Well I've been thinking for a while: All I use is MP3s, so have I REALLY been missing out on audio quality?
The answer? No.
I used the following samples, of Bon Jovi's Livin' on a Prayer:
WAV - 44.1khz (43mb)
MP3 - 160kbps VBR (5.13mb)
MP3 - 128kbps CBR (3.29mb)
OGG - 0.4 (approx 128kpbs) (3.4mb)
WMA - 98 (16.7mb)
WMA - 90 (forgot to check before I deleted it)
WMA - 75 (4.89mb)
WMA - 50 (2.89mb)
I used a good quality pair of well-enclosed headphones, and a little bit of EQ to round out the sound.
The verdict? The WMA(90, 9
, MP3 (160VBR) and WAV had absolutely no differences, and no artifacts in the sound. There was no 'chirping', no loss of bass, or anything like that whatsoever. They were essentially identical to the human ear.
The MP3 (128CBR) had some vaguely noticable artifacts in the sound but if you weren't listening for them, you'd only notice them if you were comparing it to the original like I did.
The OGG (0.4) was slightly worse quality than the MP3 (128CBR), with noticeable artifacts in the sound when comparing to the original. I would put the WMA (75) on this level as well.
The WMA (50) was the worst of the lot, but given as it was the smallest in size, (ie. using the most compression) it seemed more 'dull' in sound, compared to an MP3 encoded at 96kbps which has quite noticeable chirping, and occupies roughly the same disk space IIRC.
So in reality, unless you are using professional quality PA speakers, you are not going to need to use MP3s encoded higher than 160kbps (VBR or CBR), WMA above 90, or whatever else. If you are, however, then you'd probably want to go full quality anyway and if you're operating music in a professional capacity you'd probably be better off using the original CDs, or just using full-quality WAV rips. There are also other lossless compression formats out there (such as FLAC), but there is very little support for those formats (besides lossless WMA files) on equipment you buy from shops (such as car stereos).
There. The debate can now end. WMAs seem to use a better compression algorithm, where the lower quality ones are more pleasant to listen to than MP3s, but you're still going to use pretty much the same amount of disk space either way for good quality ones.
It would be good to see OGGs get more support as they are open source and don't have any confusing/money laundering licensing schemes (not that anyone cares anyway). If I had used a higher quality OGG compression, then I imagine I would have had comparable quality to the other high quality rips I did.
The answer? No.
I used the following samples, of Bon Jovi's Livin' on a Prayer:
WAV - 44.1khz (43mb)
MP3 - 160kbps VBR (5.13mb)
MP3 - 128kbps CBR (3.29mb)
OGG - 0.4 (approx 128kpbs) (3.4mb)
WMA - 98 (16.7mb)
WMA - 90 (forgot to check before I deleted it)
WMA - 75 (4.89mb)
WMA - 50 (2.89mb)
I used a good quality pair of well-enclosed headphones, and a little bit of EQ to round out the sound.
The verdict? The WMA(90, 9
, MP3 (160VBR) and WAV had absolutely no differences, and no artifacts in the sound. There was no 'chirping', no loss of bass, or anything like that whatsoever. They were essentially identical to the human ear.
The MP3 (128CBR) had some vaguely noticable artifacts in the sound but if you weren't listening for them, you'd only notice them if you were comparing it to the original like I did.
The OGG (0.4) was slightly worse quality than the MP3 (128CBR), with noticeable artifacts in the sound when comparing to the original. I would put the WMA (75) on this level as well.
The WMA (50) was the worst of the lot, but given as it was the smallest in size, (ie. using the most compression) it seemed more 'dull' in sound, compared to an MP3 encoded at 96kbps which has quite noticeable chirping, and occupies roughly the same disk space IIRC.
So in reality, unless you are using professional quality PA speakers, you are not going to need to use MP3s encoded higher than 160kbps (VBR or CBR), WMA above 90, or whatever else. If you are, however, then you'd probably want to go full quality anyway and if you're operating music in a professional capacity you'd probably be better off using the original CDs, or just using full-quality WAV rips. There are also other lossless compression formats out there (such as FLAC), but there is very little support for those formats (besides lossless WMA files) on equipment you buy from shops (such as car stereos).
There. The debate can now end. WMAs seem to use a better compression algorithm, where the lower quality ones are more pleasant to listen to than MP3s, but you're still going to use pretty much the same amount of disk space either way for good quality ones.
It would be good to see OGGs get more support as they are open source and don't have any confusing/money laundering licensing schemes (not that anyone cares anyway). If I had used a higher quality OGG compression, then I imagine I would have had comparable quality to the other high quality rips I did.
.
