Windows Media 9 audio

Hiphoplistner · February 25th, 2004, 08:45 PM

WM9 audio around 96-128kb/s to me are cd quality sound.
Plus it is free and easy to copy and sound better than mp3.
I get around 42 to 56 megabytes per CD I copy. 128kb/s
sound better than Mp3 that is 192kb/s. Most my wm9 files are better than my mp3. First of all, Mp3 is getting old and plain but it's so wide spread. 64kb/s sound little unreal but 96kb/s sound so much better. Wm9 is way better than the last verison wm8.
I still dont why people still choose mp3 over wma.

I would like know whenever you like mp3 over wm9.
Mp3 cant be better than wm9.

John Prophet · February 25th, 2004, 09:10 PM

Welcome to the forum!

Possibly either because MP3 players are so wide spread....or simply because a lot of people prefer stuff without the word "windows" attached?

JP

Hiphoplistner · February 26th, 2004, 01:31 AM

It not about the word "windows". Just pretend that mp3 and wm9 are A and B.

A is Mp3
B is WM9 -- i see that 9 is bigger than 3

which mean B better than A in my exeriment.

I just fool around for hours. I rip my favorite CD.
Miles David - The Kind of Blue , my personal favorite.

both into 2 formats (A and B) . Both the same speed. Same 16bit 44.1kH as the CD was. (192kb/s rate)

Then, burn it back on CD. PLayed it on my Pioneer DVD player.(563)
I have notice that B has much better bass respone. It midrange
imagine very same as the CD. Miles David trumipt sounded the same. Turn Sound up as loud as live concert hall and still get the same effect.

A is nothing like B.

John Prophet · February 26th, 2004, 02:12 AM

yeah, but its windows, lol

Bill in SD, CA · February 26th, 2004, 02:25 AM

Welcome to TechIMO!!

I'll take mp3 thank you.

My ears can't tell the difference and my car mp3 player suits me fine.

Bill

Dbest · February 26th, 2004, 02:30 AM

I'll take mp3 (192kbps or better) and ogg over windows media audio anytime. IMO I just like it better

, and yes because it's windows :P.

JohnE. · February 26th, 2004, 02:49 AM

Easy, one acronym: DRM. Even if one doesn't use it, the mere fact of it's possible existance with WMA files keeps most people and file traders away in droves.

Not all MP3 encoders (software and users) are created equal... of course, almost any WMA file is going to sound better than an Xing/Blade/GoGo, 192, Stereo MP3, encoded by someone who doesn't know what they're doing. I doubt a 128kb WMA encode will sound better than a LAME --alt-preset standard encode. I've got some ripping to do tonight so I'll try some experiments...

I'll take LAME MP3's over WMA files any day, but I prefer AAC (MP4) Audiophile encodes over either of those two formats.

cunokyle · February 26th, 2004, 03:07 AM

I use InterVideo WinRip for ripping and encoding in mp3 format...it is just the more popular music fomat and since most cd players also play mp3 format...why rip in WMA format?

**RobRich** · February 26th, 2004, 03:28 AM

I use a modified professional AAC encoder originally developed by PsyTEL Research for the majority of my high bit-rate encodes (>128kbps).

For lower bit-rates (<128kbps), I use the Vorbis audio encoder with an OGG file container format.

BTW, AAC can be either MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 depending upon the header formatting.

The reason for the popularity of MPEG-1 Layer 3 is the minimal hardware required to decode the compression algorithm. A DSP capabe of MP3 decoding can be found for mere pennies on the dollar as compared to more advanced AAC (or even WM9) hardware decoders. Accordingly, we have a market full of dirt cheap portable MP3 players.

Robert Richmond

Hiphoplistner · February 26th, 2004, 11:53 AM

" I prefer AAC (MP4) Audiophile encodes over either of those two formats." --JohnE

Where I can find AAC(mp4)? I never heard a mp4 yet.
Is there any differnet between CBR and VBR? Which is better?