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: Very quick audio codec Q (Read 2942 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Very quick audio codec Q

I've had a good search though the forums for this question but can't find the exact answer I need.

I recently recieved a portable mp3 player.  All I want to know is; what is the best codec at 96Kbps?  MP3 or WMA?  And what encoder should I use?

Thanks!

Tony

Very quick audio codec Q

Reply #1
or indeed, 64kbps.

Very quick audio codec Q

Reply #2
Hard question... better format is mp3, but on lower bitrates (such as 96kbps) better is wma. You have to remember that this format (wma) probably consumes more power from your battery. I think the best way to get well sound on portable mp3 player is use lame --alt-preset medium profile. 96 kbps is not enough for me. You are asking about encoder.... mp3=lame  wma=m$

Very quick audio codec Q

Reply #3
Your opinion on what sounds better should dictate what you use, rather than what other people say is better. AFAIK, there is no general consensus for which is better at 96 kbps. At 128 kbps, I would say MP3. At 64 kbps, I would say WMA.

Personally, I would use a good Fraunhofer (FhG) MP3 CBR 96kbps encoder. The latest alpha versions of Lame 3.97 look promising, but cannot be recommended as they are only currently in the testing phase and not for general use.

Very quick audio codec Q

Reply #4
I know my opinion is the one that counts, but there's no harm in asking for advice.  Especially if it saves me listening and comparing lots of shitty encodings.

I forgot just how bad a 64kbps wma sounds :-(
But it's only for going cycling, so I don't need audiophile quality.

Very quick audio codec Q

Reply #5
have you tried lame 3.96.1 @ -V6 --vbr-new ?

I know its not as low at 96kbps, it seems to have an average bitrate of about 130kbps from a 20 track album i just encoded!.

with this preset, i find it very difficult to abx!  however, anything lower then this I can abx 100%

i know this is not the best way to get accurate results as certain codecs are tuned highly at specific bitrates but,

128k test
wma came 3rd place out of 4

64k test
wma came 5th place out of 6

so maybe it would come
4th place out of 5
on a 96k test!

obviously this is most likely very unaccurate!!! 

however, if you want my personal opinion, i think wma sounds a little better at 96k then lame at 96k.  it does sound a little metalicy though!

Very quick audio codec Q

Reply #6
deleted

Very quick audio codec Q

Reply #7
what capacity does  your player has?

Very quick audio codec Q

Reply #8
I've compared WMA and LAME at 96 kbps several times. Most often, I've prefered LAME results (less artifacts, but resampling - better compromise for my taste). I can't recommand LAME VBR at this bitrate: quality is too unstable. ABR/CBR are safer.

But for encoding speed, wma is much faster. If you are in hurry, it could be worth.

PS: note that LAME 4 will probably sound better (Intensity Stereo is already here in latest alpha), and is currently faster I think than WMA9.

 

Very quick audio codec Q

Reply #9
why would you want to use 96kbps?
increase the bitrate just a bit higher...e.g. 112kbps
mp3 is quite acceptable at 112kbps (VBR) for portable

96kbps mp3 sounds horrible in all conditions...(no matter how noisy the environment is)
you can still hear
annoying ringing
terrible "wush" "wush" noise...i suppose these are called "pre-echo"
very obvious high frequency lost

Vorbis is the only codec that can impress me at 96kbps

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021