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.