WMA VBR compared to the ALT-PRESET STANDARD |
![]() ![]() |
WMA VBR compared to the ALT-PRESET STANDARD |
May 17 2005, 12:46
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 5 Joined: 16-May 05 From: Va Member No.: 22104 |
My currnet music library is encoded all in WMA VBR 135-215Kbps. I am thinking I dont have the best of hearing..but for those of you that do. Is it possible to hear a difference between WMA VBR@135-215 and a LAME MP3 encoded at the ALT-PRESET standard?
As for DRM issues and compatibility..I have only had issues with the music I downloaded from microsoft with DRM and compatibility my car stereo plays both as does my portable music player.Thanks for any advice. This post has been edited by TurboFox: May 17 2005, 12:52 |
|
|
|
May 17 2005, 13:38
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 279 Joined: 14-May 05 From: Sydney Member No.: 22048 |
If you can't hear a difference then it doesnt really matter now hmm?
Well uhh looking at my sig, I can't say much. This post has been edited by Acid8000: May 17 2005, 13:39 -------------------- Acid8000 aka. PhilDEE
|
|
|
|
May 17 2005, 13:51
Post
#3
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 5 Joined: 16-May 05 From: Va Member No.: 22104 |
QUOTE (Acid8000 @ May 17 2005, 07:38 AM) If you can't hear a difference then it doesnt really matter now hmm? Well uhh looking at my sig, I can't say much. Your probably right..but knowing that theres a better compression method tends to make me overly paranoid about the quality of my music. Not only that, my logitech Z640 speakers are far from anything high end. I encoded some Led Zepplin this morning on alt-preset extreme and ended up with smaller files then compared to the same songs compresed VIA WMA VBR (overall lower ~bitrate) I supose for me its peace of mind knowing that my music is compressed while maintaining the best quality. I was just curious who here and hear the difference? And if so what audibly different? |
|
|
|
May 17 2005, 13:59
Post
#4
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 474 Joined: 1-December 02 Member No.: 3940 |
QUOTE (Acid8000 @ May 17 2005, 04:38 AM) Hmm, it can matter if TurboFox uses not good speakers now and will change it for something better in future. Anyway I think ther is no listenable difference on EASY samples. I don't think you are listening to HARD samples like 'fatboy' or 'castanets' all the time you drive the car. -------------------- Ogg Vorbis for music and speech [q-2.0 - q6.0]
FLAC for recordings to be edited Speex for speech |
|
|
|
May 17 2005, 15:22
Post
#5
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 394 Joined: 6-May 04 Member No.: 13932 |
If you are paranoid, go lossless. If you're not, then why should you care if you don't here the difference?
-------------------- "We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."
|
|
|
|
May 17 2005, 22:04
Post
#6
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 5 Joined: 16-May 05 From: Va Member No.: 22104 |
QUOTE (stephanV @ May 17 2005, 09:22 AM) If you are paranoid, go lossless. If you're not, then why should you care if you don't here the difference? QUOTE peace of mind knowing that my music is compressed while maintaining the best quality and as de Mon stated QUOTE Hmm, it can matter if TurboFox uses not good speakers now and will change it for something better in future. Anyway I think ther is no listenable difference on EASY samples. I don't think you are listening to HARD samples like 'fatboy' or 'castanets' all the time you drive the car. wink.gif
|
|
|
|
May 17 2005, 23:36
Post
#7
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 394 Joined: 6-May 04 Member No.: 13932 |
(note: I don't use lossless myself)
I'm sorry, but the best quality is lossless. It is the only way of assuring all of your rips sound good. If you are asking if it is possible to hear a difference between WMA VBR and LAME APS, the answer is: for some people, yes. Is LAME APS always transparent: not for all people. But what is audibly different for you? No one knows... -------------------- "We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."
|
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd May 2013 - 03:48 |