|
MP3pro vs. WMA? Whats better?Whats a good Program 2 convert also?
|
|
|
sivioke
Newbie
|
8. September 2004 @ 10:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well I just got a 20 gig mp3 player and I have over 20 gigs of mps music so I was thinking about convereting to a smaller format to make it portable, but what is the best or these 2 choices MP3pro or WMA??? Also what is the best program to convert a very large amount of files to either of these formats????
Thanks After Dawn rules!!
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
Jeanc1
Suspended permanently
|
8. September 2004 @ 10:29 |
Link to this message
|
One very handy FREE program to use would be Jet Audio 6 -- It has a CONVERSION window where you simply drag the tunes in ,in any quantity you like and after choosing the TYPE you want and the place to put them -- will convert all of them automatically.
It's available here: -
http://www.jetaudio.com/
As to the choice WMA , this is dependent of your need for QUALITY - and having the player to suit your choice of course - you can assess that yourself by converting a few and listening to the result to your own EARS.
Regards ,
Edited for Typo.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. September 2004 @ 10:32
|
|
GrayArea
Member
|
8. September 2004 @ 11:09 |
Link to this message
|
Unless your player specifically supports MP3Pro decoding MP3Pro files will sound pretty much like any other MP3 (if bit rate is same). Personally I would not touch WMAs with a ten foot pole but that's just my opinion. What encoder & bitrate was used for most of the files you have now?
|
|
sivioke
Newbie
|
8. September 2004 @ 12:17 |
Link to this message
|
As to the encoder I am not sure how to determine that, the bitrate of the traks are at least 128 or better, also my player does support both MP3pro and WMA.....why would you avoid the WMA?? What advantages does MP3 pro have???
|
|
Jeanc1
Suspended permanently
|
8. September 2004 @ 12:21 |
Link to this message
|
~~sivioke
Here's a link that will give you a good expertise on the difference between MP3 Pro and WMA's !
http://ekei.com/audio/
|
|
sivioke
Newbie
|
8. September 2004 @ 12:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
Man you guys rule keep up the good work!!
|
|
Jeanc1
Suspended permanently
|
8. September 2004 @ 12:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hell Yea!! Thanks !
|
|
2005
Member
|
8. September 2004 @ 13:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
Basically if you already have the music in MP3 format you will not gain anything by changing them into WMA... MP3's are much smaller than WMA's are. A 3 minuet song in MP3 format takes up around 3-3.5 MB of space. A 3 Minuet WMA will take up 40 MB at least. WMA has a much better overall quality then MP3 but once in MP3 format converting back to WMA willnot give back your original quality, its lost forever during compression unless you have them in a uncompressed manner ( such as CD format ) I would stick with mp3s as they are the best quality/size ratio.
HP Pavilion 533w
2.0 ghz (celeron :( )
512 mb of pc2100 ram
ATI radeon 9200 256mb
NEC ND 2510a (1.16)
|
|
jeff9756
Junior Member
|
14. September 2004 @ 09:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
So when looking for mp3 players, why do they say 20 gb is 5000 mp3 songs or 10,000 wma songs. From what this forum is saying, I would think these manufacturers should be saying the reverse. Thanks.
|
|
Jeanc1
Suspended permanently
|
14. September 2004 @ 10:06 |
Link to this message
|
Given the same sampling rate that is CD Quality @128kbps both format , Mp3 and WMA have the same weight. A 3 minute Mp3@128kbps does involve approx. 3MB -- a 3 minute WMA@128kbps also involves 3MB. ~~
Where the difference lies is that a WMA can be brought down to 64kbps and STILL sound almost perfect , where an MP3 at that sampling rate is horrible.
You may save some space using WMA by sampling @64kbps -- below that you will start loosing the HIGHS -- It is a matter of how sharp your ears are ~~ smiles , if you are happy with FM Quality , drop that sampling rate on a WMA and save some space.
MP3 players are a lot easier to find them WMA players -- WMA was developed by Microsoft for internet broadcasting mainly where you need a stream that can be read by many and sometimes over creepy connections such as dialups.
Have a look at an unbias opinion at this site:-
http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecentral/reviews/2606/7/
on the second page you will see a graph clearly showing the tiny difference between Mp3 and WMA using the same sampling rates.
Regards !
Edited for typos !!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. September 2004 @ 10:18
|
|
Jeanc1
Suspended permanently
|
14. September 2004 @ 10:38 |
Link to this message
|
Ooooops forgot your original question Quote:
Whats a good Program 2 convert also?
Download GOLDWAVE -- an excellent sound editor available on a FREE trial basis at :-
http://www.goldwave.com/
Click FILE and select Batch Processing -- add a folder if you wish and choose the format (WMA) and the sampling rate (64kbps)-- Click the FOLDER Tab and choose a folder of your choice to accept the re-sampled songs. Last hit the BEGIN -- and voila !!
Have a coffee while it's being done for you !
Grrrr at the typo ! sorry ; That small window to post in is a nightmare for me .
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. September 2004 @ 10:40
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
shiroh
Account closed as per user's own request
|
14. September 2004 @ 11:09 |
Link to this message
|
transcoding is a no-no, don't do it unless you need to, and i don't think you need it. you need it when you're making video...
mp3pro is crappy. tested it a few months back, its not for me.
wma is decent enough.
what you need is a new hardrive based player.
i would say the iriver.....vorbis playback :)
vorbis is the best compressed audio round up.
then it would be aac. this 2 is the one you should look for. not for transcoding but for archiving.
mainly i used lossless flac for all of my cd.
http://www.rarewares.org/
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. September 2004 @ 11:11
|
