Skip to main content

Topic: WMA VBR compared to the ALT-PRESET STANDARD (Read 3401 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • TurboFox
  • [*]
WMA VBR compared to the ALT-PRESET STANDARD
My currnet music library is encoded all in WMA VBR 135-215Kbps. I am thinking I dont have the best of hearing..but for those of you that do. Is it possible to hear a difference between WMA VBR@135-215 and a LAME MP3 encoded at the ALT-PRESET standard?
As for DRM issues and compatibility..I have only had issues with the music I downloaded from microsoft with DRM and compatibility my car stereo plays both as does my portable music player.Thanks for any advice.
  • Last Edit: 17 May, 2005, 07:52:27 AM by TurboFox

  • Acid8000
  • [*][*][*][*]
WMA VBR compared to the ALT-PRESET STANDARD
Reply #1
If you can't hear a difference then it doesnt really matter now hmm?

Well uhh looking at my sig, I can't say much.
  • Last Edit: 17 May, 2005, 08:39:24 AM by Acid8000
Acid8000 aka. PhilDEE

  • TurboFox
  • [*]
WMA VBR compared to the ALT-PRESET STANDARD
Reply #2
Quote
If you can't hear a difference then it doesnt really matter now hmm?

Well uhh looking at my sig, I can't say much.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=298308"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Your probably right..but knowing that theres a better compression method tends to make me overly paranoid about the quality of my music. Not only that, my logitech Z640 speakers are far from anything high end. I encoded some Led Zepplin this morning on alt-preset extreme and ended up with smaller files then compared to the same songs compresed VIA WMA VBR (overall lower ~bitrate) 
I supose for me its peace of mind knowing that my music is compressed while maintaining the best quality. I was just curious who here and hear the difference? And if so what audibly different?

  • de Mon
  • [*][*][*][*]
WMA VBR compared to the ALT-PRESET STANDARD
Reply #3
Quote
If you can't hear a difference then it doesnt really matter now hmm?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=298308"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hmm, it can matter if TurboFox uses not good speakers now and will change it for something better in future. Anyway I think ther is no listenable difference on EASY samples. I don't think you are listening to HARD samples like 'fatboy' or 'castanets' all the time you drive the car. 
Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited
Speex for speech

  • stephanV
  • [*][*][*][*]
WMA VBR compared to the ALT-PRESET STANDARD
Reply #4
If you are paranoid, go lossless. If you're not, then why should you care if you don't here the difference?
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

  • TurboFox
  • [*]
WMA VBR compared to the ALT-PRESET STANDARD
Reply #5
Quote
If you are paranoid, go lossless. If you're not, then why should you care if you don't here the difference?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=298338"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



  Ok....I'm wanting the best quality/compression threfore I'm not just going lossless and calling it a day. I care because
Quote
peace of mind knowing that my music is compressed while maintaining the best quality
and as de Mon stated
Quote
Hmm, it can matter if TurboFox uses not good speakers now and will change it for something better in future. Anyway I think ther is no listenable difference on EASY samples. I don't think you are listening to HARD samples like 'fatboy' or 'castanets' all the time you drive the car. wink.gif

  • stephanV
  • [*][*][*][*]
WMA VBR compared to the ALT-PRESET STANDARD
Reply #6
(note: I don't use lossless myself)

I'm sorry, but the best quality is lossless. It is the only way of assuring all of your rips sound good.

If you are asking if it is possible to hear a difference between WMA VBR and LAME APS, the answer is: for some people, yes. Is LAME APS always transparent: not for all people.

But what is audibly different for you? No one knows...
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."