Fraunhofer vs WMA VBR |
  |
Fraunhofer vs WMA VBR |
 Apr 20 2008, 18:59
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 4-October 07 Member No.: 47578  |
I had a question for the experts here.
If one *had* (bear with me...) to rip using WMP 11, which encoders would be better to rip with for sound quality: Fraunhofer MP3 (which I think WMP 11 is using) or WMA VBR 135-215 setting. Thank you for your help |
 |
 
|
|
Apr 20 2008, 23:37
Post
#2
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1710 Joined: 1-September 05 From: SE Pennsylvania Member No.: 24233 |
We need more information. You have not specified the bitrate for Fraunhofer, and it is not clear whether you are talking about WMA standard or WMA pro.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 20 2008, 23:39
Post
#3
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 2478 Joined: 2-September 02 Member No.: 3264 |
For the same bitrate I would expect WMA std. to win.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 21 2008, 08:51
Post
#4
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 963 Joined: 4-March 03 From: Singapore Member No.: 5312 |
96 kbps and below wma thrashes mp3.
128 kbps and above, if your hearing is average (no special affinity for pre-echo, metallic artifacts, >16 KHz signals), you probably can't hear anything different. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2008, 03:44
Post
#5
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 658 Joined: 26-October 05 From: Various networks Member No.: 25371 |
If you're gonna use the MP3 option, max out the bitrate to 320kbps as there aren't that many independent tests of WMP's built in encoder.
-------------------- EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.97 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP11 2)MAC-Extra High
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 23 2008, 18:26
Post
#6
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 4-October 07 Member No.: 47578 |
QUOTE (pdq @ Apr 20 2008, 18:37)  We need more information. You have not specified the bitrate for Fraunhofer, and it is not clear whether you are talking about WMA standard or WMA pro. on wmp11, there is no setting for wma pro vbr |
|
|
|
|
Apr 23 2008, 21:14
Post
#7
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1710 Joined: 1-September 05 From: SE Pennsylvania Member No.: 24233 |
QUOTE (zynteq7 @ Apr 23 2008, 13:26) QUOTE (pdq @ Apr 20 2008, 18:37) We need more information. You have not specified the bitrate for Fraunhofer, and it is not clear whether you are talking about WMA standard or WMA pro. on wmp11, there is no setting for wma pro vbr Sorry...I have never used wmp11. From what I hear, wma pro is significantly better that wma standard. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2008, 01:52
Post
#8
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 658 Joined: 26-October 05 From: Various networks Member No.: 25371 |
QUOTE (pdq @ Apr 23 2008, 15:14) From what I hear, wma pro is significantly better that wma standard. Yeah, but hardware support sucks, and the advantage (as with most codecs nowadays) usually only shows up at low bitrates.
-------------------- EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.97 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP11 2)MAC-Extra High
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 17 2009, 16:09
Post
#9
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 15-January 09 Member No.: 65586 |
QUOTE (zynteq7 @ Apr 21 2008, 01:59) I had a question for the experts here. If one *had* (bear with me...) to rip using WMP 11, which encoders would be better to rip with for sound quality: Fraunhofer MP3 (which I think WMP 11 is using) or WMA VBR 135-215 setting. Thank you for your help hi... i'm not an expert but from my experience with wma, i think that fhg should be a better choice. i'm mostly enjoy my music on my walkman mp3 player..... and i have tried the wma vbr with 128kbps and 160kbps average bitrate.... they sound.. well, quite ok but sometimes on some song especially with pianos or saxophones or high notes and freq. they don't do really good and there is audible 'ringing' at some part too.... the sound details were not satisfying too.... for portable audio player, i don't think wma with high bitrate (be it cbr or vbr) is worthy to be used since it'll drain the battery faster without giving the maximum quality satisfaction. but i may agree that wma at below 96kbps is better than mp3.... (but not equal to cd quality...)  now, i only use fhg encoder (196kbps average vbr) for my fav. songs.... it's because the audio quality produced is better, more clarity and more details compared to wma... sounds really nice with my walkman.... besides, there's no audible problems with fhg such ringing, artifacts or whatever... (well, I haven't heard yet..) I've been using the fhg encoder in the latest jetaudio 7 to encode my songs and rip my cds.... I think it is even better than the lame 3.98. encoder which i've also used before..... why don't you try it too? i think it would do better than wmp.... you can download the jetaudio 7 basic from its homepage.... >> www.cowon.com those above is just my opinion and experience from what i've been through.... hope it'll help..... This post has been edited by hazumi-san: Jan 17 2009, 16:17 |
|
|
|
|
Jan 20 2009, 15:47
Post
#10
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 192 Joined: 18-December 06 From: Olongapo Member No.: 38799 |
I must admit I am an FhG fanatic, but man, this hazumi-san beats me hands down!
-------------------- "Listen to me...
Never take unsolicited advice..." |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd November 2009 - 09:43 |
