Size of Audio Formats

[Rahwgwar]

What is the smallest audio format? MP3, OGG, WMA, etc.......Right now all my MP3's are of high quality. They are at the alt preset standard, either ripped by EAC or converted. Anway, I'm thinking of having 2 copies of some of my MP3's. One copy will remain of the high quality I mentioned and the others copies will be of lower qualities to better fit in my MP3 player. There will just be a 2nd copy of my favorite songs.

My MP3 player is 128 MB memory so with the high quality songs I have it only holds about 28-30 songs at a little more than 2 hours worth. It claims it can hold up to 4 hours of music, which I have no reason to believe is false. The songs would just be of a crappy quality. It's not a spectacular player but it gets the job done. That's about 2 CD's worth and it's really small, so it's a definite convenience. Which audio formats are smaller than MP3? I already know that changing the bit rate will lower the size. What is your favorite audio format? And most importantly, what is the best bet for me to go on? What would you recommend? I guess I can go with mediocre quality MP3's on my player in hopes of fitting more songs. I'm gonna check out if I can get a memory upgrade as well. Thanks for any help I receive.

[dr. damn]

The size is more dependent on the quality of the file than the format itself. That being said, OGG and WMA are better for low bitrate music than MP3, but OGG is really the best in terms of both quality and file size.

[Potato]

http://vorbis.com/

I really don't know a whole bunch about all that stuff, but I know that I ripped a CD (the cure--galore) into MP3 and OGG formats... the OGGs sounded better and were smaller at the same bitrate.

[Theinfamousone]

wma 9 claims that at 64kbps has the same quality or better as 128kpbs of mp3. After a certain point it is really hard to tell the difference unless you are burning CDs that are played on the best CD player with the best AMP with the best speaker wire and the best speakers in order for it to make any kind of difference. OGG might be the best, like I said, it's hard to say.

[Rahwgwar]

Ok, I'm still not getting a definitive answer here. Maybe I will make my question more specific. I guess it's more of a personal choice when you get down to it, but I would like to hear other people's opinions on the matter. I guess what I am saying is, I am willing to sacrifice a little less quality for more quantity. (would prefer not to go under 160 VBR mp3 though).

I suggest you use ________(fill in) for your mp3 player as opposed to ________(fill in) because _______(fill in).

-Thanks. That will just help me out a lot more.

EDIT: Throw ogg out the window. My player doesn't support it..........yet. It only supports MP3, WMA, and ASF. BTW, what the hell is ASF and is it any good?

[Lamourlady]

i understand what ur asking, Rahwgwar, but, i too await the answer.
i'm looking into an mp3 player and would like to hold as many songs as i can......over the quality.

i know nothing of the OGG.
what app would convert an mp3 into OGG?
and what r the advantages to doing this?
or maybe just a different player would hold more.
aren't they based on memory?
u can just get more memory, no?

btw.........luvs the "fill in the blanks", application.
wish i could fill them in for ya.

[endersgame21]

If I were you, I would use either WMA or OGG. The problem with OGG is you have to have an OGG player. Most mp3 players don't play OGG

[Rahwgwar]

Originally posted by Lamourlady
i understand what ur asking, Rahwgwar, but, i too await the answer.
i'm looking into an mp3 player and would like to hold as many songs as i can......over the quality.

i know nothing of the OGG.
what app would convert an mp3 into OGG?
and what r the advantages to doing this?
or maybe just a different player would hold more.
aren't they based on memory?
u can just get more memory, no?

btw.........luvs the "fill in the blanks", application.
wish i could fill them in for ya.

Hehe, it's cool. Ogg is open source meaning ppl can change the code to it and it costs nothing. Some argue it is better quality than MP3 because you can encode at a lower bitrate and make that equivalent to a 192kbps MP3.

Yeah, they're based on memory. You bring up a good point. I'm gonna check to see if iRiver supports memory upgrades. Most players do, but I dunno about mine.

Actually I wasn't using an application for the blanks. I just used an underscore (_) and typed it several times, lol. You're a good gal.

[Lamourlady]

Originally posted by Rahwgwar
Hehe, it's cool. Ogg is open source meaning ppl can change the code to it and it costs nothing. Some argue it is better quality than MP3 because you can encode at a lower bitrate and make that equivalent to a 192kbps MP3.

Yeah, they're based on memory. You bring up a good point. I'm gonna check to see if iRiver supports memory upgrades. Most players do, but I dunno about mine.

Actually I wasn't using an application for the blanks. I just used an underscore (_) and typed it several times, lol. You're a good gal.

ahhhhhh.
perfectly explained.
i understand.
and u silly......i knew it wasn't a real application.
i just like your innovative spirit in getting an answer.
heehee.
*lamourlady blushes@ being a "good gal"!
;)

[Scyth77521]

Originally posted by Rahwgwar
Right now all my MP3's are of high quality. They are at the alt preset standard, either ripped by EAC or converted.

What exactly do you mean by "converted"?

[Theinfamousone]

Ok, if you wouldn't mind sacrificing a little quality, go with wma at 64kpbs. It's "CD quality" and half to a third less space than mp3! It's an easy choice. mp3 is better at higher bitrates, but you don't care about that, so wma it!

[neoufo51]

Originally posted by Theinfamousone
Ok, if you wouldn't mind sacrificing a little quality, go with wma at 64kpbs. It's "CD quality" and half to a third less space than mp3! It's an easy choice. mp3 is better at higher bitrates, but you don't care about that, so wma it!

I second that. I'm an Ogg devotee myself, but there is only one ogg capable player and its coming out on Saturday. Go with WMA 9 for now, but you may find that the quality is noticeably lackluster at higher volumes. I suggest when you rip your next CD's, output them into Ogg VBR q6 so you'll have a VERY high quality file to convert to WMA later for your mp3 player.

[Lamourlady]

for some reason i was always under the impression the .wma was a larger compression than the .mp3.
and that the .mp3 had a higher quality of sound, hence us all using .mp3, rather than .wma.
man do i remember when i first tried napster and wondered why all of my .wma couldn't be shared.
finally i figured out i had to convert them all.
some of them slipped into my shared but most did not.
am i showing some embarressing feathers here or what?
anyhoo........good info, guys!!!!!!!!
;)

[rsloane1]

Originally posted by Theinfamousone
Ok, if you wouldn't mind sacrificing a little quality, go with wma at 64kpbs. It's "CD quality"

how can it be cd quality, if you are sacraficing a little quality, also, sWMA has that damn copy protection OPTION in it , so IMO it is best to avoid spreading it around...ALSO, wma is made by microsoft, yet another reason to avoid using them.

also, wma at 64 sounds awful, listen on some good speakers..it is NOT cd quality......just stay with ogg, or mp3 with lame, alt preset standard.

[almanzo]

Originally posted by Rahwgwar
I suggest you use ________(fill in) for your mp3 player as opposed to ________(fill in) because _______(fill in).

-Thanks. That will just help me out a lot more.

Hey here's an original idea - why don't you actually try the formats for yourself and draw your own conclusions instead of being a pompous ass.

[chipperrox]

isnt asf either a mac thing? or just an older music squeeze method

[Rahwgwar]

Originally posted by almanzo
Hey here's an original idea - why don't you actually try the formats for yourself and draw your own conclusions instead of being a pompous ass.

WTF? You are totally misinterpreting what I'm saying. I was not implying anything like that at all and was certainly not trying to come off as a 'pompous ass.' I dunno how you can take that one statement and convulute it the way you did to meet your interpreation. It was an example. You are the only one who took it like that. That was just to narrow it down because I felt that people were not understanding the question I posed. So please STFU. Ask anybody I know, and they will attest to anything BUT me being a "pompous ass."

BTW, for future point of reference, don't post to these kinds of threads unless you have something to contribute. And try not to infer major characteristics of someone by reading just a couple of their posts. If I were to draw a conclusion of you right about now, I would call you an irritable bigot. I'll leave it at that.

(Don't take this as a flame. You instigated it and I'm only defending myself from what I thought was an uncalled statement on your part.)

[almanzo]

Originally posted by Rahwgwar
If I were to draw a conclusion of you right about now, I would call you an irritable bigot.

Ooooooh, somebody learned a new word - "bigot". Too bad it makes no sense in the context you are using it. I know nothing about you personally and therefore am incapable of making remarks based on your race, religion, or politics. Oh and for future point of reference - don't START threads like this unless YOU have something to contribute besides sitting on your ass asking others to tell you what to do, then whining when you don't get the answers you want.

My initial opinion of you remains unchanged.

[Rahwgwar]

Originally posted by almanzo
Ooooooh, somebody learned a new word - "bigot". Too bad it makes no sense in the context you are using it. I know nothing about you personally and therefore am incapable of making remarks based on your race, religion, or politics. Oh and for future point of reference - don't START threads like this unless YOU have something to contribute besides sitting on your ass asking others to tell you what to do, then whining when you don't get the answers you want.

My initial opinion of you remains unchanged.

HAHAHAHA.....oh boy, I can see you took my comment of the bigot literally. What I was trying to accomplish was to make an outrageous comment of you based on nothing. The point is you did that to me. That is why I said IF. Thus, I was making the same kind of assumption you were making of me to prove a point. I do not truly feel that you are a bigot because I don't have any factual basis on that. Are you not able to infer anything?

My opinion remains unchanged of you as well. You obviously couldn't imply what I was saying before and still can't, lol. You are the one taking things out of context and trying to make a huge hoopla over it. Now I'm not gonna get into an argument over something as petty as this and I really don't care what you think of me at this point. You can go read my other posts and actually try to back up your claims with citations and REAL inferences. Now go read posts of ppl and educate yourself before bitchin' about 'em. But I'm sure you're not gonna do that. You will prolly now retaliate it on your next post by calling me an asshole, right?

And I don't claim to know anything, that is why I find assistance through forums. Isn't that the purpose? It wasn't an unintelligent question IMHO. I do some research before I post a question, then I post to expand upon that research. I'm not going into this thing blindly. And I already have contributed to this site and have helped a few. Again, I'm not laying claim that I am knowledgable, but I have helped a couple n00bs in my time. And that is by far a lot more than you have done. Everyone else has responded with something valuable and you have just bitched the whole time. What exactly are you trying to get done?

Now, whether you respond to this or not, I really don't care. I'm not gonna niggle over something as small and unimportant as this and deviate from the point of the thread. You want to say something to me, without posting in the forums, PM me. You have this option at your disposal.

[GaliIeo_]

ASF is STREAMING format. (think of it like internet radio.)
it is made by Microsoft. It stands for Advanced Systems Format actually. This is not what you want.
--
WMA is Windows Media Audio. <-- This is your answer.
WMA is smallest, while retaining sound quality.
WMA is supported by most all portable players.
WMA is microsfot so it's pretty much going to stay around.
WMA9 also has the highest bitrate of any compressed format so far, 768kilobit compared to mp3's 320kbit. This WMA format provides for Dolby Surround 7.1 capability. (No, I did not make a typo and mean 5.1, Yes I mean 7.1 not 5.1!) and WMA9 Pro Lossless, and audio's answer to HDTV...HDCD.
(does have DRM, though. if you download one already pre-recorded.)
I prefer mp3, but like you said, this is for your RAM based player where you need it smaller, so THIS is your answer appropriate to that application.

If you wish to compare the sound quality, there is already a website with examples pre-recorded for you to make a comparison.

Here is the general information page:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/music/default.aspx

Here is your test comparison page:
http://windowsmedia.com/9series/DemoCenter/AudioQuality.asp?page=6&lookup=AudioQuality

and general test info:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/press/compare/avcomp.aspx

[Rahwgwar]

Thanks Galileo. You seem to know your stuff. I'll try out WMA. How exactly would I go about converting to WMA? Should I use the dbPoweramp? I believe they have a plugin on their main site, but I would have to check.

[Lamourlady]

well, there i have it.
Galileo...if the .wma is a smaller compression, as u have illustrated, than the .mp3 and has a better sound quality, as well....is the main reason we use .mp3 in our p2p apps, because of the "copy protection", that rsloane, mentioned?

[nasrules]

to sum all this up

if u want more files per mb but are prepared to take the risks involved with using a microsoft product (i dont no wot they r but theyve bin discussed) go with wma. otherwise stick with mp3.

EDIT: oops sorry Galileo dint get as far as ur post

[Rickio]

go with ogg vorbis

as far as opensource freeware and what makes any real sense to use. if it is for your personal computer archive. use ogg.
if you need to use a hardware mp3 player , I guess you have no choice huh?

get a few sample music files and make a copy of it is wma, ogg, mp3 etc. listen to it and then pick.

[overdo]

I'll try out WMA. How exactly would I go about converting to WMA

if u got the music on cds, download WMP9 and use the copy from cd option. make sure u select the bitrate first in the options menu. perhaps u could try with WM variable format? i use this to rip cds to my harddrive as it is quick and easy, giving very gd results.

[Rahwgwar]

Ok I guess you have to have the CDs to convert then right? That clears everything up. I had a big misconception about it all. Is there any way to convert from MP3 to WMA?

[Mind_Kontrole_4_Phun]

PLEASE!!!

Visit www.dbpoweramp.com then get winamp 3.0 or 2.8 blah blah it will serve you well and has the poop you need to make/play oggs THERE is free part to DBPoweramp and don't not post about the power pack you don't need it for ogg.... If your paying you aint reading tha rules... Next you want to go on winmx )PLEASE and share your lil oggs please share pop music... I am tired of being the only one with B Spears in ogg:) um thats a joke sort of its bait though to get people to ask about how to play the file:)