kfluet
05-05-2003, 08:23 AM
I did a comparison just yesterday between WMP, PocketMind Pocket Music, WinamPAQ and Pocket MVP. I also compared .mp3, .ogg and .wma formats for file size and quality. I haven't come to a conclusion about what to use yet, but here's what I have so far:
Pocket MVP, while great for watching movies on your handheld, is terribly unstable when playing oggs as mentioned. Not worth considering for music.
Pocket Music and WinamPAQ are very similar. They have all the goodies one would expect from a music player including decent playlist editors, skins, graphic equalizers with presets for different kinds of music, etc. PocketMusic now supports .wma format (with the $20 add-on feature pack). WinamPAQ supports .ogg. For me, choosing between these two has more to do with choosing between .ogg and .wma.
Microsoft Pocket Windows Media Player has an advantage in that it comes built in to your pocketpc. Some people don't care about memory and the PIA factor in reinstalling after a hard reset. I do.
Ogg Vorbis (.ogg) and Widows Media Audio (.wma) formats beat .MP3 in quality and file size. .ogg and .wma deliver roughly half the file size vs. .mp3 for the same quality, or much better sound quality for the same file size.
For testing I encoded a number of songs from the raw CD's using XP. I encoded both .wma and .ogg files using the same variable bit rate roughly 96 kbps settings and ended up with files of almost exactly the same size.
I had a real hard time telling the difference between .wma and .ogg listening to my iPAQ with my Koss portaPro headphones. .ogg is something like 5% to 10% better than .wma, depending on the music.
Wanting better resolution and being over to my mom's for dinner, I tried plugging my iPAQ 3970 into my stepdad's audiophile quality stereo. Of course the iPAQ sounds like crap compared to a high-end CD-Player and optically coupled DAC, but my purpose was to get the best way to compare .ogg and .wma. A tube amplifier, some wicked speakers, and a properly balanced and dampened room help.
I found that .ogg format was noticeably (maybe 20%) better at the same file size (encoding rate) than .wma when listening to pop like Simon and Garfunkel, and just barely better (5-10%) when listening to orchestral or vocal classical music.
The question is what the 10% quality advantage that .ogg has over .wma is worth, especially on a PDA.
Considering the extra work needed to do .ogg instead of .wma, I think I am going to stick with .wma for now. Windows XP does a pretty good job of converting files (drop the CD in--doesn't get much easier), and from what I can see, there are more music players out there (both memory and disc based) that support .wma vs. .ogg.
Has anyone else done some real comparisons? Anybody done an .ogg vs. .wma test on PocketPC with real audio frequency analysis gear? What have you found?
I didn't see a demo version of Pocket Music feature pack to compare .wma output from Pocket Music vs. WM Player. Is there any difference?
Koss portaPro headphones kick ass as PocketPC accessory, by the way--check them out if you haven't heard them. They ain't pretty, but they fold up relatively small and the sound is incredible.
Pocket MVP, while great for watching movies on your handheld, is terribly unstable when playing oggs as mentioned. Not worth considering for music.
Pocket Music and WinamPAQ are very similar. They have all the goodies one would expect from a music player including decent playlist editors, skins, graphic equalizers with presets for different kinds of music, etc. PocketMusic now supports .wma format (with the $20 add-on feature pack). WinamPAQ supports .ogg. For me, choosing between these two has more to do with choosing between .ogg and .wma.
Microsoft Pocket Windows Media Player has an advantage in that it comes built in to your pocketpc. Some people don't care about memory and the PIA factor in reinstalling after a hard reset. I do.
Ogg Vorbis (.ogg) and Widows Media Audio (.wma) formats beat .MP3 in quality and file size. .ogg and .wma deliver roughly half the file size vs. .mp3 for the same quality, or much better sound quality for the same file size.
For testing I encoded a number of songs from the raw CD's using XP. I encoded both .wma and .ogg files using the same variable bit rate roughly 96 kbps settings and ended up with files of almost exactly the same size.
I had a real hard time telling the difference between .wma and .ogg listening to my iPAQ with my Koss portaPro headphones. .ogg is something like 5% to 10% better than .wma, depending on the music.
Wanting better resolution and being over to my mom's for dinner, I tried plugging my iPAQ 3970 into my stepdad's audiophile quality stereo. Of course the iPAQ sounds like crap compared to a high-end CD-Player and optically coupled DAC, but my purpose was to get the best way to compare .ogg and .wma. A tube amplifier, some wicked speakers, and a properly balanced and dampened room help.
I found that .ogg format was noticeably (maybe 20%) better at the same file size (encoding rate) than .wma when listening to pop like Simon and Garfunkel, and just barely better (5-10%) when listening to orchestral or vocal classical music.
The question is what the 10% quality advantage that .ogg has over .wma is worth, especially on a PDA.
Considering the extra work needed to do .ogg instead of .wma, I think I am going to stick with .wma for now. Windows XP does a pretty good job of converting files (drop the CD in--doesn't get much easier), and from what I can see, there are more music players out there (both memory and disc based) that support .wma vs. .ogg.
Has anyone else done some real comparisons? Anybody done an .ogg vs. .wma test on PocketPC with real audio frequency analysis gear? What have you found?
I didn't see a demo version of Pocket Music feature pack to compare .wma output from Pocket Music vs. WM Player. Is there any difference?
Koss portaPro headphones kick ass as PocketPC accessory, by the way--check them out if you haven't heard them. They ain't pretty, but they fold up relatively small and the sound is incredible.