ES3

I'm mostly using MP3s on my discs, but was reading in the manual that WMA files are even MORE compressed. Has anyone had much experience with these? What software do you need to burn WMA discs!?

Alex350

I use Microsoft Plus! to convert MP3 files into WMA. I'm pretty sure there has to be a download or something from the MS website that you could use to get the application to convert the files. To burn them, you can use MS Windows Media Player or any other software you currently have to burn CDs

ES3

Thanks for the info... what I don't understand is how I select that I want them to burm in WMA format, from my cd burning software. On Roxio for instance I can choose between a data cd or a music cd. But under data, it doesn't seem to let me choose.

Also, have you found WMA files take up less space than MP3s?

Alex350

You don't have to select it because you have to convert them into WMA audio files first. (MS Plus! has a setting that allows you to convert the files into WMAs) Once you've done that, then you just select the files with Roxio software, like you currently do with your MP3s, and burn them.

Yes, WMA files take up less space than regular MP3 files.

ES3

Thx, is MSplus a downloadable software or is already on most Windows XP equipped computers?

Also, any idea how significant the space saving is with the WMAs? How 'bout sound quality difference between Mp3s, just trying to decide if it's worth the effort, or if I should just stick with MP3 burning? THX!

xsfo

wma files can be smaller than mp3 files but remember the smaller you make your files, the worst quality the audio will be. What's the point of a $$$ sound system if you play crap quality sound through them?

Bitrate to bitrate, a wma file is only appreciably better than the equivalent mp3 file around the 128kbps bitrate range. At that bitrate, you're really degrading the audio quality of the music. Ideally, a good bitrate should be a variable rate around 192kbps. But at that bitrate range wma is no better than mp3. And really, it depends on the encoder that you use.

To answer your question, a wma CD is just a regular data CD that contains wma files. Just like a mp3 CD is a data CD with mp3 files burned on it. Please note that if you can only fit 15 or so songs maximum on a CD then you're burning audio cds instead of data cds. You should be able to get around 100+ mp3 songs onto a data cd.

Because you already have mostly mp3 files, I think converting to WMA files are a waste of time. You'd either have to re-rip your CDs to wma files or convert your existing mp3s to wma files. Re-ripping music that you already have in mp3 format into wma files I think is a waste of time. Converting existing mp3s to wma files just means you're going to get even worse quality audio from the resulting wma files. You'd be converting one compressed format into another compressed format. That's the worst for quality.

ES3

Thanks for all the info... So those who say sound quality is better with WMA can't be honest... since WMA files have a capacity of only 160?

Also, why woulnd't audio files, since they are non compressed and take up more space, sound MUCH better than data-compressed-MP3s?

xsfo

Here's a link for a wma/mp3 comparison: http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/wma9/
Much of what I said is based on its conclusions and of course my personal opinion.

Not to knock wma files completely, I think you can have wma files with bitrates higher than 160kbps. I think the wma format specs allow it. It depends on which wma encoder you use. My gripe is that even at a higher bitrate, the wma file is not a clear improvement over a mp3 file. And mp3s are so much more useful compared to wma files because you can use them in so many different devices. You cannot use wma files in an iPod for example. Why have both formats if one can do most things adequately?

About the audio files you mentioned... (if I'm understanding you correctly, you mean uncompressed audio files)

It does matter FROM WHAT SOURCE you got the audio file from. If you got the audio straight from ripping a CD then, it's the best you can get. It'll be the same as from the cd. However, if you get the audio from decoding a mp3 or wma file, the audio will be degraded quality-wise. This is because whenever you get audio from a mp3 or wma file, the quality will only be as good as the mp3 or wma file you started with. And that mp3/wma file will be lower quality than the original audio from a cd.

Does that make sense and answer your question?

sickntired

I think what XSFO is trying to say is that you can never get better than the source. Therefore, a WMA file made from a MP3 file can only be as good (but likely will be slightly worse) than the original MP3 file.

ES3

Thanks for the clarification. So essentially if a file has already been converted to Mp3 and I'm burning it on a MUSIC cd, I'm simply wasting space. The ONLY time a music file burned cd (the types that typically only hold about 16 songs) is if the source is an actual cd to begin with. In that case, compression to a WMA or Mp3 WILL show loss of audio quality, right?

In other words, NEVER burn music CDs unless the source is an actual music cd? Since you're not gaining anything. Why ever would ANYONE waste space using the MUSIC format for discs.. unless of course they know their head units won't play MP3s or WMAs.

xsfo

Yeah, if your cd player supports mp3s it's silly to use music cds instead.

Truth be told, my dirty little secret is that my mixed music cds are actually burned from my mp3s. This is for a number of reasons. Most of my mp3s are encoded with LAME at the second highest bitrate so that you can't tell the difference between the mp3 and the original cd. At least with my hearing I can't. Also in the car, the road noise tends to hide any audio artifacts. But the main reason is that it's convenient. I don't have to dig out my cds and all of my mp3s are adjusted so that the volumes are similar. I don't have to continually adjust the volume when a really loud song comes on after a quieter song.

More about LAME at http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME
(I use the --preset fast extreme setting if you're curious)

More about mp3gain (to adjust mp3 volume) at http://mp3gain.sourceforge.net/faq.php

ES3

Excellent information. Thanks a bunch! So say I download an Mp3, can I process it through LAME before burning to disc?

xsfo

LAME is a mp3 encoder. It encodes the audio off the cd into a mp3 file. You won't need to use LAME once you get a mp3 file unless you want to downconvert your mp3 for some reason. If you meant running an mp3 through mp3gain, you can use mp3gain at anytime after encoding, any number of times. It just modifies the volume nothing else.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org is a good place to read up on the details of ripping and encoding. Look up using Exact Audio Copy (EAC) with LAME there and on google. There are guides for getting started with the two programs.

gshb

post above has some good info. i use LAME and encode at 256 kbps. theres really no point in encoding the max (320) since it would be hard to tell the difference. but then again my sources of music are from cds. if you download mp3s or only have mp3s to work with, dont bother reencoding at all. the space you save versus quality isnt worth it.

also, although you might not be able to tell the difference between say 128 and 192, you can for 128 vs anything higher than 192 (at least for me). for example feeling the bass and not just hearing it...i guess you could mess around with the EQ in the car, but i would hate to do that for every song.

pokerface

Haven't picked up my IS yet,

but for mp3 / wma (I stick mostly to mp3), the bare minimum I would use is 160kbps, before audio quality becomes noticeably poor. Generally 192kbps variable bit rate works best for me..

I think it works out to approx 1 MB per minute of audio... that's a general rule of thumb I use.