Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
End Users
Pocket PCActiveSyncMultimediaEBooksWirelessSmartPhones
Developers
Windows MobileSmartPhonesWinCE ProgrammingVB for WinCEVC++ for WinCEPlatform BuilderTest Tools
PocketPC DirectoryFree SoftwareWeb Resources
Related Topics
PalmMobile PhonesMore Topics ...

Pocket PC Forum / End Users / Multimedia / September 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Compression Format and Bit Rate for Portable Audio Devices

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
MS - 26 Apr 2004 01:11 GMT
I know this can be a very controversial subject, so I hope this thread does
not generate into a flame war, or anything like that.

I am just curious to hear which compression formats (MP3, WMA, OGG, AAC,
MP3Pro, etc.) and bit rate (also whether CBR, VBR, etc. if known, codec if
known) readers on these newsgroups use for your audio to play on portable
players, and why and how you came to the determination to use that format
and bit rate.

Please don't flame other responders, even if you think the format and bit
rate they use sound terrible, etc. There is no point in arguing about that
stuff. It's all in the "ears of the beholder", in any case. Just curious to
see what the responses will be. Hardly any kind of "scientific poll", since
the responses will just be whomever chooses to respond, and not represent
any cross-section of any population. It will be interesting to see the
responses, in any case.
B - 26 Apr 2004 01:56 GMT
> I know this can be a very controversial subject, so I hope this thread
> does not generate into a flame war, or anything like that.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> on portable players, and why and how you came to the determination to
> use that format and bit rate.

For my 64mb flash mp3 player, used for running, I use mp3 @96kbps CBR.  .  
96k allows me to get about 1 1/4 hours on there, enough to go running
several times before getting sick of the mix.  I've never investigated WMA,
don't see the point, plus I can automatically resample mp3 before
downloading using mmjb, can't do that with wma.  I would use mp3Pro if the
player supported it, since I don't need high fidelity for running.

For my portable mp3 cd player, I use mp3 using the LAME preset --alt-preset
standard (VBR), or sometimes --alt-preset extreme.
Vance Green - 26 Apr 2004 02:46 GMT
64K WM8 CBR.

Sounds fine to me, as you point out, what others
think DOES NOT MATTER, I am the person
who is listening to it.  Mostly in the truck, which
is not quiet enough for higher bitrates to matter.

There's a lot of variations on WMA including VBR,
but I can get puh-lenty of music on a 256M SD
card this way, and it encodes way fast using the
command line encoder, WM8EUTIL.

I generate media-independent playlists by loading
the tracks after encoding into WMP, and exporting
the playlist to a file.  Then do a search and replace
in Notepad replacing absolute drive:\pathnames with
NONE.  These will then play on any machine, regardless
of whether it's on a PPC or a desktop.

> I know this can be a very controversial subject, so I hope this thread does
> not generate into a flame war, or anything like that.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> any cross-section of any population. It will be interesting to see the
> responses, in any case.
AlanS - 26 Apr 2004 02:59 GMT
That was some cross-posting.

It depends.
Try them and see? Pick a track that you like, encode it at various
rates/formats and listen. Everyone's ears are different, as are there
expectations- experiment and find yours.

In general wma is as good as mp3 at around 1/2 the bitrate (it was designed
for audio, mp3 is a more general format). The most common mp3 rate used
seems to be 128 (wma around 64), but a lot depends on your ears and the
available space, but it seems near CD quality for general use although it
probably won't suit critical listeners.

> I know this can be a very controversial subject, so I hope this thread does
> not generate into a flame war, or anything like that.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> any cross-section of any population. It will be interesting to see the
> responses, in any case.
Dan - 26 Apr 2004 03:43 GMT
> I know this can be a very controversial subject, so I hope this thread does
> not generate into a flame war, or anything like that.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> any cross-section of any population. It will be interesting to see the
> responses, in any case.

I use OGG approximating 128kbps as I think this is the best trade off
between getting good sound and small file size.  OGG to me clearly
sounds better than MP3, but you should do your own testing.  Remember
these are lossy compression so it won't sound as good as CD on a good
home stereo system, but then again MP3 and OGG are not meant to be for
the audiophile.

Dan
Mr. Grinch - 26 Apr 2004 06:58 GMT
> I am just curious to hear which compression formats (MP3, WMA, OGG,
> AAC, MP3Pro, etc.) and bit rate (also whether CBR, VBR, etc. if known,
> codec if known) readers on these newsgroups use for your audio to play
> on portable players, and why and how you came to the determination to
> use that format and bit rate.

A long time ago I did my first conversion to Fraunhoffer 128 CBR MP3s. Back
then there weren't really other compressed music formats to choose from.  I
noticed a lot of sections from my music collection just didn't sound right.  
A few in particular were really difficult for many codecs I tried.  Then I
went to Xing VBR.  This was better but I wasn't happy with the collection,
there were still some sections of music that had issues.

Just recently I got a Creative Nomad Zen Xtra 60GB.  I decided to re-rip
all my music again.  Before doing this, I tested the problem sections of
music.  I ended up using EAC and LAME 3.95 with -preset extreme, a high bit
rate VBR setting.  This seemed to do OK on the problem sections of music.  
Disk space isn't a huge concern because I have more than enough on the
computer and on the Nomad.

So the bit rate I picked by testing problem sections of music.  I picked
the format, MP3, because it's got the widest support of any format out
there.  Be it a flash player, a CD/MP3, or DVD player, or hard disk player,
the only format that comes close to being universally supported is MP3.

Now I've decided I want a lossless backup of my CD collection.  This gets
me three things.  The first is a backup, byte for byte, of all my music, no
loss at all.  The second is that it gives me an archive that I can use to
create any lossy / lossless format that I want, and not have to worry about
transcoding errors.  The third is convenience, not having to pump the CDs
into drives over and over again.  Point the convertor at the lossless
archive, pick your new format, and walk away.  Come back some time later to
find your new tracks in whatever format you needed.  

So far, I think I'm going to use FLAC.  It seems to have the widest support
for both software and hardware.  All I need to proceed is some more disk
space.  Once I'm done, I'll be able to generate any lossy / lossless format
I need without having to touch the CDs again. That's what I'm looking
forward to.
Martin Tillman - 26 Apr 2004 10:28 GMT
LAME alt preset -standard (+ -nogap when appropriate).

mp3 is universal, hence I don't use any of the other codecs.  One of
my portables will only play mp3 and wma.  I tried wma as I was
starting this game.  It's OK, but not really any good for sharing and
posting to usenet.  And, I'll go to the end of the Earth to avoid
anything associated with DRM.

LAME because it's actively developed by people who appear to know what
they are doing, snake oil not included.  I recently encoded something
using Fraunhofer at a high variable bitrate - admittedly not music -
and it was a complete disaster.  LAME did it perfectly (well, as close
as made no real difference).  alt preset -standard because it's
developed to be as transparent as possible while maintaining a
reasonable bitrate (higher rates available but only necessary for the
chronic anally retentive).
Arny Krueger - 26 Apr 2004 10:48 GMT
> I know this can be a very controversial subject, so I hope this
> thread does not generate into a flame war, or anything like that.

> I am just curious to hear which compression formats (MP3, WMA, OGG,
> AAC, MP3Pro, etc.) and bit rate (also whether CBR, VBR, etc. if
> known, codec if known) readers on these newsgroups use for your audio
> to play on portable players, and why and how you came to the
> determination to use that format and bit rate.

The files on my 128 meg  Nomad 2 are MP3 VBR 192 Kb, but I'd rather be
listening to .wav files with my NJB3
Eric Hicks [MVP, Windows Mobile devices] - 26 Apr 2004 13:26 GMT
I agree with Arny on the wav files, if I could I would do all my music in
wav but for now I'm using 256K bitrate for everything.  I'm not only
listening to these mp3's on my ipod, but also in my car via my neo-35 car
jukebox, and inside the house via my hauppage mvp's.  To me it doesn't
matter if I'm in a quiet or noisy area, I want all my mp3's to sound the
best that mp3's can, I also use lame via cdex to.

Signature

Eric Hicks [That_Kid] (MS-MVP Mobile Devices)

The MS-MVP Program - http://mvp.support.microsoft.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights...

MS - 24 May 2004 10:16 GMT
> To me it doesn't
> matter if I'm in a quiet or noisy area, I want all my mp3's to sound the
> best that mp3's can, I also use lame via cdex to.

The question is:  if you heard a 256kbps and a 128 kbps encoding of the same
music, and didn't know which was which, do you honestly think you would be
able to distinguish them?
MS - 26 Apr 2004 15:08 GMT
> The files on my 128 meg  Nomad 2 are MP3 VBR 192 Kb, but I'd rather be
> listening to .wav files with my NJB3

192 kbps on a 128 MB player. You probably cannot fit many songs on it. Not
even a whole normal length album?

Do you find the VBR gets better sound than CBR? I heard there is also
something called ABR. What is that?

The NJB3--is that the one that also is a CD player? Why not just play the
CDs then--instead of bothering to rip the songs to WAV?
dadiOH - 26 Apr 2004 15:37 GMT
>> The files on my 128 meg  Nomad 2 are MP3 VBR 192 Kb, but I'd
>> rather be listening to .wav files with my NJB3
>
> 192 kbps on a 128 MB player. You probably cannot fit many songs on
> it. Not even a whole normal length album?

192 is a compression ratio of a bit more than 7.
_______________________________

> Do you find the VBR gets better sound than CBR?

Sure it does.  Theoretically at least.
___________________________

>I heard there is
> also something called ABR. What is that?

Average Bit Rate.  Variable bit rate with a target average.
_____________________________

> The NJB3--is that the one that also is a CD player? Why not just
> play the CDs then--instead of bothering to rip the songs to WAV?

Probably because he can get them in 1/7 of the space.
______________________________

Man, talk about cross posting...

Signature

dadiOH
_____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.0...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
____________________________

MS - 27 Apr 2004 01:09 GMT
> The NJB3--is that the one that also is a CD player? Why not just
> play the CDs then--instead of bothering to rip the songs to WAV?

Probably because he can get them in 1/7 of the space.
______________________________

You missed something. WAV files are uncompressed. They don't fit in 1/7 the
space. That's what I was asking about, which he answered.
dadiOH - 27 Apr 2004 02:52 GMT
>> The NJB3--is that the one that also is a CD player? Why not just
>> play the CDs then--instead of bothering to rip the songs to WAV?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> You missed something. WAV files are uncompressed. They don't fit in
> 1/7 the space. That's what I was asking about, which he answered.

No, you missed something.  

You said/asked:
      ">192 kbps on a 128 MB player. You probably cannot fit many songs on
it. Not even a whole normal length album?"

To which I replied:
   "192 is a compression ratio of a bit more than 7."

Please try to get quotes in the right place.

Signature

dadiOH
_____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.0...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
____________________________

MS - 27 Apr 2004 04:17 GMT
MS wrote:

>> The NJB3--is that the one that also is a CD player? Why not just
>> play the CDs then--instead of bothering to rip the songs to WAV?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> You missed something. WAV files are uncompressed. They don't fit in
> 1/7 the space. That's what I was asking about, which he answered.

No, you missed something.

You said/asked:
      ">192 kbps on a 128 MB player. You probably cannot fit many songs on
it. Not even a whole normal length album?"

To which I replied:
   "192 is a compression ratio of a bit more than 7."

>Please try to get quotes in the right place.

That's not what I was referring to. I was not suggesting that he play CDs on
his flash player!!! ;-)

Go back and look yourself at what you wrote. I'm not going to waste more
energy pointing it out to you.
dadiOH - 27 Apr 2004 02:58 GMT
>> The NJB3--is that the one that also is a CD player? Why not just
>> play the CDs then--instead of bothering to rip the songs to WAV?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> You missed something. WAV files are uncompressed. They don't fit in
> 1/7 the space. That's what I was asking about, which he answered.

He wasn't making waves, he was making 192 kbps MP3s.

Signature

dadiOH
_____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.0...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
____________________________

MS - 27 Apr 2004 04:30 GMT
MS wrote:

>> The NJB3--is that the one that also is a CD player? Why not just
>> play the CDs then--instead of bothering to rip the songs to WAV?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> You missed something. WAV files are uncompressed. They don't fit in
> 1/7 the space. That's what I was asking about, which he answered.

>He wasn't making waves, he was making 192 kbps MP3s.

Go back and look at what Arny wrote. You are confusing two different things,
and then acting surprised when I point it out to you.

He wrote about two different ways he puts music on portable players. On his
128 MB flash drive, he puts 192 kbps Mp3s. However--on his NJB3 he puts
uncompressed WAV files. Got it--compressed on the 128 MB flash drive,
uncompressed on the hard drive large capacity player?

I mistakenly thought that the NJB3 was one of those units that can play CDs
as well as as music from the hard drive. Therefore, I asked Arny why bother
to rip the songs to WAV then, if he could just listen to the original
uncompressed CDs on the same unit. He corrected me, and told me that the
NJB3 does not play CDs. The discussion was finished.

But then you remarked about 7 times more space, in response to this
conversation about WAV vs CD on the NJB3. You obviously didn't notice what
we were talking about, and thought we were discussing the 192 kbps Mp3s he
plays on his flash drive, which was not what we were discussing. I pointed
that out to you, and you keep going in circles, telling me that I have got
it wrong.

It's weird how Internet discussions can often go in circles about nothing.
This ends my discussion with you about what Arny wrote. You can read it
yourself, if you care to bother. If you read it yourself, it's quite clear
what he wrote, how I responded, and how he corrected me.

I hope this hasn't derailed the original discussion. It would still be
interesting to hear from more people about their encoding preferences.
Arny Krueger - 27 Apr 2004 11:39 GMT
> Go back and look at what Arny wrote. You are confusing two different
> things, and then acting surprised when I point it out to you.
>
> He wrote about two different ways he puts music on portable players.
> On his 128 MB flash drive, he puts 192 kbps Mp3s.

VBR, to be a bit more exact.

> However--on his
> NJB3 he puts uncompressed WAV files. Got it--compressed on the 128 MB
> flash drive, uncompressed on the hard drive large capacity player?

Correct.

> I mistakenly thought that the NJB3 was one of those units that can
> play CDs as well as as music from the hard drive. Therefore, I asked
> Arny why bother to rip the songs to WAV then, if he could just listen
> to the original uncompressed CDs on the same unit. He corrected me,
> and told me that the NJB3 does not play CDs. The discussion was
> finished.

Correct. Also, the NJB3 effectively holds the equivalent of a lot of CDs in
a fairly small space, even uncompressed. Of course, its a monster compared
to what's available just a year or so later. But it was cheap and it
records.
dadiOH - 27 Apr 2004 13:43 GMT
> It's weird how Internet discussions can often go in circles about
> nothing. This ends my discussion with you about what Arny wrote.
> You can read it yourself, if you care to bother. If you read it
> yourself, it's quite clear what he wrote, how I responded, and how
> he corrected me.

OK, I got it.  Apologies...

Signature

dadiOH
_____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.0...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
____________________________

Arny Krueger - 26 Apr 2004 17:19 GMT
>> The files on my 128 meg  Nomad 2 are MP3 VBR 192 Kb, but I'd rather
>> be listening to .wav files with my NJB3
>
> 192 kbps on a 128 MB player. You probably cannot fit many songs on
> it. Not even a whole normal length album?

32 songs are currently loaded. 2 albums worth? Also, of course I've only
loaded it with my favorite tracks, so now it's holding the equivalent of 5
albums or more.

> Do you find the VBR gets better sound than CBR?

Yep.

> The NJB3--is that the one that also is a CD player?

No, its a hard drive player. Mine has a 20 GB hard drive.

>Why not just play  the CDs then--instead of bothering to rip the songs to
WAV?

Hard drive players can hold 40 albums or more as .wav files. 40 CDs is a lot
to carry around. Also, of course I've only loaded it with my favorite
tracks, so now it's holding the equivalent of 100 albums or more.

Also, I make my own recordings, and this saves me bothering to burn CDs of
them while I'm auditioning them and changing the mix and mastering.
Neil Smith [MVP Digital Media] - 26 Apr 2004 22:27 GMT
Got a pocket PC here so space is of the essence. Recently went on a
cpl flights 12h with 60 tracks wma and a 1 1/2 hour film on a 256 SD
card. Personally I prefer real audio at low bitrates (32k for dialup
eg) and high bitrate mp3, but on a Pocket PC usually you have ear-buds
and a noisy environment so the compressio isn't so noticeable.

I've heard ogg tracks at least as good as wma48k at 40k or less but I
guess it depends on the listener, listening environment and memory
constraints. I still reckon quicktime is the worst for file size vs
quality tho.

Cheers - Neil

>>> The files on my 128 meg  Nomad 2 are MP3 VBR 192 Kb, but I'd rather
>>> be listening to .wav files with my NJB3
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>Also, I make my own recordings, and this saves me bothering to burn CDs of
>them while I'm auditioning them and changing the mix and mastering.

========================================================
CaptionKit http://www.captionkit.com : Produce subtitled
internet media, transcripts and searchable video. Supports
Real Player, Quicktime and Windows Media Player.

VideoChat with friends online, get Freshly Toasted every
day at http://www.fresh-toast.net : NetMeeting solutions
for a connected world.
MS - 27 Apr 2004 01:12 GMT
> Got a pocket PC here so space is of the essence. Recently went on a
> cpl flights 12h with 60 tracks wma and a 1 1/2 hour film on a 256 SD
> card. Personally I prefer real audio at low bitrates (32k for dialup
> eg) and high bitrate mp3, but on a Pocket PC usually you have ear-buds
> and a noisy environment so the compressio isn't so noticeable.

WMA at which bit-rate?

> I've heard ogg tracks at least as good as wma48k at 40k or less but I
> guess it depends on the listener, listening environment and memory
> constraints. I still reckon quicktime is the worst for file size vs
> quality tho.

Quicktime? You mean AAC, which they use in Itunes?
I've read that it is one of the better compression formats? Or are you
discussing video compression? (I thought we were discussing audio
compression.)
Prilosec - 21 May 2004 02:06 GMT
I use 128kbs WMA9 on a 20GB Gateway DMX 20 hd player, but reduce (where DRM
allows) to 64kbs WMA9 on a 64MB RioS10 flash player. They all sound fine to
me. I sometimes play the DMX20 through the car stereo and it sounds very
good. I might notice a difference from the original CD if I were using my
home stereo with big speakers, but I'm not. The WMA made from WMP9 is a big
improvement over other versions.

> I know this can be a very controversial subject, so I hope this thread does
> not generate into a flame war, or anything like that.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> any cross-section of any population. It will be interesting to see the
> responses, in any case.
Prophet Zarquon - 17 Sep 2004 04:33 GMT
> I am just curious to hear which compression formats (MP3, WMA, OGG, AAC,
> MP3Pro, etc.) and bit rate (also whether CBR, VBR, etc. if known, codec if
> known) readers on these newsgroups use for your audio to play on portable
> players, and why and how you came to the determination to use that format
> and bit rate.

I use:

For MP3CDs (used in CD-MP3 portables, DVD players, PCs):
192Kbps CBR MP3 (w/ latest codec available in CoolEditPro2) --  I encode at
44.1, but cut the frequency response to 22.0KHz.  This gives me excellent
bass response and fidelity, while cutting tinny sounds and high frequency
noise.  Just my personal taste, but I don't enjoy hearing sounds over about
32KHz.  It hurts my ears.

For my PDA (WinCE, headphone or cassette adapter to car):
96Kbps CBR MP3 for acoustic, techno and most other music.  128Kbps CBR for
the most rapid, such as punk and thrash-bass.  I let WMP do all my encoding
for this device.

For my laptop (Wireless-G network w/ 108Mbps max, usually wired to stereo):
320Kbps VBR Streaming MP3, 44.1:22.0Khz.  I use CoolEditPro2 to encode,
XP-MediaCenterEdition or WME to host the stream.

I don't use OGG because I find it is better at treble than low end clarity.  
That's the opposite of what I want to hear.  OGG just sounds too needley to
my ears.

I avoid WMA because most DVD players and some MP3 players don't support it.

I write all my own playlists in .M3U format (video and audio) using Notepad.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.