Pocket PC Forum / End Users / Multimedia / September 2004
Compression Format and Bit Rate for Portable Audio Devices
|
|
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.
|
|
|