Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: LAME MP3 versus WMA (Read 5779 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME MP3 versus WMA

Hi Guys,

Ok So here are the objectives:

1.  encode efficiently to allow good quantity of music to be stored on a hardware MP3 player (MPIO FL-100)

2.  acceptable formats on player are WMA (including VBR) and MP3

3.  some MP3s sound flat as if the life has been drained from them, and some WMAs sound too warm... I want a realistic sound without artefacts and without too much missing

4.  Anything averaging 128-160k is acceptable more than that is too much of a price for portable music

5.  VBR is preferable

So Question 1 to contestant number one, "I am wearing a highly flamable suit so please be kind as I ask what sounds best at 128k to 160k WMA or MP3? (I prefer a VBR format)"

Question 2, how would you encode it?

Question 3, which lame setting gives similar size to WMA9 VBR 85-145kbps?  Or is there no equivalent as MP3 sucks below 128kbps?

Question 4, can you back this up with research and know "wee fat bob's mum said so" won't do?

Answers with LAME settings or references are most welcome, abuse is not, please be gentle and appreciate how brave I have been to ask the question.  My main concern with WMA is what happens if my next player is an IPod and doesn't support WMA?

Love,
Fairy

LAME MP3 versus WMA

Reply #1 –
WMA PRO is comparable to mpc, vorbis and AAC at 128kbps.

WMA PRO is not supported by any portable players at all, AFAIK.
WMA9 (not pro) is not nearly as competitive.

 
  With an iPod and 160kpbs to play with, your best bet is QT AAC at 160kbps (iTunes).

  Here are the results for rjamorim's eminently useful 128kbps listening test.

LAME MP3 versus WMA

Reply #2 –
first of all: Bob's mum rocks!   

Quote
what sounds best at 128k to 160k WMA or MP3? (I prefer a VBR format)
only your ears can tell.
look at the faq for blindtesting: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=7516&
regardless, you might want to have a look at some listeningtests:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=11936&
and maybe: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=13464&

Quote
Question 2, how would you encode it
with an encoder    B) 
...I only can give advice for lame (I don't use wma): use the presents, they are more tuned and balanced than any other commandline (e.g. --alt -present 128)

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']edit: damn, Audible has beaten me.[/span]
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

LAME MP3 versus WMA

Reply #3 –
- Select samples from your favorite music.
- Encode them with LAME and with WMA (lame --alt-preset XXX if you want to stay under 150 kps)
- Test all files through ABC/HR
- Compute all results, and you'll have your favorite encoder, based on quality.
- Then, please, publish it

I've did one test at 120...140 kbps, based on my music and on my artifacts sensibility :
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/show.php/showtopic/14091

Now I have a good idea on which encoder I should use for that bitrate area.
Wavpack Hybrid -c4hx6

LAME MP3 versus WMA

Reply #4 –
I'm currently using a mixture of WMA9 and Lame 3.93.1 altpreset standard however I think alt preset std is a little heavy on storage space on my FL100.

I was wondering if there are any good comparisons of 128k+ encoding with WMA9 versus LAME.  Those other comparisons are good but neither shows say 128k MP3 versus WMA.

Thanks,
Fairy

PS- these links are all very interesting.  I am just a little short of relaxed time to do my own proper testing.

LAME MP3 versus WMA

Reply #5 –
A WMA9 Std. 128kbps test (vs for instance quicktime and nero aac, lame and vorbis) would be very cool to have. Since WMA9 Pro isn't useable for any portable media anyway.

Since these are the formats that are mostly only available in portable use.
myspace.com/borgei - last.fm/user/borgei

LAME MP3 versus WMA

Reply #6 –
Quote
A WMA9 Std. 128kbps test (vs for instance qt and nero aac, lame, vorbis and mpc) would be very cool to have. Since WMA9 Pro isn't useable for any portable media anyway.


agreed for most portable audio users the question is WMA9 or MP3.  A study of both fixed and variable rate versions would be ideal however failing that VBR only would do the trick.

Also too much effort has gone into 64kbps comparisons as this format is rarely used outside voice and streaming apps.  Even for streaming the lowest bit rate I listen to is 96kbps Ogg or 128kbps MP3.

LAME MP3 versus WMA

Reply #7 –
Even if your portable is "storage space-challenged"  , I would settle for no less that -alt preset medium.

But that is just me...
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

LAME MP3 versus WMA

Reply #8 –
The best suggestion anyone can make is to listen for yourself.  If it sounds good/good enough for you then it is.  For me personally i find the alt preset standard to be a major waste of space for my personal.  I only encode to mp3 for my portable as i wouldnt ever use it for archiving myself, and as its portable i use with good in ear headphones (which whilst better than most are still well short of a proper pair! - for me the headphones make one of the biggest differences).

I didnt like any of the presets to be honest, so i investigated all the different switches and A/Bd (please no flames - i did this for myself, no one else ) until i came up with what is acceptable for me.    A lot of people recommend the -Y switch - i didnt like something about the sound from this - sounds more solid on first audition but also artificial and fatiguing on longer listening, but i would recommend a lowpass (HF cut).    Like I said.  Best bet is to listen for yourself.

LAME MP3 versus WMA

Reply #9 –
Quote
I ask what sounds best at 128k to 160k WMA or MP3?

I think most people in this forum prefers Lame MP3 at these bitrates, but as some have mentioned there hasn't been any listening tests comparing WMA9std with Lame @ 128 kbps. I would also like to see such a test...
Quote
Question 2, how would you encode it?

Your Lame MP3 choices are...
1. --alt-preset standard -Y (but this will probably lead to bitrates > 160 kbps, but it depends on the type of music)
2. --alt-preset medium (it is targeted @ ~160 kbps, but hasn't been tested that thoroughly)
3. --alt-preset xxx, where xxx is your target bitrate, i.e something between 128 and 160 (this is probably a safer choice than medium?)
1 & 2 are pure VBR, and 3 is ABR.
Quote
Question 3, which lame setting gives similar size to WMA9 VBR 85-145kbps?

I would say --alt-preset xxx, but below 100 I am pretty sure that WMA is a better choice, but it depends on your ears... Below 100 kbps the FhG encoders could be a better choice for MP3 than Lame, but most likely not as good as WMA.

I base all these statements on things I have read in this forum, haven't really done any testing myself...

LAME MP3 versus WMA

Reply #10 –
Thanks chaps.  I think I'll try some of the suggestions and do some serious testing once I have a little time.  I'm working very long hours at the mo' so have little energy for comparative listening.  If I get much more tired 32kbps Xing encoded will do 

More advice is welcome especially if it points to some studies...  B)