Maximum PC

I am storing music on my computer and outputing via digital out on my Audigy 2 to my Harman Kardon home theater receiver with mp3 decoding. I am currently using WMP10, but have also tried winamp 5.05. I like both. WMP10 now allows ripping cds to mp3 @ up to 320kbps, whereas before you had to purchase a plug-in to do so. I have up till now ripped all of my music to wma lossless(about 45Gb worth). My songs range from about 800kpbs to over 1000kbps. I have heard some negative things regarding wma files, though they sound pretty good to me. So my question is this: Which has better sound quality: wma lossless or mp3 @320kbps. Is there any other advantages to either file type, besides mp3 @ 320kbps using less hard drive space. I have heard that ogg is really good but am concerned that my receiver will not be able to decode it, since I am sending the files to it digitally. Any opinions?

Th main question is:

Are you really sending the music files to the receiver or are you sending an already decoded digital sound stream, which in the case of the latter, wouldn't matter what format they originated from...

---
I do know that generally a WMA file @ at a comparable bitrate to MP3 is a much smaller file....in some cases around half the size

So a unless anything has changed recently, WMA at 320kbps would sounds as good as MP3 at 320kbps, but take up much less space...

So I'm guessing your WMA Lossless files probably sound much better than the 320kbps MP3's.

To be honest, i think either format at that bitrate is overkill, at least for me, though your ears may be more sensitive. Which brings me to my point: The experience is entirely subjective. encode the same song (preferably a demanding one - classical music works well for this) into both formats and compare both their audio quality (on the best sound system available to you) and file size and see which one appeals to you more on both fronts. Ogg is big with the linux crowd, but it is not supported by most portable players (ipod, creative zen, etc.) currently. That may change, but if it is a concern for you I would nix it.

I use mpeg4 and ogg vorbis @ 192 kbps. Both are far superior to mp3 (mpeg1, layer 3) @ 192kbps.

iRiver products support Ogg Vorbis... at least the harddrive-based units.

iPod supports mpeg4 audio... which is arguably better.

I prefer mp3 myself...they work in every player and will remain to do so. As for ogg, the iBead 1000 can play it as well....but I recommend mp3...or wma lossless.
Marco

Lossless is always better, regardless of the codec used ... it is lossless ... there is no loss of data at all in the compression. If it is truly lossless, there is no difference between the copy and the original ... they are simply encoded differently.

Data to data could be lossless, yet the funny thing about sound is that if you're ripping from cd, you're starting with a lossy format. Vinyl is less lossy, yet when you convert the sound to 1s and 0s, it's lossy. Lossless to mp3 is even more lossy. The mics in the sound studio are lossy. Every channel and conversion sound goes through is lossy. Sound waves through the air/matter are lossy! Everything is lossy.

It comes down to what your ears like best.

...yeah, under perfect conditions (we're talking miracles, here).

Vinyl is *VERY* lossy... why else would ANYONE be interested in CDs?

The minute you play it, the needle RUINS the recording!

If you want better, you'll want reel-to-reel, SACD, or DVD-Audio.

["It comes down to what your ears like best."]

...apparently, you like muddy-sounding vinyl?

...and that's about their only advantage. With proper know-how, you can playback any sort of audio through your car or stereo... unless you rushed into things and continue to limit yourself to mp3 and wma.



WMA is proprietary junk.

I was speaking of the loss between source and ear, not the integrity of the medium. Using your same argument, wouldn't reel-to-reel be just as destructive as the magnetized tape slides across the heads?

Consider that sound travels in waves which are represented better by the flowing grooves of a record than the on/off signals of a digital disk. The vibrations in your ear are responding to sound waves, we don't have robotic ears yet .

People (including myself) consider CDs for a host of convenience issues and, yes, the integrity of the medium. I have transferred many records to CD but that doesn't mean CDs necessarily sound better than vinyl. These same reasons of convenience and integrity lead people to prefer DAPs to personal CD players. Does that mean that music through DAPs sound better than CDs?

Just get an iRiver and go Ogg.

As an audio enthusiast (too poor to be a true audiophile ), I would suggest you use lossless if space permits. If you're piping it out to any decent audio set up, why cripple yourself with lower quality source media?

The difference in audio quality is definitely audible; I think it's much easier with headphones than speakers. I got an intro quality Grado SR-125 through an Audigy 2 NX and MP3s definitely don't sound as sharp compared to CD/lossless and MPEG4/AAC. MPEG4/AAC seems to be able to maintain the "CD" feel much better than MP3. To me, mp4 does a much better job with the spatial information.

No, for many practical reasons, the medium is considered the source, so CD -- EAC --> lossless format (APE, FLAC, etc) is not lossy, unless you have a shitty optical drive and EAC can't do it's job without errors... Like you said, data to data can be lossless, and sound on CD is data.

Uhh, yeah. That's exactly what I meant. I never said lossless was lossy . I meant that when sound is encoded onto the CD and turned into data, you lose a lot. I see the source as what actually came off of the instrument and out of the artist's mouth. I see all media (including CDs, tape, vinyl, etc.) as secondary sources and you don't. Whatever.

We're grasping at straws here and hijacking ExtremePCs' thread anyway.

So, ExtremePCs, I would use the WMA Lossless on your home system. If you get a DAP which doesn't support WMA, I suggest re-encoding from your CDs and not converting the WMA files.

WMA is one of the best for sound quality, far above MP3. It is just a compressed CD audio file, so therefore it is the same quality. MP3's however rip chunks of sound out, and unless they are encoded at an extremely high bitrate they sound like crap on any half decent soundcard/speaker setup.

Ummm... wrong. WMA compresses files in much the same way as mp3.

Mp3's only sound like ass if you compress below 160kbps.

BUT, if you want a superior CoDec, look at Ogg Vorbis, Monkey Audio, or MPEG-4 audio.

I stand corrected. I was mixing up information redundancy and perceptual redundancy or something again.