IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
WMA 192 kbps vs WMA VBR 240-355 kbps
JasonWilley
post Oct 12 2010, 23:16
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 21-March 10
From: Sheffield
Member No.: 79186



besides the obvious file size differences, what will be the differences in sound quality and performance when ripping music with windows media player 12?

will the sound be the best lossy file at the highest vbr settings compaired to wma 192

cheers

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 13 2010, 00:45
Reason for edit: Standard font, please.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Oct 12 2010, 23:32
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 3391
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



While the higher bitrate should theoretically be of higher quality, for most people and most music the difference will probably be inaudible.

Having said that, VBR is almost always the most efficient way to get the highest quality.

Beyond that you would need to do your own testing to see how they sound to you on your own equipment.

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 13 2010, 00:44
Reason for edit: Removed unnecessary quotation of the initial post.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Juha
post Oct 13 2010, 04:39
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 453
Joined: 14-February 07
From: EU-FIN
Member No.: 40610



WMA 192kbps ... what 'bout it as WMA Pro 24-bit resolution.

Juha
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JasonWilley
post Oct 13 2010, 11:26
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 21-March 10
From: Sheffield
Member No.: 79186



i always thought wma pro was 16 bit
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Oct 13 2010, 12:49
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 3391
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (JasonWilley @ Oct 13 2010, 06:26) *
i always thought wma pro was 16 bit

And I always thought that lossy encodings had no bit depth?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Oct 13 2010, 15:54
Post #6





Group: Developer
Posts: 3357
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



I wonder why WMA STD encoder cannot correctly encode 60.wv in VBR mode...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JasonWilley
post Oct 13 2010, 23:24
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 21-March 10
From: Sheffield
Member No.: 79186



i cant hear any obvious differences so would i be better of with normal wma 192
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Oct 13 2010, 23:41
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 3391
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (JasonWilley @ Oct 13 2010, 18:24) *
i cant hear any obvious differences so would i be better of with normal wma 192

If you are asking between WMA standard vs. WMA pro, WMA standard has much more universal support.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JasonWilley
post Oct 14 2010, 08:55
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 21-March 10
From: Sheffield
Member No.: 79186



i know but am asking interms of pure sound quality between wma and wma vbr at highest settings
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 14 2010, 09:00
Post #10





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



If you cannot ABX then there is no difference in terms of "pure sound quality."


--------------------
Concern trolls: not a myth.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JasonWilley
post Oct 14 2010, 11:46
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 21-March 10
From: Sheffield
Member No.: 79186



i dont know what abx is or meens
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ouroboros
post Oct 14 2010, 11:54
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 30-May 08
From: UK
Member No.: 53927



Try the HA WIKI, or Google, or Wikipedia........
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dhromed
post Oct 14 2010, 12:00
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 1301
Joined: 16-February 08
From: NL
Member No.: 51347



QUOTE (JasonWilley @ Oct 14 2010, 12:46) *
i dont know what abx is or meens


ABX is a methodology to determine difference and/or superiority between two audio samples. Details here.

Lossy compression has no real objective measure of quality whereby you can scan a file and say for certain that X has greater quality than Y. You can assume that, for example, a 320kbps MP3 is of better quality than a 192kbps one, but you can only verify it by listening.

In other words, if you cannot hear a difference, then there is none, and it would make no sense to pick one compression type over another.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Oct 14 2010, 13:32
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 3391
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (JasonWilley @ Oct 14 2010, 06:46) *
i dont know what abx is or meens

Oh come on! huh.gif You've been a member for seven months and you didn't know the meaning of ABX?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dhromed
post Oct 14 2010, 14:14
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 1301
Joined: 16-February 08
From: NL
Member No.: 51347



QUOTE (pdq @ Oct 14 2010, 14:32) *
Oh come on! huh.gif You've been a member for seven months and you didn't know the meaning of ABX?


Join date only loosely correlates with lurkingtensity, in my experience.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Oct 14 2010, 17:36
Post #16


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5089
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (JasonWilley @ Oct 14 2010, 17:31) *
we not all geeks you know
No, but if you can reach Hydrogenaudio, then you can probably reach Google too.

And though I'm sure you didn't mean to, if someone wanted to seriously troll Hydrogenaudio, they'd probably start the way you are doing. ABX testing is the way we separate real improvements from imaginary bullshit - which is largely the point of this forum.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Oct 14 2010, 17:40
Post #17





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



Never mind the fact that the Terms of Service—which you implicitly agreed to abide by upon registering, and thus probably ought to skim over—explicitly feature information on what ABX testing is and why it is important.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ouroboros
post Oct 14 2010, 17:58
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 30-May 08
From: UK
Member No.: 53927



In what sense does reading about ABX require you to be a geek, or require you to have a science degree? If, for example, you were being asked to understand how MP3 encoders use DCT then that might be a reasonable response, but there's nothing "geeky" about structured listening tests - as you have discovered if you'd done any reading as suggested. Also, you have already stated "i cant hear any obvious differences" (your lack of capitalisation and punctuation has been preserved losslessly in that quotation), so you are obviously happy to do a listening test, and ABX is just a formal method of making sure that your comparative listening tests are free from bias.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zarggg
post Oct 14 2010, 23:00
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 551
Joined: 18-January 04
From: bethlehem.pa.us
Member No.: 11318



QUOTE (pdq @ Oct 14 2010, 08:32) *
QUOTE (JasonWilley @ Oct 14 2010, 06:46) *
i dont know what abx is or meens

Oh come on! huh.gif You've been a member for seven months and you didn't know the meaning of ABX?

I joined the forum back in 2004, but didn't REALLY start lurking/responding until sometime in 2008. tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dhromed
post Oct 15 2010, 08:55
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 1301
Joined: 16-February 08
From: NL
Member No.: 51347



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 14 2010, 18:36) *
QUOTE (JasonWilley @ Oct 14 2010, 17:31) *
we not all geeks you know
No, but...


The deleted posts make this thread something of a talking-to-my-imaginary-friend one.

In any case, I think Jason's question has been adequately answered. Perhaps relative to his level of commitment and base knowledge, HA does require a "science degree". Structured testing is science, after all. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hellokeith
post Oct 17 2010, 12:40
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 14-August 06
Member No.: 34027



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Oct 13 2010, 08:54) *
I wonder why WMA STD encoder cannot correctly encode 60.wv in VBR mode...


sounds identical to me, can you describe the issue?

For the OP topic, I am more of a fan of Windows Media Encoder and its command line vbs add-on than trying to rip/convert with WMP. That said, 192 kbps and higher is generally* where any lossy codec becomes transparent to the source.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Oct 17 2010, 18:32
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 4903
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



WMA Standard supports 24 bit audio FWIW. No idea if the MS encoder is particularly good at it (probably makes no difference anyway).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Oct 17 2010, 19:55
Post #23





Group: Developer
Posts: 3357
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (hellokeith @ Oct 17 2010, 15:40) *
sounds identical to me, can you describe the issue?


I was talking about WMA STD quality-based VBR, not 2-pass & bitrate-based... lalala.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Oct 18 2010, 00:15
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 3391
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (saratoga @ Oct 17 2010, 13:32) *
WMA Standard supports 24 bit audio FWIW. No idea if the MS encoder is particularly good at it (probably makes no difference anyway).

I have no idea what you mean by that, since lossy-encoded files have no inherent bit depth. Do you mean that the encoder accepts 24 bit PCM files as input?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hellokeith
post Oct 18 2010, 01:48
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 14-August 06
Member No.: 34027



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Oct 17 2010, 12:55) *
QUOTE (hellokeith @ Oct 17 2010, 15:40) *
sounds identical to me, can you describe the issue?


I was talking about WMA STD quality-based VBR, not 2-pass & bitrate-based... lalala.gif



Hrmm well I ran it through WME on the default Quality VBR:
CODE
Audio encoding mode:    Quality VBR

Audience:     Quality-based
Audio codec:    Windows Media Audio 9
Audio format:    VBR Quality 98, 44 kHz, stereo VBR


and it still sounds identical to me. Maybe you are using a 3rd-party encoder with some issue?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st August 2014 - 16:14