Byte Me!

[rwartner]

I use Windows Media Player. I have thousands of tracks ripped lossless WMA.
I also have many MP3 tracks. The MP3s are all 320 kbps.

Please explain the comments:
2) WMA (which I started out with as well) is a limited format. I'd avoid at all costs.
Windows Media Player maxes out at 192.

I don't understand either comment.

I don't want to argue which software is better, for some folks Windows Media Player is convenient and works fine.

 

[DaveVoorhis]

Please explain the comments:
2) WMA (which I started out with as well) is a limited format. I'd avoid at all costs.
Windows Media Player maxes out at 192.

Without getting into the technicalities, it means the WMA format with Windows Media Player is inherently poorer sound quality than various alternatives.

 

[rwartner]

That doesn't answer the questions. "inherently poorer sound"? Is there any scientific evidence to back up this statement? There may be better software packages for different reasons but I doubt that is one.

There have been threads discussing which music software is best. Like many topics there is no real answer. We have our preferences. The conclusion I have is that lossless is lossless.

Many people like Flac, but not because it sounds better.

Some folks do not like Microsoft.

I have been a computer professional for many years. Many times it has been my job to help people with their computers. Sometimes I give simple answers, what is the easiest way?

Windows Media Player comes with your computer and works. Free, easy. For some folks that is a good start.

If you don't like it that's fine, but stick with facts.

 

[JoeESP9]

AFAIK Windows Media Player does not support WASAPI.

The Windows Audio Session API (WASAPI) is Microsoft's most modern method for talking with audio devices. It is available in Windows Vista, Windows 7, and later versions of Windows. It allows delivering an unmodified bitstream to a sound device, and provides benefits similar to those provided by ASIO drivers.Apr 17, 2014

The two free players I most frequently use (Foobar, Media Monkey) support WASAPI and sound audibly better when using it. Both also have (IMO) a much better user interface than WMP.

I and many others use FLAC for several reasons.
1. It supports metadata. WAV files do not.
2. It's not a lossy compression scheme. It decodes to be bit perfect to the original. MP3 files are lossy.
3. FLAC files are ~50% smaller than WAV files.

 

[DaveVoorhis]

That doesn't answer the questions. "inherently poorer sound"? Is there any scientific evidence to back up this statement?

Are you using a lossless format, like WMA Lossless?

My impression from this thread is that you were using a lossy WMA format, for which there are various articles that suggest its quality is poor compared to alternatives. For example, see http://www.mp3developments.com/article4.php. The article is about 10 years old but the lossy WMA format hasn't changed since then.

 

[+48V]

Windows Media Player maxes out at 192 due to a licensing limitation. To go higher you will need to use another app (paid or free) that can go beyond WMP's 192 "max quality" setting.

I must correct myself. The max bitrate for WMA lossy is 192k. But WMP will in fact rip up to 320k MP3. Back when Fraunhofer/Technicolor were licensing the encoder, some players were limited to 192k..license level. Now that most if not all the patents have expired this licensing scheme doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Nightwisher]

Please explain the comments:
2) WMA (which I started out with as well) is a limited format. I'd avoid at all costs.
Windows Media Player maxes out at 192.

WMA is limited as to which programs and devices it can be played back on. For example, if there was ever a need to transfer a WMA file to an Apple product, you can't do it natively. You'll need to convert them first and depending on how many files you have, that can be a huge hassle (iTunes will do it automatically on import, though, which is nice but takes time). That's really my only gripe with WMA.

Lossless WMA will sound, well, lossless. Those can be converted to FLAC with no loss in quality at a later date, however, again that can be a hassle.

As a side note, even Windows has moved away a bit from Windows Media Player and WMA. New versions of Windows no longer default to WMP for playback on a clean install (starting with Windows 8). For a while, WMP wasn't even included in clean installs and had to be added separately.

 

[JoeESP9]

If the free version of JRiver (JRiver Jukebox) supported WASAPI it would be my first choice for a media player. I really like the stock user interface.

 

[rwartner]

WMA Lossless.

 

[mmickk]

Nor sure what vs of WMP you might be using but even when ripping to mp3 you should be able to do 320. I do use mp3 of my car system as others have stated.

 

[Condorsat]

For my car head unit & DAPs ... I use 128kbps AAC ... if I were using MP3 ... would opt for 192kbps. IMHO & w/ my equipment ... once you get up to 320kbps, it's all a moot point.

AAC is better at lower bit rates than MP3.

320kbps AAC or MP3 is the minimum I would opt for on a 2 ch home stereo (speakers).

 

[Nightwisher]

For my car head unit & DAPs ... I use 128kbps AAC ... if I were using MP3 ... would opt for 192kbps. IMHO & w/ my equipment ... once you get up to 320kbps, it's all a moot point.

AAC is better at lower bit rates than MP3.

320kbps AAC or MP3 is the minimum I would opt for on a 2 ch home stereo (speakers).

Agreed on all points, though I personally find there's still extra detail to be had with CD quality on my equipment. 320 kbps sounds really great though.

I'll add that VBR AAC is even better.

 

[Condorsat]

Agreed on all points, though I personally find there's still extra detail to be had with CD quality on my equipment. 320 kbps sounds really great though.

I'll add that VBR AAC is even better.

True ... IMHO ... new equipment can change your opinion on anything. My car head unit is factory Nissan gear w/ Kicker after market speakers .... my DAPs are iPod Classic & a FiiO X1 ... AKG K240 , Sennheiser PX 100-II cans and occasional ear buds.

 

[cratz2]

I rip via EAC and just play the wav files at home. I convert to 320 Kbps MP3s for the car but honestly, in the car environment, is there really a tremendous difference between 192k MP3 and 320k MP3?

 

[Spitfirejoe]

Count me in as another guy who uses FLAC at home and 320KB MP3's for the iPod that goes in my car and to work. I use Foobar to play on the computer - and kind of miss the old WinAmp. I'm just starting the process of converting everything back to FLAC from ALAC (Apple Lossless). I tried to just use ALAC for both home and away, but my Pioneer receiver won't play them. It bugs me to have two copies of the same music, but I really like the iPod. Maybe I should try a player that will let me use FLAC files, but it would need to have huge storage capability to compete.

 

[JoeESP9]

FiiO X1 (Gen 2) $99. It plays files up to 192/32. The only format it doesn't play is DSD.
Get a couple of 128GB Micro SD cards and you can carry your entire collection with you.

 

[Nightwisher]

FiiO X1 (Gen 2) $99. It plays files up to 192/32. The only format it doesn't play is DSD.
Get a couple of 128GB Micro SD cards and you can carry your entire collection with you.

It would take 10 for me. But do I need everything on the go? Certainly not.

 

[JoeESP9]

In my case 36GB of FLAC (Sansa ClipZip) files for walking around music is more than adequate. That size easily accommodates all my favorites. A FiiO X1 or X3 is in my future.

 

[jazzmans]

Hello, I'm back!

I've got a new computer, and I'm ripping CDs. Audio quality settings are anywhere from 48 Kbps to 192 Kbps., with a default setting of 128 Kbps. It says that 192 Kbps is the best quality of course, and my CD player will interpret that data..
Does anyone believe that they can perceive a significant difference between 48 and 192, especially between 128, 160, and 192 Kbps. If 192 supposedly is the best, and if file size isn't a factor, why wouldn't you go that way? Just curious. Any, and all comments, suggestions, and experiences would be welcome.

Thanks.................................Dave

I can absolutely hear 192kbps, when I rip for mp3 I use 320kbps, and still in a side by side comparison, on my best gear, it's obvious which is the .wav and which is the .mp3. On my lower end systems, the difference is not so much.

I also rip both WAV and MP3, WAV for my home server, MP3 for portability, phone/car/etc.