espresso said:
Hi. I have recently downloaded wma9.1 codec and decided to try it against mp3 which I had been using.
I use easy cd da extractor to convert to mp3 and now I tried converting to wma. Bit rate was 192k (constant).
To my suprise I found that wma sounds better then mp3 at high freqencies. High tones are somehow more transparent and detailed unlike mp3.
I only have pc speakers for testing so I could not use them to test mid or low spectrum.
Then I used AudioGrabber to convert to mp3 (Lame 3.96) and same thing again when I did a compare.
The bottom line is that wma @192k sounds more like original then mp3 @192k when compared for high frequencies. The original in this case was 16-bit WAV.
This is indeed the case. I also use cd-da extractor 8.2 and have done various tests myself using different audio sources. For many years (I say many, I turned 21 today) I have been a self proclaimed audiophile, researching and testing out many ideas. I begin work at the acoustics center at my college this fall.
Using Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon Album", the Red Hot Chili Peppers "Californication" album, Jay-Z's, "The Black Album", Radiohead's "Kid A" album, and my favorite Gustov work, "The Planets", I ripped each track into 3 different audio formats: mp3, aac, and wma at 320 kbps at 44.1 khz. I tested them in my 3 different listening areas: my Sennheiser HD 201 (cheap, but good cans), my Bose Audio System (which BTW, Bose is NOT high end, contrary to what they want you to believe), and my Toyota Avalon (has a JBL 5.1 system in it with an Alpine DXZ-8210 [i can't remember if that's the exact #, but it's a year old] as the head unit).
MP3 (using the LAME 3.9 encoder) produces a very positive result, with warm mid's and accurate highs up to around 16khz. Frequencies below 50 Hz were non-existant. It is nice to have them though because my car's head unit will play the MP3 format.
Window's wma format was around the same quality as that of MP3. At lower bitrates, I know for a fact that WMA is more lifelike, but differences in quality are negligable at higher bitrates. The high frequencies sounded more tinny to me, but again, my car's head unit will play these.
On to AAC. I have read in the past where many people found this codec unacceptable, so I was blown away when I heard how well it replicated the origional sound. The almost all of the frequency spectrum seemed to be there, even the low frequencies that MP3 and WMA missed in the intro song to the "Dark Side of the Moon" album, which is supposed to be a driving heartbeat. Although the bass was there, the power of the origional cd was not present. All I can guess is that the lowest part of the spectrum is still trunked to save space.
IMHO, AAC is currently the best "lossy" format of the three considered in this thread. OGG is also pretty good, but most players will not accept the format. But it all depends on your listening preferences and how your ears interpret the signal produced. You've got to judge it yourself instead of what others tell you. As for the decision between file formats on the portable player, unless you're using a pair of SHURE E3C buds or higher, you're probably not going to be able to tell the difference between formats at higher bitrates. Like stated above, the only real difference I find is that MP3 and WMA do not reproduce the lower spectrum as well as the AAC format.
BTW, the only way to achieve true "lossless" when converting from an analog signal (the origional audio data) to a digital signal (not just 0's and 1's like most people assume) is to sample the origional data at twice the speed of the higest frequency. Humans are only capable of hearing 20 Hz - 20,000 Hz, but most cannot hear that. You can feel the vibration down at 20 Hz, but most can only hear from 25 Hz ~ 16/17 KHz. That is why you see the sampling rate at 44.1 KHz.
Lee
