Which music and video compression types are better--MP3, WMA, etc.?

[maikii]

Can people compare the different types of music and video compression formats?

For instance, in music--there is MP3, WMA, and now I read here one called OGG. (I never used the third one before.)

If compatibility is a consideration, then the hands-on winner is Mp3, as it is still far more in use by far more people, more supported by devices, etc. (Although it's clear that Microsoft wants WMA/WMV to become the standards, they certainly aren't at this point.)

But putting compatibility issues aside, can people compare the advantages and disadvantages of these different formats?

For example, if one compressed a .wav file with mp3, .wma, and .ogg, and all three resulted in the same file size, which one would have better sound?

Conversely, if all three were compressed to have very similar audio quality, which would have a smaller file size?

Or--all very similar???

I would appreciate any input people can give regarding the advantages and disadvantages of these different formats.

Same thing for compressed video formats--. MPEG, compressed .AVI, compressed .MOV (QuickTime), .WMV, .ASF, DIVX, etc., etc.?

[maikii]

Can people compare the different types of music and video compression formats?

For instance, in music--there is MP3, WMA, and now I read here one called OGG. (I never used the third one before.)

If compatibility is a consideration, then the hands-on winner is Mp3, as it is still far more in use by far more people, more supported by devices, etc. (Although it's clear that Microsoft wants WMA/WMV to become the standards, they certainly aren't at this point.)

But putting compatibility issues aside, can people compare the advantages and disadvantages of these different formats?

For example, if one compressed a .wav file with mp3, .wma, and .ogg, and all three resulted in the same file size, which one would have better sound?

Conversely, if all three were compressed to have very similar audio quality, which would have a smaller file size?

Or--all very similar???

I would appreciate any input people can give regarding the advantages and disadvantages of these different formats.

Same thing for compressed video formats--. MPEG, compressed .AVI, compressed .MOV (QuickTime), .WMV, .ASF, DIVX, etc., etc.?

[spursdude]

For audio, either WMA or OGG is better for lower-bitrate quality. WMAs sound quite good at 64kbps, and awesome at VBR around 70 or 80 kbps. WMP9 for XP allows you to select a range to encode your VBR WMA, and that's what I do - use the option second-to-the-left. Ogg files sound great from what I've heard (wow no pun intended) and are great at 64kbps. As for MP3 files, you'll need to keep them at least at 128kbps, most likely more. I use WMAs because they play nice with Windows Media Player - a lot of other people use ogg with other programs.

As for video, I don't know too much - my gut instinct is that DivX has the best quality to size ratio.

[jeffmd]

wma is for people who have no ear for music. mp3 is middle of the road but really requires a large bit rate, and even then it cannot sound perfect, there will allways be artifacts. mp3 is easily the worst of the 3 at 64kbits, but no compressions is really enjoyable at that bitrate. Ogg is the best of the 3.

keep in mind however that if you are playing music you just downloaded, it is most likely in mp3 form and therefore best to leave it as mp3. You won't get any quality back by compressing to another format.

[spursdude]

Originally Posted by jeffmd

wma is for people who have no ear for music.

Whoa hey now... I have an ear for music. I don't think that's a true generalization. Seriously, the quality to size ratio of WMA files is pretty good... oggs may sound better, but in my confident opinion, WMAs sound better than MP3 files at the same bitrate... like a 64kbps WMA will probably sound better than a 128kbps MP3 file, although I don't listen to WMA at 64kbps as I notice glitches.

[Jason Dunn]

I was just responding to your post in the public newsgroup, so it's nice to see that you found this forum as well. ;-)

Originally Posted by maikii

Can people compare the different types of music and video compression formats?

I don't use OGG, so I can't speak to that point. I use WMA and MP3 a lot though. :-)

> For example, if one compressed a .wav file with mp3, .wma, and .ogg, and all
> three resulted in the same file size, which one would have better sound?

Between MP3 and WMA, WMA fill always have better sound at a lower bit-rate. For instance, a 64 Kbps WMA will sound about as good as a 96 or 128 Kbps MP3. WMA has a better psycho-acoustical model.

> Conversely, if all three were compressed to have very similar audio quality,
> which would have a smaller file size?

It's all a matter of bit-rate. It's a common misconception that a 128 Kbps WMA will be smaller than a 128 Kbps MP3 - both are 128 Kbps, and hence, both will be the same files (within a few KB). The real question is "Which file type will give me the quality I want with the smallest possible file size?". Between MP3 and WMA, the answer is VBR WMA, which you can create with the 9 Series Windows Media Player.

> Same thing for compressed video formats--. MPEG, compressed .AVI, compressed
> .MOV (QuickTime), .WMV, .ASF, DIVX, etc., etc.?

This is a much harder comparison, because it varies so much based on codecs, what type of video you're talking about, etc. Myself, I just stick with WMV for the most part because it's simple and fast to encode with the free encoding tools from Microsoft.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by jeffmd

wma is for people who have no ear for music.

Dude, that's just a stupid statement. :roll: If you had said "WMA at 32 Kbps", I might agree with you, but to claim that the entire WMA format is for people with tin ears is ignorant and offensive. Right now I'm listening to the Lord of the Rings soundtrack on Klipsch speakers, ripped to 240~355 Kbps VBR WMA, and I would challenge you to give me a better audio experience. :wink:

Originally Posted by jeffmd

Ogg is the best of the 3.

Are there any sites out there that take the same song, compress it to MP3, WMA, and OGG, then compare them? I'd like to hear the proof. :-)

[KayMan2k]

Audio ---

WMA uses a slightly differnt compression technology and in SOME CASES an MP3 file of the same bitrate may actually sound better. It is more of a question about encoders than formats at this point. WMA has a more effiecent algorithm, but in some cases - for those with a really strong ear - might be able to notice a difference. This is just like a FEW people complain about the fidelity of MP3 files. However, in most cases subtle annonyances will not matter - they will never be noticeable to an average person listening to a normal music file. Now you have a trained ear and listening to classical music you might hear a difference. There has been a lot of research in this field (of encoding) on MS's end so its usually the best bet. OGG is less of a modification of MP3, but enought to squeeze out slightly better quality. Again, depends on the encoder.

Right now I'm listening to the Lord of the Rings soundtrack on Klipsch speakers, ripped to 240~355 Kbps VBR WMA, and I would challenge you to give me a better audio experience.

Jason - at that high of a bitrate any decent audio compression will sound excellent (unless your using 5.1 sound?). If it is normal stereo I highly doubt you could tell a difference between a WMA and MP3. Technically speaking, at that high a bitrate WMA's and MP3's alogrithm are quite similar. At lower bitrates, WMA is better because of how it segments audio data and performs physco-acuostic optimization.

I don't want this to turn into a flame thread.. just explaining the facts.

Video ---

First off, to my knowledge there is no Quicktime application for PocketPC. So that's out already.

Also, please understand that AVI is NOT a compression type. It is simply a file structure. There are several codecs that AVI can use (including Windows Media 9), however only the DiVX codec currently plays on PocketPC. (actually, there is another 3ivx or something like that, but its not really supported and not proven better than Divx).

Technically, Real Media is the best video format - but it is not standard and doesn't play well on Pocket PC. I suggest using either Windows Media or DiVX. Both are free with free encoders (althoguh DiVX encoders are more customizable and support filters). DiVX is more sensitive to noise (but sharper detail for noise-free encoding) and WMA tends to create video which appears "smooth" in areas instead of blocky. They are both based on the MPEG-4 standard and use extremly similar compression techinques. DiVX is the current format of choice for most people especially since its player is faster than Microsoft's - but Pocket MVP currently has issues under WM2003. So I suggest just using Windows Media for now.


Hope this helps...

[Pat Logsdon]

Originally Posted by Jason Dunn

Are there any sites out there that take the same song, compress it to MP3, WMA, and OGG, then compare them? I'd like to hear the proof. :-)

Here's a page that does just that. 8)

The page was created by the organization responsible for the .ogg codec (so it's just a tad biased), but it still has examples of the same files encoded at the same bitrates for ogg, wma and mp3...

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by Surgical Snack

Here's a page that does just that. 8)

Cool, I'll check that out when I have time. :-)

[famousdavis]

This is an interesting thread I just read, as I'm interested in squeezing more songs onto my storage card -- avoiding having to buy another storage card and then losing/breaking the card not inserted into my PPC.

Whenever I rip an MP3 from an audio CD, I set the bitrate to 192kbps -- that is noticeably better than 128kbps, especially with the sizzle of drum cymbals.

Jason (or others): If someone wants a 192kbps/MP3-equivalent experience with the WMA format, what bitrate would be best?

I suppose it's not a good idea to rip an WMA file from an MP3 file, yes (even when the MP3 is encoded at 192/kbps)? Eg, I have to go back to inserting the audio CDs into my desktop and re-rip, yes?

Also, since I use WMP 9 on my desktop, I'm assuming that whatever I rip on my desktop will work flawlessly on WMP 8.0 on my PPC, yes?