realaudio8 or wma8 or mp3 which do like best

Rswave2000 · 2nd January 2001, 03:50

which do you like best

M² · 2nd January 2001, 04:06

I would like WMA8 if there were a good program that had lots of good plugins. I can't tell a difference between WMA8 format at 64k or 96k vs MP3 at 128k. Maybe I don't have the best hearing, but...

MP3 gets my vote for now, it has the most community support.

distortion · 2nd January 2001, 04:41

no question. MP3. Most programs dont support editing, burning or anything with other formats which for me makes the other formats pointless. As for bitrate/diskspace/and all that...

Real sucks. I dont care what anyone says. Real sucks. Their player sucks. Their "encoder" sucks. I was never a fan of real and I probably never be as long as they continue to produce system over-taking greasy bloatware that needs to be reinstalled after every use.

WMA8. Sure it sounds good. Sure it sounds good at lower bitrates. But again it serves me no purpose. For the people who are so anal with diskspace that they switch over to this then you're just the kind of suckers companies like M$ are trying to cash in on every day.

just my .02

like whatever format you want ppl its a free world n all but I agree with sawg. Why suck on the hype? Or put your trust in the company that took 5 years to release a useable OS and said windowsMe was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I think I'll be sticking with the original.

SNYder · 2nd January 2001, 05:27

why the fuck dosn't someone just go make a mp5 or something! make it sound as good as wma8 and make it not have control any control over it like wma and ra does. huh? can it be that hard? i'm not a coder so i dont know. just copy the wma8 code and take out the features that control the file....

someone just spend a while and do it... do it for all the mp3 fans out there... Justin... i know you wanna be down on this... eh?

Peace

distortion · 2nd January 2001, 05:48

yeah... well we MIGHT have seen mp4 had it not got chop-shopped by M$ and liquidaudio and other lameass secure format corporate cocktarts. But yeah a new MPx format would be nice. Maybe this time someone can create one without selling out.

But again, support, compatibility and all that crap would again be impeding factors. As it is now, hard/software developers arent doing much in the way of adopting the new formats (with the exception of the bought-and-paid-for-few, i.e. Creative, etc.). I think as for the general public who have only just come into the mp3 revolution (and still I would guess most of them dont even understand how it works) would be confused and frustrated by the introduction of a new format. Most people would probably rather stay with what they know, resisting the new formats.

But who knows. If MP3 as it is now remained the mainstream standard forever that would be perfectly fine with me.

2nd January 2001, 05:52

Mp3 are cool because you can easily burn them on to audio cds, share them with friends, back them up by the hundreds and they also come with id3 tags etc...

HighRadiation · 2nd January 2001, 14:42

MP3, definitely. As I use Audio Enhancement plugins (namely WowThing) I need extra audio quality. That's why I need to use at least MP3 at 160kbps.

RealAudio needs no comments. It's only good for streaming, as it needs really high bitrates to get near-cd quality.

WMA8, on the other hand is quite an improvement. But don't trust Microsoft on what they say... A WMA8 file at 64 or 96 kbps is NOT cd or near-cd quality. It's full or artifacts. The samples they give away are quite good, I agree, but try to download the encoder and encode yourself some "hard" music, with lots of special effects... No way it's cd-like. Still, it's the best for streaming, IMO.

And MP3 also has those great features... ID3v2, Lyrics...

John M · 2nd January 2001, 14:49

depositing 2 cents in the hopper...
i think mp3 is the best. im watching oggVorbis http://www.vorbis.com with interest b/c its completely free and its completely free.

Somebody · 2nd January 2001, 14:50

MP3 is what I like.
No comment on the other ones.
Sure, not the best way to listen to stuff the audiophile way but it does fine for me.

Atomhearted · 2nd January 2001, 17:03

I haven't heard oggvorbis, but I like their "always free" spirit. but for my online time, mp3 has a simply incredible user base. Most people use it. So the stuff I want is always in mp3.
WMA, the few I've had, I thought sounded as good at 96kbs as mp3 does at 128. While its nice it has some security, it's a pain in the ass, most of the time. Security as to be completely unnoticable.
Real sucks. Just all around crummy. I have dial up, and streaming sucks. shoutcast streams work fine, as do wma. Though I do like that fact that it will try to dilute the stream to prevent stutters. But I think spinner does that best. in order, mp3, wma, ra

Yantze · 2nd January 2001, 19:48

It depends...If you're streaming audio RealAudio is sometimes better at low bit rates (it depends on the type of music you're listening to). wma8 tends to stream best at higher bit rates. mp3 is pretty good at all streaming rates. Since wma8 uses a form of the mp4 codec, it is, in a sense, a form of mp3 (because they're both MPEG-layer 1).

I hate to admit it, but I think wma8 may soon take over from mp3...At least in the streaming market. In the multimedia industry, it's all about bandwidth. Not everyone has the luxury of a cable modem, so a format that sounds really good at 'low' bit rates will definitely prevail (be it wma8 or some other new technology).

So, overall, I'd say mp3 (all round), wma8 and then Real Audio...

Matt · 2nd January 2001, 19:56

I like mp3. So do lots of people, it's far more popular.

Real is not worth mentioning, although for streaming it's not too bad.

Hopefully WMA will just disappear and take all present and future secure music formats with it.
It's created by Microsoft, it's supposedly secure and sounds poor. WMA at 96kbps is not even close to mp3 at 128kbps and Microsofts claim of CD quality at 96kbps is a joke.

I'll stay with mp3. If I were to download RA or WMA it'd be converted straight to mp3.

AlieXai · 2nd January 2001, 20:22

I agree with most everyone else, I like mp3 the best because of it's large support and usage base. Though I don't think encoding music in mp3 format will give you the best quality. I think wma encodes audio with higher pitches and fidelity alot better than mp3. Mp3 sounds kind of dull compared to wma. But I find that when I encode wma at 128kbps, then the wma files tend to be a bit larger than mp3 files encoded at 128kbps.

The one I think that produces the best audio? Not oggvorbis (though it does a good job). Not AAC, though it has very good potential. I think that format Yamaha produces is the best. Though it doesn't support a wide range of features and bitrates, vqf (?) encoders produce awesome quality audio.

AlieXai · 2nd January 2001, 20:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Matt
I like mp3. So do lots of people, it's far more popular.

Real is not worth mentioning, although for streaming it's not too bad.

Hopefully WMA will just disappear and take all present and future secure music formats with it.
It's created by Microsoft, it's supposedly secure and sounds poor. WMA at 96kbps is not even close to mp3 at 128kbps and Microsofts claim of CD quality at 96kbps is a joke.

I'll stay with mp3. If I were to download RA or WMA it'd be converted straight to mp3.

So, your bashing WMA because it's made by Microsoft. You see that's why I hate idiots who have hatred toward a product only because it's made by a certain company. Mp3 IS NOT the best format on the damn planet. And 96kbps WMA doesn't sound better than mp3 at 128kbps. That's to be expected because more data is dropped out of the audio at 96kbps. But go encode a song in wma at 128kbps and see if it doesn't sound better. I've experimented with A LOT of formats, and WMA is at the top to mid of my list list. Mp3 is actually very low on my list of best audio formats, but since everyone uses it, and it was one of the first to become commercially popular... everyone has taken a hold of it, and embraced it so tightly that they try nothing else. BTW, 96kbps wma IS close to 128kbps mp3. Have you tried extracting a song from a cd to wma instead of converting an mp3 to a wma file. It sounds much better when you do.

Somebody · 2nd January 2001, 20:46

The idea of wma being "secure" is stupid.

Ice · 2nd January 2001, 20:48

for streaming: WMA. it is higher quality than RA.. it may be a little larger, but i have plenty of bandwidth to waste.

for storage: MP3. its sectsay.

for puking on: RA.

AlieXai · 2nd January 2001, 20:49

All wma files are not secure. It has the capability of being secure. DUH! What if someone doesn't want their music to be copied, altered, played after so many times, whatever? Well then they secure it. "Secure" is just a name for some of the features that are incorperated into wma.

John M · 2nd January 2001, 20:56

I like oggVorbis. I cant tell the diff between ogg-128 and mp3-192. mabye i'm just deaf. If u dont use it now, try back in about 6 months. that should be long enough for the devs to come up with better features. *wishing for a pseudo-id3 sorta thing so the files dont come out like
C:\path\file.ogg (no title)
in the playlist*

Dr Satan · 2nd January 2001, 22:04

I thought mp4 was a video file. Simalar to which DivX was based.

Last thing I heard from the MPEG, they were developing MPEG-7, but I think that's a video format too.

Matt · 2nd January 2001, 22:50

Quote:

Originally posted by AlieXai
So, your bashing WMA because it's made by Microsoft. You see that's why I hate idiots who have hatred toward a product only because it's made by a certain company.

Nothing wrong with hating companies, but the main reason is because it's crap. I'm against anyone or any company that thinks music obtained through the Internet should be paid for. Just forgot the secure music will you?

Anyway from what I've heard it's not bad quality, not up to mp3 at 128kbps though.

Yep mpeg4 is video and DivX is based on it, in fact the MS codec was hacked and altered.

OzzyFreaK · 3rd January 2001, 05:48

From what I'm reading here it sounds like you haven't even bothered to listen to RealAudio 8.

Before you start to flame me to death let me tell you I'm a musician, I can only accept high quality sound. I WAS ONLY using radium for making MP3's before RealAudio 8 came.

Of course you can't compare any of the two formats with pure CD quality BUT as far as soundquality goes RealAudio 8 is superior to the MP3 format at the same bitrate and it even kicks the crap out of Windows Audio 7.

It uses the same technology as used in MiniDisc systems, it uses SONY's ATRAC technology (version 3).

Listen to a song encoded into RealAudio 8 @ 64kbps and compare it to a 128kps MP3. I promise you'll notice that the RealAudio song sounds better, listen to it locally and not streamed.

distortion · 5th January 2001, 03:27

All this minidisc crap aside (like how many people do you know who actually threw money away on a minidisc system?)We've been over this 10 times already. Real and WMA8 may sound better than mp3 at lower bitrates. Thats all well and good until you want to burn to a CD or edit it or pretty much do anything with it besides play it.

My other problem is that both formats serve to make the companies that "created" (or In MS's case, jacked) them, more money. Does a WMA or RA HAVE to be secure? No. It doesn't. But the fact that the option remains and the inflexibility of the formats makes me feel that I would be, (aside from stupid) contradicting the whole point of MP3. I'm not even gonna get started on the defunct bloatware that we all fondly call RealPlayer.

This discussion is getting redundant. Those who are easily sucked in by corporate cash-in's or who just have little common sense will eat up these new formats with knife and fork. Those who like function and have some grip on the principle of MP3 will stand by it.

Reverend Ike · 5th January 2001, 06:05

Well-said, distortion.

In a year or two, file size will be a non-issue. In the meantime, we have a bunch of sheep helping support two companies who are notorious for tricking people into using their formats. Hey, talk to the poor guy who blindly encoded all of his CDs using Real's default settings, and now has a zillion RMX "secure" music files that can't be played or used anywhere else. Even if Real or M$ did have the best format, I wouldn't use it because of the way those companies operate. I cannot in good faith support companies who have so little faith in the quality of their products that they need to manipulate/trap/force people into using those products.

distortion · 6th January 2001, 02:22

I know someone who did in fact convert a small portion of his archive over to real. Luckily, he had backed up all the mp3s on about 20 CD-Rs, but still, an annoying task to go back and restore files.

Also, keep in mind that I (at least personally) am only discussing AUDIO. I installed the WMA8 Video codec and even the lower bitrate (~400) streams were impressive quality for streaming vid (both audio and image quality).

I'm patiently awaiting MS to release the encoder so we might see WMA8 VCDs

And yes, I do realize its pure irony that I'm using an M$ product to view movies for free. (But if its good I go see it anyways)

2nd January 2001, 14:49	#8
John M Puts the Cuss in General Discussions (Forum King) Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Cincy, Ohio Posts: 3,624	depositing 2 cents in the hopper... i think mp3 is the best. im watching oggVorbis http://www.vorbis.com with interest b/c its completely free and its completely free. missyob made me post this.

2nd January 2001, 20:46	#15
Somebody Major Dude Join Date: Oct 2000 Posts: 1,531	Still The idea of wma being "secure" is stupid.

2nd January 2001, 20:48	#16
Ice Moderator Alumni Americas Favorite Smut Peddler Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Sun Prarie, WI Posts: 3,303	for streaming: WMA. it is higher quality than RA.. it may be a little larger, but i have plenty of bandwidth to waste. for storage: MP3. its sectsay. for puking on: RA. I'd like to meet a mad man who makes it all seem sane To work out all these troubles and what there is to gain

2nd January 2001, 20:56	#18
John M Puts the Cuss in General Discussions (Forum King) Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Cincy, Ohio Posts: 3,624	I like oggVorbis. I cant tell the diff between ogg-128 and mp3-192. mabye i'm just deaf. If u dont use it now, try back in about 6 months. that should be long enough for the devs to come up with better features. wishing for a pseudo-id3 sorta thing so the files dont come out like C:\path\file.ogg (no title) in the playlist missyob made me post this.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2nd January 2001, 03:50	#1
Rswave2000 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 337	which do you like best

2nd January 2001, 04:06	#2
M² Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: U of MN, Morris (Marshall, MN - summer) Posts: 89	I would like WMA8 if there were a good program that had lots of good plugins. I can't tell a difference between WMA8 format at 64k or 96k vs MP3 at 128k. Maybe I don't have the best hearing, but... MP3 gets my vote for now, it has the most community support.

2nd January 2001, 04:41	#3
distortion Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Long Island, USA Posts: 109	no question. MP3. Most programs dont support editing, burning or anything with other formats which for me makes the other formats pointless. As for bitrate/diskspace/and all that... Real sucks. I dont care what anyone says. Real sucks. Their player sucks. Their "encoder" sucks. I was never a fan of real and I probably never be as long as they continue to produce system over-taking greasy bloatware that needs to be reinstalled after every use. WMA8. Sure it sounds good. Sure it sounds good at lower bitrates. But again it serves me no purpose. For the people who are so anal with diskspace that they switch over to this then you're just the kind of suckers companies like M$ are trying to cash in on every day. just my .02 like whatever format you want ppl its a free world n all but I agree with sawg. Why suck on the hype? Or put your trust in the company that took 5 years to release a useable OS and said windowsMe was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I think I'll be sticking with the original.

2nd January 2001, 05:27	#4
SNYder Forum King Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 4,432	why the fuck dosn't someone just go make a mp5 or something! make it sound as good as wma8 and make it not have control any control over it like wma and ra does. huh? can it be that hard? i'm not a coder so i dont know. just copy the wma8 code and take out the features that control the file.... someone just spend a while and do it... do it for all the mp3 fans out there... Justin... i know you wanna be down on this... eh? Peace

2nd January 2001, 05:48	#5
distortion Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Long Island, USA Posts: 109	yeah... well we MIGHT have seen mp4 had it not got chop-shopped by M$ and liquidaudio and other lameass secure format corporate cocktarts. But yeah a new MPx format would be nice. Maybe this time someone can create one without selling out. But again, support, compatibility and all that crap would again be impeding factors. As it is now, hard/software developers arent doing much in the way of adopting the new formats (with the exception of the bought-and-paid-for-few, i.e. Creative, etc.). I think as for the general public who have only just come into the mp3 revolution (and still I would guess most of them dont even understand how it works) would be confused and frustrated by the introduction of a new format. Most people would probably rather stay with what they know, resisting the new formats. But who knows. If MP3 as it is now remained the mainstream standard forever that would be perfectly fine with me.

2nd January 2001, 05:52	#6
GREEK_MP3 Guest Posts: n/a	Mp3 are cool because you can easily burn them on to audio cds, share them with friends, back them up by the hundreds and they also come with id3 tags etc...

2nd January 2001, 14:42	#7
HighRadiation Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 3	MP3, definitely. As I use Audio Enhancement plugins (namely WowThing) I need extra audio quality. That's why I need to use at least MP3 at 160kbps. RealAudio needs no comments. It's only good for streaming, as it needs really high bitrates to get near-cd quality. WMA8, on the other hand is quite an improvement. But don't trust Microsoft on what they say... A WMA8 file at 64 or 96 kbps is NOT cd or near-cd quality. It's full or artifacts. The samples they give away are quite good, I agree, but try to download the encoder and encode yourself some "hard" music, with lots of special effects... No way it's cd-like. Still, it's the best for streaming, IMO. And MP3 also has those great features... ID3v2, Lyrics...

2nd January 2001, 14:50	#9
Somebody Major Dude Join Date: Oct 2000 Posts: 1,531	MP3 is what I like. No comment on the other ones. Sure, not the best way to listen to stuff the audiophile way but it does fine for me.

2nd January 2001, 17:03	#10
Atomhearted Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 56	I haven't heard oggvorbis, but I like their "always free" spirit. but for my online time, mp3 has a simply incredible user base. Most people use it. So the stuff I want is always in mp3. WMA, the few I've had, I thought sounded as good at 96kbs as mp3 does at 128. While its nice it has some security, it's a pain in the ass, most of the time. Security as to be completely unnoticable. Real sucks. Just all around crummy. I have dial up, and streaming sucks. shoutcast streams work fine, as do wma. Though I do like that fact that it will try to dilute the stream to prevent stutters. But I think spinner does that best. in order, mp3, wma, ra

2nd January 2001, 19:48	#11
Yantze Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Cambridge, ON, Canada Posts: 141	It depends...If you're streaming audio RealAudio is sometimes better at low bit rates (it depends on the type of music you're listening to). wma8 tends to stream best at higher bit rates. mp3 is pretty good at all streaming rates. Since wma8 uses a form of the mp4 codec, it is, in a sense, a form of mp3 (because they're both MPEG-layer 1). I hate to admit it, but I think wma8 may soon take over from mp3...At least in the streaming market. In the multimedia industry, it's all about bandwidth. Not everyone has the luxury of a cable modem, so a format that sounds really good at 'low' bit rates will definitely prevail (be it wma8 or some other new technology). So, overall, I'd say mp3 (all round), wma8 and then Real Audio...

2nd January 2001, 19:56	#12
Matt Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: England Posts: 3,396	I like mp3. So do lots of people, it's far more popular. Real is not worth mentioning, although for streaming it's not too bad. Hopefully WMA will just disappear and take all present and future secure music formats with it. It's created by Microsoft, it's supposedly secure and sounds poor. WMA at 96kbps is not even close to mp3 at 128kbps and Microsofts claim of CD quality at 96kbps is a joke. I'll stay with mp3. If I were to download RA or WMA it'd be converted straight to mp3.

2nd January 2001, 20:22	#13
AlieXai Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 233	I agree with most everyone else, I like mp3 the best because of it's large support and usage base. Though I don't think encoding music in mp3 format will give you the best quality. I think wma encodes audio with higher pitches and fidelity alot better than mp3. Mp3 sounds kind of dull compared to wma. But I find that when I encode wma at 128kbps, then the wma files tend to be a bit larger than mp3 files encoded at 128kbps. The one I think that produces the best audio? Not oggvorbis (though it does a good job). Not AAC, though it has very good potential. I think that format Yamaha produces is the best. Though it doesn't support a wide range of features and bitrates, vqf (?) encoders produce awesome quality audio.

2nd January 2001, 20:49	#17
AlieXai Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 233	All wma files are not secure. It has the capability of being secure. DUH! What if someone doesn't want their music to be copied, altered, played after so many times, whatever? Well then they secure it. "Secure" is just a name for some of the features that are incorperated into wma.

2nd January 2001, 22:04	#19
Dr Satan Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Carlisle, Cumbria, England Posts: 128	I thought mp4 was a video file. Simalar to which DivX was based. Last thing I heard from the MPEG, they were developing MPEG-7, but I think that's a video format too.

3rd January 2001, 05:48	#21
OzzyFreaK Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Transylvania Posts: 14	From what I'm reading here it sounds like you haven't even bothered to listen to RealAudio 8. Before you start to flame me to death let me tell you I'm a musician, I can only accept high quality sound. I WAS ONLY using radium for making MP3's before RealAudio 8 came. Of course you can't compare any of the two formats with pure CD quality BUT as far as soundquality goes RealAudio 8 is superior to the MP3 format at the same bitrate and it even kicks the crap out of Windows Audio 7. It uses the same technology as used in MiniDisc systems, it uses SONY's ATRAC technology (version 3). Listen to a song encoded into RealAudio 8 @ 64kbps and compare it to a 128kps MP3. I promise you'll notice that the RealAudio song sounds better, listen to it locally and not streamed.

5th January 2001, 03:27	#22
distortion Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Long Island, USA Posts: 109	All this minidisc crap aside (like how many people do you know who actually threw money away on a minidisc system?)We've been over this 10 times already. Real and WMA8 may sound better than mp3 at lower bitrates. Thats all well and good until you want to burn to a CD or edit it or pretty much do anything with it besides play it. My other problem is that both formats serve to make the companies that "created" (or In MS's case, jacked) them, more money. Does a WMA or RA HAVE to be secure? No. It doesn't. But the fact that the option remains and the inflexibility of the formats makes me feel that I would be, (aside from stupid) contradicting the whole point of MP3. I'm not even gonna get started on the defunct bloatware that we all fondly call RealPlayer. This discussion is getting redundant. Those who are easily sucked in by corporate cash-in's or who just have little common sense will eat up these new formats with knife and fork. Those who like function and have some grip on the principle of MP3 will stand by it.

5th January 2001, 06:05	#23
Reverend Ike Evangelical Alumni Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 1,533	Well-said, distortion. In a year or two, file size will be a non-issue. In the meantime, we have a bunch of sheep helping support two companies who are notorious for tricking people into using their formats. Hey, talk to the poor guy who blindly encoded all of his CDs using Real's default settings, and now has a zillion RMX "secure" music files that can't be played or used anywhere else. Even if Real or M$ did have the best format, I wouldn't use it because of the way those companies operate. I cannot in good faith support companies who have so little faith in the quality of their products that they need to manipulate/trap/force people into using those products.

6th January 2001, 02:22	#24
distortion Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Long Island, USA Posts: 109	I know someone who did in fact convert a small portion of his archive over to real. Luckily, he had backed up all the mp3s on about 20 CD-Rs, but still, an annoying task to go back and restore files. Also, keep in mind that I (at least personally) am only discussing AUDIO. I installed the WMA8 Video codec and even the lower bitrate (~400) streams were impressive quality for streaming vid (both audio and image quality). I'm patiently awaiting MS to release the encoder so we might see WMA8 VCDs And yes, I do realize its pure irony that I'm using an M$ product to view movies for free. (But if its good I go see it anyways)