what format to rip using windows media player.

Message Edited by TomJensen on 05-03-2010 05:23 PM

@tomjensen wrote:

There’s a pragmatic reason to rip to MP3, at least WRT the Fuze: its MP3 decoder is optimized, whereas WMA is an unknown. This may mean longer operating time.

Perhaps someone would do a battery rundown test for MP3 vs WMA (of same bitrate) and tell us how each fares on the Fuze.

 

Edit: Nothing that a search on “WMA battery life” can’t ferret out. Per Sansafix (one of the Sandisk dudes):

 

>In addition to bitrate,  the choice of the decoder and DRM affects the battery  life.  MP3 format gives about 20% better battery life than WMA  at the same bitrate.  Also, Protected content takes more CPU cycles.

>For example:
>16 to 17 hours is possible with MP3, 128K bitrate
>10 to 11 hours is possible for WMA 160K,  protected  (Rhapsody Content).

Message Edited by TomJensen on 04-29-2010 11:38 AM

While I don’t argue with your findings, your examples are a tad deceptive; in that you are comparing best case MP3 vs. worse case WMA.  In real world applications, with a variety of music files on most of my players, I don’t see much of a difference in battery life with MP3 vs. WMA.

Granted, I haven’t used a Fuze as my primary player in ages, so this occurance may be more reflective in Sandisk’s engineering expertise than the codec itself.  

Frankly, I’m not going to worry much about it.  I like WMA…you may like something different.  That’s why most media players come with support for more than one codec, because everyone’s tastes and needs are different.

Message Edited by TomJensen on 05-03-2010 05:23 PM

@tomjensen wrote:
The OP’s question isn’t what you or I like, or what’s popular. It’s what is the “best” codec to use for the Fuze. The answer given by the Sandisk tech is pretty clear-cut. You may quibble about “engineering expertise” all you want, but the fact is that the OP has a Fuze, and isn’t about to run out and get another brand per your say-so.

There is no opinion here.

Does a slightly longer battery life make MP3 superior?  Not in my eyes.  Everything being equal, I tend to like the sound signature of WMA a bit better than MP3.  The original poster may feel the same… or not…; it’s certainly not going to hurt to try them both for awhile.

It’s not as neatly cut and dried as you make it out to be.

Now THAT certainly is your opinion. I noted that you’ve provided to empirical data to back it up. Which is fine. Suffice it to say that mine differs from yours. Which makes it a wash.

What is NOT an opinion, however, is the Sandisk tech’s info that MP3 is more optimized on the Fuze than WMA, and the Fuze will run longer playing MP3s. That, since you seem to be confused about such things, is a FACT.

Message Edited by TomJensen on 05-03-2010 05:23 PM

@tomjensen wrote:
Now THAT certainly is your opinion. I noted that you’ve provided no empirical data to back it up. Which is fine. Suffice it to say that mine differs from yours. Which makes it a wash.

What is NOT an opinion, however, is the Sandisk tech’s info that MP3 is more optimized on the Fuze than WMA, and the Fuze will run longer playing MP3s. That, since you seem to be confused about such things, is a FACT.

Maybe I’m missing something… but isn’t the purpose of the device is to play music?  Just because the device plays longer with a given codec make it sound superior?  If it’s as simple as you make it seem, why do the companies making these devices offer support for more codecs than just MP3?

I’m not trying to be difficult, I just don’t get your point…

You’re confusing “difficult” with “obstinate.” Either that, or you think that you are uniquely qualified to judge what is “better.” For both cases, I have no answer for you.

TomJensen wrote:

There’s a pragmatic reason to rip to MP3, at least WRT the Fuze: its MP3 decoder is optimized, whereas WMA is an unknown. This may mean longer operating time.

Perhaps someone would do a battery rundown test for MP3 vs WMA (of same bitrate) and tell us how each fares on the Fuze.

 

Edit: Nothing that a search on “WMA battery life” can’t ferret out. Per Sansafix (one of the Sandisk dudes):

 

>In addition to bitrate,  the choice of the decoder and DRM affects the battery  life.  MP3 format gives about 20% better battery life than WMA  at the same bitrate.  Also, Protected content takes more CPU cycles.

>For example:
>16 to 17 hours is possible with MP3, 128K bitrate
>10 to 11 hours is possible for WMA 160K,  protected  (Rhapsody Content).

Message Edited by TomJensen on 04-29-2010 11:38 AM

But, the beauty of wma is that you don’t need the equivalent bitrate for the same perceived sound quality. I have converted many of my FLACs to wma vbr, 75% quality level, and these sound just as good to me as LAME V0…yet they save a lot of space.I have a couple dofferent applications that I use to do these conversions…WMP is never involved.

For example…I just converted Led Zeppelin IV to both formats…LAME V0 =  76MB , and 75% wma = 41.8MB. So space savings like this mean much lower bitrates, which save on battery life. The song “Black Dog” in V0 averages 285kbps, according to Windows Explorer…the same song in wma averages 147kbps. So given this information, I have no worries about the difference in battery life.

Message Edited by TomJensen on 05-03-2010 05:24 PM

TomJensen wrote:
The problem I see is that there are people in this thread pushing this or that codec to be innately “better.” The reality, as audio techies know, is that it’s a matter of bitrate efficiency, as given enough bits, any codec can sound transparent.

WMA can be more efficient than MP3, given that it is a newer codec (more precisely, family of codecs). Its reputed efficiency, however, is reliant on optimizations that are ostensibly under the WMA name-umbrella, but encompasses WMA Pro which isn’t playable in the Fuze.

So, is “regular” WMA more efficient at the 128-192K bitrate than MP3? There is no empirical data on this. It’s mainly user preference. There’ve been many anecdotal evidence that WMA sounds better at lower bitrate, i.e. 32-64K for audiobooks. I would accept this as valid.

For my use, I convert FLACs to Lame v2, or 160K VBR, for the Fuze. For my preference, and my music, and my earphones, that sounds “transparent” enough to me. On the PC, I use 160K AAC. This is my opinion. Unlike some, I don’t proffer it as why others should chose codec X over codec Y.

Again, what is not an opinion is that MP3 is more power-efficient on the Fuze. Whether the FACT of its power-efficiency is offset by the OPINION of its bitrate-inefficiency is for the OP to decide.

Actually, V2 is 190k VBR…and that is a FACT. http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Recommended_LAME Scroll down a little ways, and you will see.:stuck_out_tongue:

And what you call an “OPINION” on bitrate and  battery efficiency is common knowledge…why else would all battery life recs be done with 128k bitrates, and not 256?

But go ahead and believe what you will…

Correction noted. I use dbpoweramp, which in turn calls up Lame 3.98.2 dll. I encode at 160, which I thought was v2, but as you say, it could be v3.

>But go ahead and believe what you will…

That’s the whole point I’m making. Believe you what you want, but don’t pass them off as what others want.

@fuze_owner_gb wrote:


@tomjensen wrote:
The OP’s question isn’t what you or I like, or what’s popular. It’s what is the “best” codec to use for the Fuze. The answer given by the Sandisk tech is pretty clear-cut. You may quibble about “engineering expertise” all you want, but the fact is that the OP has a Fuze, and isn’t about to run out and get another brand per your say-so.

There is no opinion here.


Does a slightly longer battery life make MP3 superior?  Not in my eyes.  Everything being equal, I tend to like the sound signature of WMA a bit better than MP3.  The original poster may feel the same… or not…; it’s certainly not going to hurt to try them both for awhile.

 

It’s not as neatly cut and dried as you make it out to be.

 

If your WMAs actually have a “sound signature” you should probably delete them and rerip them properly . . . 

@saratoga wrote:


@fuze_owner_gb wrote:


@tomjensen wrote:
The OP’s question isn’t what you or I like, or what’s popular. It’s what is the “best” codec to use for the Fuze. The answer given by the Sandisk tech is pretty clear-cut. You may quibble about “engineering expertise” all you want, but the fact is that the OP has a Fuze, and isn’t about to run out and get another brand per your say-so.

There is no opinion here.


Does a slightly longer battery life make MP3 superior?  Not in my eyes.  Everything being equal, I tend to like the sound signature of WMA a bit better than MP3.  The original poster may feel the same… or not…; it’s certainly not going to hurt to try them both for awhile.

 

It’s not as neatly cut and dried as you make it out to be.

 


 

 

If your WMAs actually have a “sound signature” you should probably delete them and rerip them properly . . . 

 

If you think all codecs “sound” the same, you are evidently deaf.

Not all codecs sound the same, but all the good ones certainly do.  Thats why they’re good.  If a codec adds something to the sound its obviously very bad at what it does.  At the bitrates people are talking about theres no excuse for such poor performance.  

You may want to look into using better software for your rips, updating your encoder, etc.  It sounds like you’re having something go really wrong.

Message Edited by TomJensen on 05-03-2010 05:22 PM

Why, thank you, TomJensen.

Audiophiles can and will quibble–it’s what they live for–about the subtle differences between codecs. No doubt a little searching at hydrogenaudio.com would give you comparative frequency plots of .wma vs. .mp3. 

But really, a lot of users just want to pop in a CD, rip and go. For the OP, I’d recommend switching from WMP to Media Monkey. Get lame_enc.dll from LAME.org and substitute it for the one in the free Media Monkey, so it doesn’t expire.  Then rip at whatever LAME setting above 160 kbps floats your boat.

And if the OP wants to stick with WMP, just use a higher bitrate–192 or above. Even with WMP’s imperfect encoder, that should preserve enough quality for use in the wild.  

I don’t understand the last half of this thread.  

:dizzy_face:

I don’t think I could tell the differance between how one file sounds vs the other.  But since I have decided to save my money and not get an ipod, but instead get a clip, it no longer matters.

It might sound excessive but I have at least 2 of stuff I really like and use, like handheld gps’s, cameras, ect. Now that I can easliy play my music anywhere it enables me to listen to it more. I hate the radio and either listen to cd’s in the vehicle or pandora at home.

I’m my own pandora!!!111!!   I am wondering about this rhapsody thing now. I think in a couple months I would have anything I am liable to listen to. Heck, I kind of think that now!

@black_rectangle wrote:

 

Audiophiles can and will quibble–it’s what they live for–about the subtle differences between codecs. No doubt a little searching at hydrogenaudio.com would give you comparative frequency plots of .wma vs. .mp3. 

 

 

I don’t think it would.  Most people on HA are knowledgeable enough to realize that frequency plots of codecs don’t mean anything, and if they’re not, rule 8 on their forum explicitly reminds them of that :slight_smile:

Interesting, Saratoga. I stand corrected.

Mcostas, you don’t really keep Rhapsody To Go files. You pay a monthly subscription to keep them playable. Un-subscribe and they stop working. You need to use MTP mode with Rhapsody. 

By the way, if you got an iPod, iTunes would push you to use .m4a files, which are Apple’s format (AAC),  the way Windows Media Player pushes you to use .wma. You’d have to change iTunes defaults to write to .mp3. Big companies are like that.