I apologize; I'm sure that questions similar to this have been asked many times before, but since the forum search doesn't allow 3-letter words, it's hard to search for!

I've tinkered with MP3 and file sharing in the past, but not since college. I'm a relative newbie when it comes to properly creating compressed audio. Here's my reason for jumping back in to the fire: I got an Alpine CD player for my car that plays MP3 and WMA, so those are my only two options for encoding. I know WMA and other newer formats are supposedly better (at least at lower bit rates) than MP3. Yet most of the pros here still stick with MP3. Is this because of an open standards ethos, or is the tried-and-true MP3 format still better when using, for instance, EAC + LAME?

I'm basically starting from scratch here; I've got a whole collection of CDs that I'd like to compress into MP3 or WMA. Does anyone have an opinion on which format to use? And if I did use WMA, what's the best program for creating those?

Thanks!

-jeff

Very roughly:
high bitrates (> 100 kbps): Lame MP3 with recommended settings is better
low bitrates (< 100 kbps): WMA should be better (can be a matter of individual taste though, some might still prefer MP3)

Some listening tests can be found here:
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/

Checkout the recommended compiles and settings threads in the MP3 forum.

EDIT: And do browse through the FAQ!

go with MP3, wich has no DRM and every player supports it, also LAME is better than WMA a 128kbps:

WMA Pro is curiously absent from that graph. That test is irrelevant for really low bitrates, in which case, you will want to look at the results of the 32kbps test.

Either way, those results are almost a year old. Maybe it is time for a new round of tests. (AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA)

Don't forget this:

WMA pro lacks hardware/software support even more though.

Go for MP3

Better format in my opinion
Known for all - almost everything plays MP3

And i hate M$


Look at my example..i will encode my original cds collection, i will not go lossless because is just to much in my opinion again, so i could choose OGG or even MPC...Better formats then MP3...

But

MPC don't have hardware support
OGG is free but again there is some lack on support either

So MP3 is my choice..not because is the BEST but

Just because almost anything play it...that's it...even a newbie in sound knows what MP3 is...

Talk him about MPC and he says...HUH WHAT IS THAT??!!

I figured the consensus would be to use MP3. I know some of those other formats are better, but I'm limited to what my Alpine will play. I do know that it will play VBR MP3, so that's probably what I'll use.

I have definitely wondered about what is best, because as kode54 noted, data and comparisons are often old. And I don't know enough to say whether old data is still good data (and a lot of articles are conspicuously missing dates). But I've found a more or less across the board recommendation of LAME w/ standard settings. That seems to be the obvious way to go.

Now I just have to figure out how to use it.

Thanks.

Go with MP3! Lame fast preset standard is really ok, and if you burn on CDs you will not have many space problems, you can fit at least 7-8 albums on a CDROM, and it will be good quality for both car stereo and your dvd/mp3cd stereo system with that good amplifier. Then, you can just put your CDs in a secure box, and forget about them for a while.

Also, maybe WMAPro is better than Lame, but does the Alpine car system really support WMAPro? I thought that it was just a property of WMPlayer...

Check these guides:

http://home-12.tiscali-business.nl/~tpm54044/
http://users.pandora.be/satcp/cd2mp3-en.htm

To bad I don't know any hardware that supports WMA Pro, so think that is a non-issue for the Original Poster.

Correct me if I'm wrong though.

where did this test come from? what are the context and conditions? how does it differ from the other listening test results posted on this thread (earlier)?

This plot presents the results of Roberto's 128 extension public listening test in mid-2003, which was conducted shortly after the first AAC 128 test.

kwanbis provided the results of the more recent Multiformat at 128kbps public listening test (from May 2004).

as he wants to play his files in his car audio player i think wma9 pro is not an option for him

actually i wouldnt bet my trousers on whether (latest) lame or wma9 std is better at ~96kbps, anyways above i would for sure use lame
i wouldnt use a bitrate below, as wma9 std might sound better than lame, but still it sounds crap imho

about what setting to use with lame:

Depends on how much space you have at your disposal. From a quality-POV, preset standard would of course be the obvious choice. But since in a car/portable you will have a noisy-environment, APS may be overkill....... that leads us to the next possibility:

Preset Medium.

This setting produces VBR-files with an average bitrate of 160kbit which are still transparent to the majority of people, and probably to almost everyone in a noisy-environment like a car or out-of-home.

If space is an issue.... then you may try preset 128..... thats ABR around 128kbit which will probably still sound quite good in noisy environments.

(noisy-environment = not absolutely silent surroundings)

- Lyx

I don't know if my Alpine supports WMA pro, but it seems unlikely. In any case, as Lyx says, there probably isn't much point to using super high-quality bit rates for car audio. There's definitely plenty of road noise to mask any imperfections! I'm kind of up in the air as far as quality vs. quantity, but I think it's a decision between LAME standard and medium. Does anyone know approximately how much smaller the files might be using medium rather than standard?

standard will give you 190-200 kbps on average, medium 160-170. It greatly depends on the music you throw at it. With e.g. heavy metal, even medium can occasionally get you 220 kbps or more. I'd say medium is more than enough for portable or car listening. Apart from "killer samples", most people (including me ) cannot tell it apart from the original even in quiet surroundings with good headphones.

Because its VBR, that heavily depends on the type of music. On _average_ (so, across all music styles) standard is 200kbps and medium is 160kbps.

The newer lame versions (3.96.1) also have a setting in-between standard and medium(actually, the presets have been mapped to the -V switch in lame 3.95+.... so, the presets have replaced the "normal" methods there. V2 is standard there and V4 is medium if i remember right(lower V-value = higher quality). Important: this only works with lame 3.95+). However, unless i missed something 3.96.1 has a bug with using "fast"... so you should not use 3.96.1 with the "fast" option.

- Lyx

Lame 3.96.1 is safe to use in --vbr-new or "fast" mode. The bug was in 3.96. See this thread for details:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....opic=24365&st=0

I see for the medium preset, I have to use the modified LAME encoder. Is this version still good for all the other presets as well? (i.e., the modified encoder is the only one I need?)

Actually, LMS was talking about --vbr-new or "fast" mode, not the medium preset, per se.

However, 3.96.1 is all you'll need. Here's a link to a chart for the switches (presets):
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=18091

You can use both, the modified 3.90.3 and 3.96.1 for all the mentioned presets.

Generally, both should be quite safe to use and reach similiar quality. However, 3.90.3 is more well tested, while 3.96.1 is much faster and creates files which are slightly smaller(5-10kbps) yet have the same quality.

So, if you want absolute safety and stability, then go for 3.90.3 modified

If "quite good safety" is already enough for you and you'd like to benefit from improved encoding-speed and slightly smaller filesizes, then go for 3.96.1

- Lyx

I'm mostly using lame 396.1, "lame -V4" (which is preset medium) and am very happy with results. The bit rates vary somewhat depending on the type of music but usually average about 165 to 170 kbps.

For moble applications it could well be worth considering 3.96.1 with "lame -V5 --athaa-sensitiivity 1". This was the configuration used in Roberto's listening test linked above (by kwanbis) and only results in approx 128kbps.

You should just try encoding a few tracks with the different settings, "-V2, -V4 and -V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1", have a listen and see how you like it.

Yet another reason not to use WMA (embedded adware/spyware):
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/31/1553231
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,119016,00.asp

I didn't look at the URLS, but if there is such a possibility, that would only apply to DRM-WMA purchased from an online service. (Are any online services actually doing that, embedding spyware or adware in song files, or is it just being mentioned as a possibility that could occur?)

In any case, completely irrelevant to the present discussion. The OP was not discussing DRM purchased song files, but ripping CDs. There is no way that one would be installing spyware or adware on one's system, by ripping CDs to WMA.

There is no sense in using scare tactics like that, just because you might hate Microsoft.