp3(although "lame" ) or .aac -
WAV - a sound format used on our new-old compact discs...that time ppl still gundu haven't discovered doing mp3s on computers so all overkill one packed full one cd one track 50MB over sound good. but ic an tell u lah it also depends on the sound mix studio and the technology they used the date of the album released may uses newer or older better or worse sound hardware and musical instruments and methods.
WMA - a sound format developed by Microsoft purely for optimised music play over the MS windows platform. so u play WMA over the PC running Win sure rocks at higher bitrate...but dun play a cd with this format over older sound systems like your hifi cannot play back.
MP3 - smarter sound format that masks the lower frequency of music/ sound wave that cannot be heard by the human ears as a form of compression meaning smaller file size...a discovery after improvements and drive in the IT industry and the need to share music easily over a website. picture this. if u hav listended to heavy metal u will know that in the heat of a track the bass sometimes cannot even be distinguished from the guitar rythms and solo shreddings. just picture mp3 like that.
we buy compact discs, we download mp3s and microsoft will be around for quite a while. and thus the existence of .mp3, .wav, .wma
-
Why no one talks about aac?
-
and ogg need codecs orso in my compOriginally posted by SexyChin:Why no one talks about aac? 
-
another qn, why does wma consume more power than mp3?
-
Because you can change everything else except your ears.Originally posted by skyfoo:i've been compressing files to wma for years. what i notice is the convertion is compressing the bitrate by half (which is from 128kbps of mp3 to 64kbps of wma). thus, the half size claimed by microsoft. by converting a mp3 to wma with same bitrate, the file size is the same. and i cant differentiate the quality between the 2.
-
do you hav a log of the power consumption when you play back wma files and mp3 files?Originally posted by skyfoo:another qn, why does wma consume more power than mp3?
or r u referrring to comp/ mp3 players.....
-
usually if the very original mp3 track i have has a certain bitrate, i will keep it as it is (even if its a 320kbps). if i need to make the file size smaller i will then use the original track and convert it to 128/64 kbps. the original stays.Originally posted by ditzy:Because you can change everything else except your ears.
mp3 players and hdd storage capacity so big wouldn't bother me anyway...same goes for my pair of ears. -
i read a review of zen neeon and they found out that playing wma files consume more power than mp3Originally posted by troublemaker2005:do you hav a log of the power consumption when you play back wma files and mp3 files?
or r u referrring to comp/ mp3 players..... -
I read that a few other brands of mp3 player manufacturers had the same claim, although I have no idea why.Originally posted by skyfoo:i read a review of zen neeon and they found out that playing wma files consume more power than mp3 -
so mayb if you own one such player you can play mp3s over it instead of wma? for me i am not concern about power consumption. mayb coz i dun own those newer models and my old creative cheap mp3 player runs on AAA. i get a few rechargeable NimH batteries and since then i forget and hav no worries about battery life anymore.Originally posted by skyfoo:i read a review of zen neeon and they found out that playing wma files consume more power than mp3
the next mp3 player that i choose shall run on AA or AAA with a larger storage capacity of course as compared to the one i am using now. flash memory please no mortorized micro - hdd. -
Even if its 0.0001A more, its still more.Originally posted by skyfoo:i read a review of zen neeon and they found out that playing wma files consume more power than mp3 -
the diff is few hours. that's alot. my qn is why is it so?Originally posted by ditzy:Even if its 0.0001A more, its still more. -
call me ignorant but if someone can provide the link and some info on higher power consumption with some players while playing wma fiiles please share it here.
applying common sense:-
mp3 players does what? playback mp3s of course...if its another format then mayb it'd require more power to decifer/ decode the different type of audio (in which it still supports as stated in the product specification) prior to playback.